Agenda item

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 same issue the Head of Operations added that the reason that this was brought forward as a single member decision was that the implementation of charges for brown bags starts in March.

 

The Chair asked the Cabinet Member when the budget was set and was answered that the budget meeting is released by Cabinet at the end of February and will go to Council on the 9^th March 2017.

 

The Head of Finance clarified that the fees and charges was a separate report and that members had the opportunity to scrutinise this also.

 

A Member spoke of the proposed charges to collect waste from schools and commented that schools will be heavily impacted by the costs and if they choose to outsource the service, the £30, 000 proposed in the budget will not be made. The Head of Operations answered that due to collection and disposal costs charges will now go out to the schools and although the costs sound high schools can go out to the market and use someone cheaper.

 

It was asked by a member if Monmouthshire County Council was here to provide a service or creating as business as she was concerned about the reference to income generation via the release of core staff and income from various waste services. The member commented that the onus appeared to be on income generation rather than service provision and that many figures appeared to be unrealistic. In response the Cabinet Member responded that we are 22^nd in the pecking order for grants from the Welsh Assembly and that we don’t generation income we cannot provide a service.

 

The Head of Operations answered a question asked regarding the frequency of grass cutting and the Council’s need to work in tandem with Monmouth Housing Association, as we are contracted to cut their grass. Monmouthshire Housing Association are not willing to reduce their cuts for the following year meaning that officers will need to look at the saving figure proposed for the following 12 months until Monmouthshire Housing Association decide if they are willing to drop the number of cuts in future.

 

To answer the question asked about the staffing, Head of Operations advised that the £100,000 figure was made of plant materials and staff and if we stop cutting the grass less staff would be needed, rather than make staff redundant it is planned to use staff on commercial contracts.

The Chair told the committee of feedback he had received from residents in his ward who complained about the maintenance of the countryside, the trees not being lopped, signs covered by foliage and verges not being cut and that the rate payers of this county felt that their services were being cut to subsidise other revenue income streams. The Head of Operations spoke of the importance of improving communications with residents as Monmouthshire County Council do not carry out work at a subsided price to the private sector, we are recovering our costs and overheads.

 

A Member commented on the pressures placed on town and community councils in respect of service provision and stressed the importance of them working alongside us.

 

The Chair spoke of his concern in relation to the annual pattern of cuts.

 

Concerns were raised regarding the constant cuts in regard to infrastructure and it was asked of the Head of Operations what he felt was his top risk was, he answered that he felt that it would be the staffing pressure.

 

The Head of Finance advised the committee that a one year approach had been adopted this year as the work of Future Monmouth is ongoing and will help shape the direction of a 5 year approach. This year it had been attempted to spread the burden of across all directorates and each service had been asked for proposed savings, with over 123 proposals in the report providing a 1.8 million pound saving.

 

The Committee spoke of having faith in the officers and raised concerns about the mental health of the staff if too much workload pressure was placed upon them.

 

A Member asked for guidance on the saving proposed in Community Safety/CCTV and asked if this was in relation to the towns. (ACTION J.R.)

 

The Chair asked about the staffing arrangements in the Communications team and the projects undertaken by them. (ACTION M.H.)

 

It was asked in regard to PTU, do we still run this or has it been passed to Newport. The Head of Operations answered that currently the Passenger Transport Manager was shared between MCC and Newport, with Newport paying 50% of the post’s salary. Going forward the proposed changes to the PTU will be reported on and brought before the Select Committee for scrutiny.

 

Reassurance was sought regarding repairs on fleet vehicles as it was felt there were currently vehicles on the roads that shouldn’t be. (ACTION R.H.)

 

A member asked who is responsible for supporting grass roots drivers (volunteers). (ACTION R.H.)

 

Concerns were raised in regard to staff carrying out risk assessments and asked how many staff were going to be trained. (ACTION M.H.)

 

Clarity was sought in respect of the working group looking at charges. (ACTION R.H.)

 

It was asked if a quality impact assessment had been carried out in regard to the increased school meal price.

 

Members asked for further detail on the budget for laptops and sought confirmation that the authority always strive to obtain the most competitive price available.

 

Members asked for figures in regard to income related to Raglan Market and a loss and gains report will be supplied to the Committee. (ACTION M.H.)

 

 

Committee’s Conclusion:   The Chair spoke of the Committee’s large portfolio thanked members of the committee for their scrutiny.   It was agreed that the Joint Select Committee meeting on the 31st January 2017 would allow an opportunity for further questions and scrutiny.   The Chair looked forward to receiving answers from the officers on matters raised during discussion today.