Agenda and minutes

County Councillors P. Jordan, P. Watts and S. White.

None received.

We were joined by Mr Sutherland, a Woodside resident who was keen to be updated on traffic safety issues he had raised at previous Strong Communities Select Committee meetings.

Mr Sutherland criticized the minutes as he stated that although he was attending the meeting in a solo capacity he represented 19 houses in the Woodside area and wanted the minutes to reflect this in future.

He also claimed that the minutes inferred that he only had an interest in the Woodside area of the County and wanted it recorded that he has a countywide interest in road safety.

He felt that Brookside had two unique issues which he was keen to highlight. Firstly Mr Nixon, a disabled resident who faces extreme danger crossing the road outside his property along with Mrs Nixon his wife and carer who due to failing eyesight relies on hearing the cars and she is unable to see them anymore. Mr Sutherland asked that the Council to look at their obligations under the Equalities Act 2011 which picks up the Disabilities Discrimination Act of 1985 and all its implications.

Secondly in regard to Woodside Mr Sutherland was upset that the minutes referred to a funding issue when the council was aware of a generous offer of funding made at a previous meeting from a local resident.

Mr Sutherland also asked for an update on the task and finish group were made available and that if the council did not intend to respond to the generous offer made by the resident in terms of funding that he was made aware of this in writing before deciding what next steps to take.

The Chair confirmed that the task and finish group have met and are keen to push issues through as soon as possible and the minutes of the meeting will be made available. Although the issues are complex in setting the strategy, the group have made contact with other authorities within England and Wales for advice and insight of their strategies. The Chair also advised that the group would be looking at test cases and that Woodside may be used as an example.

In regard to funding the Head of Operations advised that he has been in the meeting when the resident had offered to fund an average speed system. After researching the systems and whether it would work in this instance it was felt by the officer that there may be challenges but if the funding could be offered in regard to broader schemes it is certainly something that the council could look at. It was felt that the Head of Operations needed to sit down with Mr Sutherland and the resident offering the funding to discuss options.

A question was asked about the flashing speed sign in Woodside which had been taken down County Councillor V. Smith confirmed that the sign was still absent.

Mr Sutherland summed up by saying that he could not prejudge what the resident’s view would be as to how that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Committee confirmed the minutes from the 8^th December 2016 and they were duly signed by the Chair.

In regard to GAVO the Chair asked that we speak to the Cabinet member in regard to MMC’s commitment to GAVO.

Aunty Councillor A. Webb asked that on page 1 we amend the paragraph to read -

County Councillor A. Webb voiced that there are other areas of the county equally important, giving the example of St Arvans to Tintern on the A466, stressing it needs to be a countywide strategy.

Context:

To provide detailed draft proposals on the budget savings required to meet the gap between available resources and need to spend in 2017/18, for consultation purposes.

To consider the 2017/18 budget within the context of the 4 year Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and the emergence of priorities to guide forward activities through Future Monmouthshire.

Recommendations:

1. That Select committee scrutinises the draft budget savings proposals for 2017/18 released for consultation purposes.

2. That Select committee notes that the consultation period and opportunity to present alternative proposals that have been Equality Impact assessed ends on 31st January 2017.

3. That Select committee notes that work is continuing on the areas required to balance the 2017/18 budget and Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP), through those opportunities identified in the emerging Future Monmouthshire programme.

Key Issues:

1. Cabinet received a report on the MTFP and budget process at their meeting of 2^nd November 2016. The report outlined the assumptions that were being used in the construction of the budget for 2017/18 and the MTFP and highlighted the outcome of the provisional settlement announcement for Monmouthshire.

2. As a reminder the following assumptions have been used for the 2017/18 budget:

 Council Tax – 3.95%

 Other external income – 2.5%

 Pay inflation – 1%

 Non pay inflation – 0%

 Vacancy factor – 2% (except schools)

 Superannuation – 21.1% (Actuarial review pending)

 Schools Budget – 0%

 Aggregate External Finance – 0.12% reduction based on the provisional settlement

3. The above assumptions led to a gap of £2.509 million in 2017/18 rising to a gap of £10.5 million over the medium term. At that time further work was being undertaken to assess the pressures both in the current year budget and any new pressures arising from changes in regulations for example. Savings and income generation proposals were also being worked up and reviewed through an internal and external challenge process guided by the principles and thinking established through Future Monmouthshire.

Member Scrutiny:

In respect of the Waste Income Charges report members debated whether to call the decision in because they felt they had not had the opportunity to scrutinise this in advance as it went on the Cabinet planner the day before it went out for consultation.  While the Members discussed this during the meeting they also picked up other examples of issues that are not on the planner. It was asked that officers at SMT and SLT be reminded that the planner needs to be populated in advance to enable opportunities for advance scrutiny and that Democratic Services ensure that the weekly emails to members are reinstated to show additions to the planner. 

A Member of the committee asked about the confusion surrounding the brown bag charge, the Head of Finance answered that sometimes items may appear in two places for decision and the Select Committee have the opportunity to scrutinise this during this meeting, but in future there may be further reports outlining more detail to the issue.

In respect to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Context:

To outline the proposed capital budget for 2017/18 and the indicative capital budgets for the three years 2018/19 to 2020/21.

Recommendations:

1. That Select Committee scrutinizes the draft capital budget proposals for 2017/18 to 2020/21 released for consultation purposes as set out below and referred to in Appendix 2.

2. That Select Committee notes the following recommendations approved by Cabinet:

3. That Cabinet confirms a capital strategy, which seeks to prioritise the Council’s Future Schools programme and other commitments whilst also continuing to finance a minimum core capital programme, recognizing the risks associated with this approach.

4. That Cabinet reviews the priorities in the Capital programme in the light of the issues raised in 3.7 and other demands for capital resources.

5. That Cabinet reaffirms the principle that new schemes can only be added to the programme if the business case demonstrates that they are self-financing or the scheme is deemed a higher priority than current schemes in the programme and therefore displaces it.

6. That Cabinet agrees to maximize the use of capital receipts when received to fund the capital programme (therefore reducing the need to borrow) and/or set aside to repay debt.

7. That Cabinet agrees to the sale of the assets in accordance with the Asset Management Plan and identified in the exempt background paper in order to support the capital programme, and that once agreed, no further options are considered for these assets.

Key Issues:

1. The capital MTFP strategy put in place in the face of an ever reducing resource base from Welsh Government has been reviewed. The strategy going forward has the following key components:

 The core MTFP capital programme needs to be financially sustainable without drawing on further funding.

 The original Match funding identified for the Council’s priority of the Future schools programme (£40 million) has been supplemented with £11.9 million additional funding.

 Budgets for Disabled Facilities Grants and Access for all schemes will be maintained in line with the Council’s priority of protecting services to vulnerable adults and children.

 No inflation increases will be applied to any of the capital programme with property maintenance budget and Infrastructure maintenance budget set at the same level as last year

 The County farms maintenance and reinvestment programme is based on the revised asset management plan for County farms, supported by the latest condition survey data

 Budget for Area Management of £20k in the programme could be further reduced or cut in the face of other pressures

 £1m unsupported prudential borrowing per annum has been contained in the programme for a number of years and this will continue in the current 4 year programme

 The capital MTFP currently projects no increase in supported borrowing for 2016/17 onwards (provisional settlement received October 2016)

 Use of the capital investment reserve to ease the transition to a balanced budget

 Budget to enhance or prepare assets for sale will be maintained and funded through the capital receipt regeneration reserve in order to maximize this funding stream for the Future  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Members discussed the Work Programme for the Strong Communities Select Committee. In doing so it was decided that after the next committee meeting members will meet to discuss item burial charges.

No outstanding items.

Actions accepted.

Members considered the Cabinet and Council Forward Work Planner – no issues were identified as requiring pre-decision scrutiny.

It was requested that Democratic Services send the Council and Cabinet work planner via email to all members on a weekly basis. (ACTION DEMOCRATIC SERVICES)

County Councillor T. Easson to Chair.