Agenda item

To consider a report on decisions required by Council (yellow pages) and on decisions taken by the Cabinet (white pages).

 

All Councillors will have a copy of the full Budget and Council Tax report and Appendices considered by the Cabinet on 2 February 2017 and are requested to bring it to Council.

The Council had before it a detailed report on the Budget for 2017-18, which the Cabinet had considered on 2 February 2017 and which the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet were recommending for adoption by the Council.

 

All Councillors had received or had access to a copy of the full report and Appendices considered by the Cabinet on 2 February 2017 and had been requested to bring those to the meeting to allow full consideration of all the issues.

 

The Leader introduced the budget and moved the recommendation as set out in paragraph 1 of the report; this was seconded by Mr A N Blagg. The Leader explaining that the proposed budget as presented was a result of a year's work. It worked to minimise the effect on the frontline and invest in the plan for Worcestershire. It was based on residents' views of what was important to them based on Viewpoint surveys, roadshows, a survey of businesses and budget consultation meetings.  It was a 'People's budget' based around their priorities of

·       Protecting vulnerable children

·       Working with vulnerable older people and

·       Maintaining highways – especially tackling congestion and road and pavement improvements.

 

More than 60% of the budget would be aimed at the 'People' part of the budget. £1.5m would be spent ongoing with an additional £1m for 2017/18 and £1m for 2018/19 as a one off, also a one off £1m for capital investment and £1.5 being spent on SEN.

 

To help adults the County Council would work alongside the NHS to deal with the demand-led service. They would invest £9m in adult social care paid for in part by the proposed increase in the precept, but the Government also needed to recognise the pressures caused by social care.

 

The 'Place' part of the budget addressed the desire to aspire to the best quality roads and pavements. £6m was to be added to the on-going amount of £2m for pavements, there would be a £1m base budget increase year on year for roads and £2m was allocated for town centres.

 

Congestion needed to be tackled to ensure that the positives of the County being in the top three for economic growth did not cause a negative effect with increased congestion.  The A38 southern link road was progressing, as were projects for Bromsgrove station, the Parkway and Broadband.

 

The Leader paid tribute to Scrutiny members who had looked at the draft budget and reported their findings.

 

The Leader and Cabinet were proposing a precept increase of 2.94%.  This meant that the Council Tax was still one of the lowest in the country.

 

The seconder stated that they would continue to lobby Government for fairer funding. The Business Rates Retention Scheme would provide £60m of funding in 2017/18 and 100% would be retained by 2020 but with extra money would come increased responsibility. Money would also be gained from various grants such as the Public Health Ring Fenced Grant (£29.9m) the ILF (around £3m), highways (13.3m) and potholes (£1.169m). They were working towards becoming a self-sufficient council by 2020.

 

An amendment was moved by Mr P M McDonald and seconded by Mr R C Lunn proposing:

 

1)       A decrease in the proposed non-Adult Social Care Precept from 0.94% to 0%

To be met by:

2)       A one off release from the Future Fit release of £2.145 million;

3)       A reduction by two in the number of Cabinet Members; and

4)       A reduction in the pay of the Chief Executive and Senior Officers to ensure that there are not any members of staff paid in excess of £100,000.

In addition, the following is proposed as a budget reallocation

5)       A reduction in the fostering budget of £ 1million to recognise the savings that can be achieved by a further transfer of External Fostering Contracts to Internal Fostering Contracts; and

6)       An increase in the Children's Centres budget of £1 million to reduce the reductions made in this service area during 2016/17.

Summary of Changes in the Net Revenue Budget £000	2017/18 (Part Year)	2018/19 (Full Year)
Reduction in General Precept from 0.94% to 0%	2,300	2.300
Increase in the budget for the provision of Children's Centres	1,000	1,000
Sub-Total	3,300	3,300
To be met by:
Future Fit Reserve	(2,145)	-
Reduction in Fostering budget to take account of a further transfer from External Fostering contracts to Internal	(1,000)	(1,000)
Cabinet Members	(35)	(35)
Reductions in Pay for Chief Exec and Directors	(120)	(120)
Sub-Total	(3,300)	(1,155)
Total	-	2,145

 

The mover and seconder of the amendment then spoke in favour of its adoption; the key points being:

 

·       that the continuing cuts were effecting people so only a 2% increase in the precept would be supported. Wages were not rising and Worcestershire was a low paid area with a record number of people relying on food banks. It was unfair to expect people to pay more and get less; rough sleeping had increased, more elderly people were not getting care or were receiving a 15 minute visit or phone call

·       senior officers had seen salaries increase while responsibilities declined. A reduction in the highest salaries would not affect the differential because the next level down was £30,000 less

·       the money paid for future fit should be stopped

·       private fostering should not be supported because it could be done cheaper ourselves

·       there had been no increase in council tax last year in the hope that the Government would respond – it did not. There was not enough money from Government

·        a co-operative council reporting to the people would work better than a commissioning authority

·       the two tier system was a bonus but all the back room functions could be shared.

 

Members also spoke against the amendment:

 

·       the amendment was financially unsound and would starve services of money

·       it would be unfair to move children in-house and after the Ofsted report you should not take any money away from fostering

·       it would breach the contract of the Chief Executive to reduce her pay and if it was reduced all workers pay would need to be reduced to maintain the differential

·       Labour-controlled councils in parts of the County had proposed increases of more than the 2% suggested by the amendment. Also the Labour administration at Worcester City had appointed a Chief Executive on more than the £100,000,

·       it was necessary to pay Directors at their current salaries to recruit and retain staff

·       Future Fit was not just for saving money but for improving services. It was a short term project which was a mechanism for protecting services

·       A member of the 2013 group agreed the Government should provide more funding but disagreed with the amendment and felt a collaborative approach to budget-setting was required.

 

At the conclusion of the debate and on a named vote this amendment was lost.

 

Those voting in favour of the amendment were Ms P Agar, Mr J Baker, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Mr R C Lunn, Mr L C R Mallett, Mr P M McDonald, Mr R M Udall and Mr G J Vickery (11).

 

Those voting against the amendment were: Mr A P Miller, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T  Amos, Mrs S Askin, Mr R W Banks, Mr M L Bayliss, Mr A N Blagg, Mrs S L Blagg, Mr J P Campion, Mr S J M Clee, Mrs P E Davey, Mr N Desmond, Ms L R Duffy, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mrs J L M A Griffiths, Mr P Grove, Mr A I Hardman, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Mr C G Holt, Mr I Hopwood, Mr M E Jenkins, Ms R E Jenkins, Mr T A Muir, Mrs F M Oborski, Mr S R Peters, Dr K A Pollock, Mr D W Prodger, Mrs M A Rayner, Mr A C Roberts, Mr J H Smith, Mr R J Sutton, Mr J W R Thomas, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr P A Tuthill, , Mr T A L Wells and Mr G C  Yarranton (41).

 

Mr P J Bridle abstained (1).

 

An amendment was then moved by Mrs E B Tucker and was seconded by Mr T A L Wells.

 

Council recognises that the funding of Adult Social Care is in national crisis and this is reflected within our county of Worcestershire. The failure of central government to respond to the rising demographic pressures is a disgrace.  It is left to us councillors to act to protect the more vulnerable members of our community.  Accordingly we propose that the (unfair) mechanism of council tax be used this year to raise an additional £2.3m - to be dedicated entirely to the base budget of Adult Social Care.  This would be an increase of 1% on Council Tax (equivalent to £11 pa at band D) over the Cabinet’s recommended budget.

 

The 2013 Group are proposing the following amendments that will not affect the Revenue Budget as set out in the February 2017 Cabinet Report.

1)     An increase in the Base Budget for the Adult Social Care Directorate  of £2.3 million; to be met by:

2)     An increase in the proposed non-Adult Social Care Precept from 0.94% to 1.94%. 

Summary of Changes in the Net Revenue Budget £000	2017/18 (Part Year)	2018/19 (Full Year)
An increase to the Adult Social Care Base Budget	2,300	2,300
To be met by
An increase to the proposed non-Adult Social Care Precept	(2,300)	(2,300)
Total	-	-

 

The mover and seconder of the amendment spoke in favour of its adoption. The key points in favour were:

 

·       it was a difficult balance between the funds that were needed versus the cost to residents but increasing the precept was the only option once the Government had let the County down

·       Worcestershire had one of the fastest growing aging populations in the country and it was known that 2018/19 would be difficult so an extra 1% will make things slightly easier

·       One off amounts of funding would not solve the problems in years to come

 

Points made against the amendment included:

·       That the Administration should tell the Government that we will not accept the underfunding and will not tax our residents more highly to solve the problems that the underfunding has caused

·       The increase was too much when taken with the increase in the cost of utilities and no increase in wages. A zero-based budgeting exercise was needed to highlight where the money was being spent

 

After the debate and on a named vote this amendment was lost.

 

Those voting for the amendment were: Mrs S Askin, Mr M E Jenkins, Ms R E Jenkins, Mrs F M Oborski, Mr S R Peters, Mrs M A Rayner, Mr R J Sutton, Mr J W R Thomas, Mrs E B Tucker, and Mr T A L Wells (10).

 

Those voting against the motion were: Mr A P Miller, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Ms P Agar, Mr A T  Amos, Mr J Baker, Mr R W Banks, Mr M L Bayliss, Mr A N Blagg, Mrs S L Blagg, Mr C J Bloore, Mr J P Campion, Mr S J M Clee, Mrs P E Davey, Mr P Denham, Mr N Desmond, Ms L R Duffy, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mrs J L M A Griffiths, Mr P Grove, Mr A I Hardman, Mr M J Hart, Ms P A Hill, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Mr C G Holt, Mr I Hopwood, Mr R C Lunn, Mr L C R Mallett, Mr P M McDonald, Mr T A Muir, Dr K A Pollock, Mr D W Prodger, Mr A C Roberts, Mr J H Smith, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mr P A Tuthill, Mr R M Udall, Mr G J  Vickery (40).

 

Mr G C  Yarranton (1) abstained.

 

In debating the budget as originally moved and seconded the following main points were made:

 

Comments made in support of the proposed budget included:

·       Scrutiny had looked at the budget and there was no alternative

·       This budget had listened to the public and enabled investment in roads and pavements and more spending on social care. It also supported volunteers so communities could do more for themselves

·       That the budget works for all residents

 

Comments made against the proposal included:

·       That it was not a budget for the people of Worcestershire. Youth Centres had been affected, it didn't help those on a low wage or disabled and every year promises were made to improve highways and that had not happened,

·       That the precept should be increased to 4% increase otherwise the situation would continue to get worse

·       That it was unfair that the people of Worcestershire should have to make up the deficit due to the past 10 years of underfunding by the Government.

 

On a named vote RESOLVED that

a)     the conclusions set out in the report concerning revenue budget monitoring up to 30 November 2016 be endorsed;

b)     the virement and transfers to Earmarked Reserves in paragraph 20 of the report to Cabinet on 2 February 2017 be endorsed;

c)     the budget requirement for 2017/18 be approved at £318.478 million including a transfer from earmarked reserves of £5.185 million;

d)     the Council Tax band D equivalent for 2017/18 be set at £1,155.31 which includes £44.05 relating to the ring-fenced Adult Social Care precept, and the Council Tax Requirement be set at £236.204 million;

e)     consistent with the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement that revenue cash limits be set for each Directorate:

 

	£m
Adult Services	130.999
Public Health*	0.101
Children, Families and Communities	82.766
Economy and Infrastructure	67.018
Commercial and Change / Finance	42.779
	323.663

*Public Health services are funded by a £0.1 million budget as above plus a £29.9 million specific grant.

f)      the Council's Pay Policy Statement is recommended for approval as set out in Appendix 8;

g)     the conclusions set out in the report concerning capital budget monitoring up to 30 November 2016 be endorsed;

h)     the Capital Programme as set out in Appendix 9 be approved;

i)       that £10 million be added to the Capital Programme to support the overall A4440 Worcester Southern Link Road improvements;

j)       the Medium Term Financial Plan as set out in Appendix 10 be approved;

k)     the Treasury Management Strategy set out in Appendix 11 be approved; and

l)       the Statement of Prudential Indicators and Minimum Revenue Statement as set out in Appendix 12 be approved.

 

[NB Appendices referred to are those presented to 2 February 2017 Cabinet]

 

Those voting in favour were: Mr A P Miller, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T  Amos, Mr R W Banks, Mr M L Bayliss, Mr A N Blagg, Mrs S L Blagg, Mr J P Campion, Mr S J M Clee, Mrs P E Davey, Mr N Desmond, Ms L R Duffy, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mrs J L M A Griffiths, Mr P Grove, Mr A I Hardman, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Mr C G Holt, Mr I Hopwood,  Mr T A Muir, Mr S R Peters, Dr K A Pollock, Mr D W Prodger , Mr A C Roberts, Mr J H Smith, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mr P A Tuthill, and Mr G C  Yarranton (32).

 

Those voting against were: Ms P Agar, Mrs S Askin, Mr J Baker, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P J Bridle, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Ms P A Hill, Mr M E Jenkins, Ms R E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr L C R Mallett, Mr P M McDonald, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs M A Rayner, Mr R J Sutton, Mr J W R Thomas, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall, Mr G J  Vickery and Mr T A L Wells (21).