Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

The Mayor invited the Cabinet Member Finance to introduce the budget which would then be followed by a presentation by the Section 151 Officer and to facilitate the presentation of the Budget, the Mayor proposed suspension of certain rules of debate, namely:-

That the time limit on speeches is relaxed with regard to the following speeches

• Cabinet Member Finance when moving the motion to adopt the budget being proposed by the Cabinet.

• Group leaders or Group spokesperson when making budget statements on behalf of their group.

The Cabinet Member Finance and Group Leaders could also speak more than once in the debate (in addition to any rights of reply etc) for the purpose of putting and answering questions. 

This was agreed by Council.

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the 2013/14 budget proposals with a detailed speech (please see Appendix 1).  

The Cabinet Member Finance moved acceptance of the 2013/14 budget as set out in the report.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Jordan who reserved his right to speak.

The Section 151 Officer made his presentation (please see Appendix 2) and in response to a question from a member he explained the reason that there was no specific reference to the New Homes Bonus in the risk register.  The projection of £699k agreed for 2013/14 was guaranteed until 2016/17 and there would be more in addition to this for any new homes built during this time.  Admittedly, after this period, some would fall away but projections suggested that the figure of £699k was very conservative. He believed that the strategy being proposed followed the same principle in that only £450k had been built-in, with £250k supporting the base budget and £200k for maintenance which could be revisited at any time.  He felt confident that this was a prudent approach.

In response to questions from members, the Cabinet Member Finance gave the following responses:

• The suggestion of a ‘snow reserve’ would be considered only after any recommendations were reached by the Cabinet Member Waste Group following their review of the issue. 
• He felt it would be more sensible to review green waste costs at the start of a new calendar year rather than a new financial year.
• Leisure costs increased in Cheltenham each year, with costs generally increasing by 2.5% and he accepted that there were a number of organisations that were concerned about this.
• The plans of the Police and Crime Commissioner were still unfolding but there had already been considerable discussions and the council wanted very much to work with the P&CC, not only to save money. 
• It was the Governments view that now was not the right time to consider the formation of unitary authorities and for the time being the council was achieving a lot through shared services.  His view was that a unitary authority with GCC would be too big but that a unitary with Tewkesbury Borough Council or Cotswold District Council could be a way forward in the future.
• He had tried to make it clear that the £90k for the JCS would also be used to develop a Local Plan for Cheltenham.  Officers would be working on both to make for a seamless process so the £90k was very much seen as providing resources for both. 
• The council shared responsibility for the Clarence Street Library with GCC and as such were sharing the cost of the repairs.  Properties on the Programme Maintenance list had undergone a scoring process and the list included urgent, necessary and a number of desirable works and as such did not always include properties for each ward within Cheltenham.  If there was a property which did not feature on the list which a member had a particular concern about then they should highlight this to the Cabinet Member Finance. 
• The £10k figure for the Municipal Offices had been arrived at by Officers within the Property team based on the current situation.  The policy had been broadened to include non-urgent works as well as health and safety and public areas. 
• The -£50k under trade waste was a result of Ubico having lost the contract with the University.  Ubico was a council owned company along with Cotswold District Council and as part of the arrangement, the council shared in savings as they shared in penalties. 

Councillor Garnham gave a response to the budget on behalf of the Conservative party.  He congratulated the Cabinet Member Finance on his speech in which he had mentioned the possibility of a Leisure Trust, reviewing the size of the Council and moving to a new property, all of which Councillor Garnham felt further strengthened the argument to move to four yearly elections.  He endorsed the thanks given to Officers and personally thanked the Section 151 Officer for his time in explaining some of the problems being faced to him and his party.  He made the following points;

• He was happy that council tax had been frozen but felt that this presented a real challenge for future years.
• He had been pleased to see the Planning training budget.
• He was encouraged that budget scrutiny would be more robust and work better with Cabinet.

Whilst he was not proposing an alternative budget nor any amendments, he was concerned that this budget created increasing problems for future years and felt it was his duty to point out the future risks.  He felt that these were summarised in Appendix 4 which revealed that as part of this budget the council had only approved 1/8 of the savings required to make the MTFS work.  An outstanding sum of £2.5million savings still needed to be approved and his worries included being unable to identify these savings and the possibility that the New Homes Bonus monies might reduce.  He considered that there was a lot of uncertainty which posed a risk in itself and he didn’t have the confidence that these difficult decisions would be made given the recent u-turns regarding the JCS, allotments and rickshaws and he required more reassurance.  His request for the future was that Cabinet demonstrate stronger decision making, leadership and produce a budget for the future. 

Councillor Godwin had no statement or amendments to raise on behalf of the People Against Bureaucracy.

Councillor Jordan added his comments as seconder of the motion and on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.  He commended the Cabinet Member Finance for an excellent speech and Mark Sheldon and his Finance team for their hard work.  He also thanked officers across the council for their dedicated service and continued innovative ideas for savings.  He was pleased about the council tax freeze which he stressed was no easy feat and was only possible as a result of good work in previous years.  Decisions taken three years ago were now generating savings and the same would be true in three to four years following decisions taken now.  An example of this would be the decision to let Forest of Dean District Council host the councils ICT, which had only been possible as a result of the GO Shared Services work and could see all four councils sharing an ICT platform in the future. 

He acknowledged that there were no easy savings to be had and there would be some difficult decisions ahead in an effort to protect relied upon services where possible.  Equally however, there some positives, the AG&M would reopen later in 2013, the sale of North Place would soon be completed and the Gloucestershire Business Rates Retention Scheme Pool.  He did not accept the claims that future problems were being created, it was not possible to do it all at once, there was a need to tackle one issue at a time and he considered the assertions of lack of leadership as being nonsense.  He hoped that members would support the budget. 

The following concerns were raised by members;

• A budget was more than simply making the numbers add up, a key element of any budget was delivering those numbers and there was little confidence that they could or would be deliverable and/or delivered. 
• The comments regarding the loss of the parking contract could go some way to explaining why the contract had been lost, with the suggestion that the council undertook a plethora of other activities with the money and none of which GCC were paying the council to do.  What confidence would this instil that the council won’t use money for other commissioned services in the future, to do other activities.
• Monies had been set aside for the Leisure & Culture Trust but as demonstrated by the Ubico issues of recent weeks, it was imperative that the council retained teeth.  One member felt that the suggestion that a Trust would save £700k was absurd based on past experiences with Cheltenham Festivals and the AG&M.  There was a concern that this could result in yet another u-turn. 
• The embedding of the NHB in the base budget was a particular concern.  Members felt that this gave a confused message about the council’s position on protecting the environment and could undermine the planning process.  How would the council avoid criticism and accusations that planning decisions were based on financial gain. 

In response to the concerns raised regarding the use of NHB monies in base budgets, the Cabinet Member Built Environment accepted the inherent contradiction of a council that wished to protect the environment and a government that offered monetary reward for development.  He did not however agree that this would in any way influence planning decisions and felt that such an insinuation was to do the Planning Committee and its members an injustice.  The council lacked options given the current climate and he felt it was disingenuous to call for members to vote against a budget and present no alternative solution.  He urged members to support the recommendations. 

The Cabinet Member Finance expressed surprise at the suggestion that the NHB would override any environmental considerations.  The NHB was a Government initiative aimed at kick starting economic growth and the approach being proposed with regard to base budgets was one being replicated in every other Gloucestershire authority.  He took the opportunity to respond to comments regarding the loss of the parking contract which he vehemently denied had anything to do with underperformance on the part of this council and he failed to see how a service administered from Uxbridge would benefit the people of Cheltenham.  In closing, he felt that this budget demonstrated a heroic effort to protect services whilst delivering a balanced budget and whilst there were still issues facing the MTFS he assured members that these issues would be approached with the same tenacity as they had in the past.

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED that

1.      The revised budget for 2012/13 with a projected underspend of £260.5k be noted and that the proposals for its use be approved as detailed in Appendix 3.

Having considered the budget assessment by the Section 151 Officer at Appendix 9:

2.      The final budget proposals including a proposed council tax for the services provided by Cheltenham Borough Council of £187.12 for the year 2013/14 (a 0% increase based on a B and D property) be approved.

3.      The growth proposals, including one off initiatives at Appendix 3, be approved.

4.      The savings / additional income and the budget strategy at Appendix 4 be approved.

5.      The proposed capital programme at Appendix 6, as outlined in Section 8 be approved.

6.      The proposed Property Maintenance programme at Appendix 7, as outlined in section 9 be approved

7.      The potential liability in respect of Municipal Mutual Insurance, as outlined in Section 10, be noted and that £80k has been built into the revised budget as a provision to cover the potential exposure to this liability be noted.

8.      A level of supplementary estimate of £100,000 for 2013/14 as outlined in section 13 be approved.

(Voting: 24 FOR and 12 AGAINST)

The meeting adjourned for tea at 4:45pm.