Agenda item

The Director for Corporate Services to submit a report to provide information on the budget issues facing the Council in 2019/20 and beyond, seek a decision on the level of the budget including growth and savings and agree the level of Council Tax for Borough Council purposes.

 

A verbal update will be provided at the meeting.

(Councillor Cumbers here left the meeting due to her pecuniary interest declared at Minute CO60.)

 

Previously circulated with the agenda was a report prepared by the Director for Corporate Services which provided information on the budget issues facing the Council in 2019/20 and beyond, and which sought a decision on the level of the budget including growth and savings, and asked the Council to agree the level of Council Tax for the Borough Council purposes.  With regard to paragraph 11.5 of the budget report, Members received an update on the  position for Bottesford Youth Club, CAB and other Community Grants.

 

The Leader moved the motions contained within the report but altered recommendation 2.1 to add the wording shown in italics  The meeting’s consent to the alteration was signified without discussion:-

 

‘2.1      The proposals for General Expenses and Special Expenses MM as set out in Appendix A (i) and (ii) and summarised in para 3.5.1 be approved for inclusion in the 2019/20 budget resulting in the estimates set out in Appendix B subject to an adjustment to the saving from the CAB from £17k to £13k (for 2019/20 only) the shortfall being met as a first call from any savings identified in the financial year and the saving referenced PPL02 Community Grants for £6,440 be not implemented unless alternative and adequate arrangements are negotiated with other agencies or bodies to provide an equivalent level of funding for one year only, and that any shortfall be funded from the Corporate Priority Reserve for one year only.’

 

The Leader explained that with regard to the above addition he felt the Community Safety Partnership may be able to fund the Bottesford Youth Club for one year only from an underspend in its anti-social behaviour budget but this decision was down to the partnership and if agreement was not forthcoming, funding would be met from the Council’s reserve; again for one year only; thus ensuring the Council delivered both the required ongoing savings, whilst providing sufficient time for the youth club to make alternative longer term funding arrangements.

 

The Leader stated that

 

(a)  before the Council was a budget designed not only to ensure support of the priorities but also one which sought to ensure support of the core services.  It was a budget which recognised the Council could no longer do everything and therefore had to focus on those things which matter most to Melton’s communities; ensuring new affordable homes get built, transforming the high street, attracting new jobs and investment and ensuring services become more customer focussed.  Over the last 8 years the Council had lost significant amounts of government funding and in this budget, revenue support grant drops to £0 for the first time.  The Council’s funding was now much more dependent on housing and business growth and whilst the Council now had a number of building blocks in place, up to now it had had relatively little growth and it would take some time for the council to realise the financial benefits.  Currently the council got under £300k in New Homes Bonus, compared to other districts in Leicestershire getting over £3m.  If the Council wanted to be ambitious for the area, it had to make positive choices about the things it would fund as it could not fund everything;

 

(b)  if the Council tried to avoid making difficult decisions it would risk spreading itself too thinly and ultimately services failing because they did not have sufficient capacity.  The LGA Peer Challenge was very clear on this point and he knew many members shared his view on how important it was to get the basics right.  This was only possible if the Council resourced things properly and the need identified to reinvest in the housing stock was one example and demonstrated the importance of ensuring key services were properly supported and not stripped back.  This was only possible if the Council diverted resources away from other things.  If it tried to do too much, with diminishing resources, it would not deliver and risk service failure;

 

(c)  the budget before the Council proposed savings of £66,100 from those areas identified by members as lower priorities or where value for money could not be demonstrated.  It also included investment of £51,800 in areas where resources were required to ensure services got the basics right and met their obligations.  The Council had been discussing these options for some time.  As early as last October it first considered many of the options before the Council at this meeting.  Councillors considered them again in more detail at the Development Day in January and more recently at the Corporate Committee.  He believed the balance was right between ensuring financial stability and meeting objectives, but even in proposing the budget, he was still very conscious that the Council was projecting a £49k deficit on its budget for 2019/20.  This was manageable and the Council could take steps later in the year to bring the position back into balance however it could not ignore the pressure the reserves were under and the steps that must be taken to ensure the long term sustainability of the Council;

 

(d)  if any of the proposed investments or savings were not approved at this meeting he would be concerned that key services would remain under pressure or that the budget deficit may be too great to enable the Council to invest in its priorities.  It was vital the Council did not spread itself too thinly and put in jeopardy any work which sought to regenerate the town, attract jobs and see more houses built.  The Council must also acknowledge and prepare for the review of local government funding and the uncertainty this created for the funding streams in future years;

 

(e)  in relation to the proposed savings, the Council had done lots of work with various stakeholders to mitigate any negative impacts associated with them and the update briefing note, circulated at the meeting, provided the latest position relating to each;

 

(f)   in terms of Bottesford Youth Club the Council had been in dialogue with the Parish Council and was of course aware of the petition submitted at this meeting.  It was worth noting that the number of signatories was below the level which required a more formal Council response but the feelings and sentiment expressed of the importance to the local community were shared and recognised by the Council. This was not a question about whether the youth club should continue, rather it was about whether the Borough Council should fund it.  Youth services were typically a County Council responsibility and the Borough did not provide funding to any other youth provision in the area.  This was an anomaly and in times of financial challenge the Council needed to find alternative funding streams.  The Council would encourage the Parish Council to consider its own position as it sets its own budget and precept, as well as encouraging the youth club itself to promote its membership of the Melton Lottery.  This was a great way for community organisations to gain vital extra funds and currently they only had 1 regular participant.  It was somewhat ironic that if just over half of those who signed the petition bought a weekly lottery ticket, the shortfall in funding would have already been met.  That being said, the importance of finding a manageable solution to this issue was recognised and the Council was aware that the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) would be reviewing the position at a meeting in early March.  Knowing the Police also valued the youth club, he was confident that if the Council could choose to accept the budget proposal tonight, some one-off  transitional funding from the CSP could be found to support the club for a final year, ensuring they had the time to find alternative financing for the future;

 

(g)  in terms of the proposals regarding community grants, the Council had been advised of no negative impacts in relation to the Clockwise proposal and had received little from Shopmobility either.  In relation to the Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB), the Council currently paid the highest level per head of population compared to every other district in Leicestershire.  This coupled with the transfer of responsibility by the DWP of Universal Credit support from the Council to the CAB made the proposed funding reduction necessary.  By accepting the proposal at this meeting, the Council would be on a par with contributions from other Councils and the CAB had agreed to look at alternative delivery models with the Council.  There would obviously need to be a change but the Council would work with the CAB in constructing a new service model and would likely need to provide some transitional support for 3 months to make this possible;

 

(h)  in relation to the review of civic arrangements, he made the following absolutely clear.  The Mayor would remain the Civic Head of the Borough and there need be no significant reduction in their visibility or impact.  There would still be some officer support just not dedicated or as intensive as currently.  The Mayor would still be able to attend events and represent the Council and Borough.  What was proposed was to stop a number of set piece Council-organised events both because of the costs associated with them and the amount of officer time used to organise them;

 

(i)    on this basis he proposed the recommendations in the report, and with the consensus of the meeting, he would make the alterations to recommendation 2.1 to incorporate the additional reference regarding the transitional cost for the CAB proposal as explained in the update briefing paper circulated at the meeting and to add the wording relating to Bottesford Youth Club as mentioned earlier in this speech;

 

(j)    in summary, the budget helped to keep the Council on track with the commitments made last year in the Corporate Delivery Plan.  It keeps the Council focussed on its ambitions to deliver more homes, more jobs and to transform town and place.  It enables the Council to support its residents and delivery better, more customer focussed services.  It also ensures the Council continues to direct resources to those services which are under significant pressure and need re-investment.  Being effective means the Council has to take decisions, sometimes difficult decisions.  Not doing so puts the progress the Council was making in jeopardy and he urged Councillors to support the budget in full so that the Council could take another positive step forward for Melton.

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor de Burle.

 

The Mayor commented on the Bottesford Youth Club position that she was  grateful for the support and amendment and that she was aware that the club also had to pay a commercial rent for their property plus other overheads for heating, lighting, insurance etc which had not been highlighted and taken into account. 

 

The Leader responded that officers were talking with the Parish Council and the Youth Club to consider options and the Council would look to support its employee who he had met on a recent visit.  He mentioned that there were not many young people present when he attended but this may have been due to the bad weather.

 

The Leader was thanked for adjusting the motion to accommodate giving Bottesford Youth Club some time and support for another year to look for future funding.  The Councillor felt the club and its leader were to be treasured and wished there were more youth leaders like him in the Borough.  With regard to the budget the Councillor had broader concerns at the loss of grant mentioned in para 3.23 of the report.  The Councillor said that the Council was under considerable pressure in due to the cuts in local government grants and that there no guarantee that the pressure would not continue in 2020.  The Councillor referred to the great uncertainty about the UK’s economy and that there was only  a certain amount of money to go round and priority was given to the NHS.  Therefore the Councillor felt there were no guarantees of funding in the future and the Council needed to plan for this in its Medium Term Financial Strategy.  The Councillor considered that although there was a deficit of £49k this year, the following year could be worse and the new homes bonus could disappear and the needs analysis might not give a good settlement. Also due to the depletion of the Council’s reserves the Councillor felt resilience was at a minimum level and he recommended the Council start a serious cost reduction programme to reduce spending by 10 per cent and this would put the Council in a stronger position for the future.  

It was mentioned by a Councillor that Bottesford Parish Council could be in a position to assist the youth club and the Council should pursue this as he believed they had reserves and a precept which he felt made the £6k  affordable

 

The Deputy Chief Executive advised that following this meeting, there would be dialogue with all parties to consider alternative funding for the youth club.

 

Another Councillor spoke in support of the youth club and welcomed the Leader’s comments and the amendment to the recommendation.  The Councillor added that the club attracted young people from all around the vale therefore its community and benefits were wider than the area the Bottesford Parish Council precept covered.

 

It was mentioned that youth clubs made a valuable contribution to the area and a positive impact on crime and anti-social behaviour therefore such youth facilities were needed in areas besides Bottesford and how would the Council cope if it was faced with petitions for youth club funding in residential areas in the town.

 

It was noted that up to 2007  the County Council funded Bottesford Youth Club and there was other external funding until recent years when the Council took over the commitment.  There were other youth groups in Bottesford such as scouts, cubs, guides and brownies.  There was a suggestion that Rushcliffe be approached to assist with funding if young people from over the border used the service.

 

There was concern expressed by a Councillor at the budget proposed and they felt that a £12 per month increase in Council Tax was too much for a resident to find.  Although the Councillor understood it was not wholly Melton Borough Council’s costs that were to blame but all the other external partners/services that contributed to make up the Council Tax.  He referred to another Council which had frozen its  Council Tax for 8 or 9 years as well as was concerned at payroll and pension arrangements and how this affected the budget.

 

There was also concern to the deficit of £50k from another Councillor.  The Councillor also felt that although the Cattle Market was flourishing, the BID could do more to help businesses and fill empty shops. 

 

The Leader responded that he understood that vacant shops were needed to bring more new businesses to the town and that visitors liked coming to Melton.  He referred to the BID being a national organisation which was beyond the Council’s control however the Chief Executive had set up the Town and Place Partnership which would be building on what Melton already had to improve the town’s facilities and high street.  With regard to the increase in Council Tax, he agreed that the Council had no choice but to make the increase due to the other partner/service contributions;  he believed that the Council would get the deficit back during the year.  The  underspend of the Community Safety Partnership  would hopefully be forthcoming to support Bottesford Youth Club for another year.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.5(b), the vote on the motion was taken by a recorded vote, the results of which were as follows :-

 

Councillor	For	Against	Abstain	Absent
Baguley	√
Bains				√
Beaken	√
Botterill		√
Chandler		√
Cumbers				*Not in the meeting
De Burle	√
Douglas	√
Faulkner	√
Freer-Jones	√
Glancy				√
Graham				√
Greenow	√
Higgins				√
Holmes		√
Hurrell				√
Hutchison	√
Illingworth	√
Lumley		√
Orson	√
Pearson	√
Posnett	√
Rhodes	√
Sheldon	√
Simpson	√
Wright	√
Wyatt	√
Totals	17	4	0	6

*Councillor Cumbers was not in the meeting for the vote due to having a pecuniary interest.

 

RESOLVED that

 

(1)       the proposals for General Expenses and Special Expenses MM as set out in Appendix A (i) and (ii) and summarised in para 3.5.1 be approved for inclusion in the 2019/20 budget resulting in the estimates set out in Appendix B subject to an adjustment to the saving from the CAB from £17k to £13k (for 2019/20 only) the shortfall being met as a first call from any savings identified in the financial year and the saving referenced PPL02 Community Grants for £6,440 be not implemented unless alternative and adequate arrangements are negotiated with other agencies or bodies to provide an equivalent level of funding for one year only, and that any shortfall be funded from the Corporate Priority Reserve for one year only;

 

(2)       the revenue budget for 2019/20 for General and Special Expenses as set out in Appendix B be approved resulting in an overall council tax increase of 2.99%, the individual council tax levels being as set out in para 3.5.5 of the report;

 

(3)       delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive to implement the necessary HR arrangements as a result of the savings and growth proposals including amendments to the permanent establishment and drawing any funding from the Corporate Priorities Reserve to meet any non-recurring HR costs that cannot be met from within the revenue budget;

 

(4)       any increase or shortfall against the target working balance on General Expenses at 31 March 2019 be adjusted by transfers to/from the Corporate Priorities Reserve and for Special Expenses Melton Mowbray any surplus/deficit be transferred to/from the Special Expenses Reserve;

 

(5)       the changes made to the risk categorisation of    budgets as set out in para 3.6.3 and Appendix D of the report be noted;

 

(6)       the Capital Strategy at Appendix G as recommended by the Corporate Committee be approved;

 

(7)       a Regeneration and Innovation Reserve be created as set out in para 3.8.5 of the report.

 

(Councillor Cumbers here re-entered the meeting.)