Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Clarke, Cllr Fear, Cllr Mrs Peers, Cllr Stringer and Cllr Waring.

To receive Declarations of Interest from Members on items included in the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting of this Committee held on 3 September 2012.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2012 were agreed as a correct record.

To consider the Medium Term Financial Strategy and the report approved by Cabinet on 17 October 2012. 

The Committee considered a report regarding the Medium Term Financial Strategy which had been approved by Cabinet on 17 October 2012. The report had been brought to the Committee for their comment and feedback. Officers were thanked for the excellent format and use of language in the report and strategy, which made it accessible to Members and members of the public.

The Medium Term Financial Strategy was updated every year and aimed to predict the likely budget totals. A Budget Review Group (BRG) had been set up, chaired by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Budget Management, and made up by three Cabinet members and two senior Officers. The biggest uncertainty facing the Council’s finances was central government funding. The details of the funding settlement would not be available until the third week of December. 

Members questioned which efficiencies were being investigated in order to create savings. Nothing was off the table and the BRG had been given a clean slate to work with. Fees and charges, terms and conditions, procurement, expenses, staffing, and changing the way we work were examples of areas that were being looked at. Members questioned which particular areas were being looked at in relation to staffing and terms and conditions. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Budget Management advised that there were around twenty different options regarding staffing, but that there would be no redundancies. With regard to expenses, best practice would be looked at in order to be consistent with other local authorities across the country, as some current practices at the Council did not match what was happening elsewhere. These efficiencies were currently in draft form and there was no solid selection at the moment; the selection would be made available at the next meeting of the Committee. The settlement for central government funding was the key issue to the selection of efficiencies, and it was preferable to not commit to any efficiencies at this stage.

Members highlighted the 5% reduction in Central Government funding that had been assumed, and questioned that if the reduction was greater than 5% with no efficiencies in place and no increase in fees and charges, where would staffing become relevant. If the settlement was worse than anticipated then it would be covered by an additional sum which did not include staffing cuts. Members further questioned service reviews that were being undertaken. The reviews would give more power to section heads and allow them more freedom to run their directorates in the way they considered best. Every Head of Service had been given the option to participate and there had been a peer challenge. There would be possible savings and the potential to invest to save. It was considered by Members that the cost of labour was the greatest form of expenditure for the Council. Full time equivalent staff had not been reviewed and vacant posts may have been offered by the Executive Management Team as possible savings. Members questioned whether new vacant posts were being looked at,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To receive a verbal update regarding the budget consultation process from the Head of Communications. Attached is the special budget edition of the Reporter and the accompanying questionnaire. The programme of face-to-face and public meetings will be sent to follow.

The Committee received a verbal update regarding the budget consultation process from the Head of Communications.

The Communications department were in the penultimate week of a six week consultation, which would conclude the week ending Friday 9 November. There had not been a major budget consultation since 2004 and the Communications department had tried to be innovative, inclusive and extensive in their approach to the consultation. A variety of approaches were being utilised including face to face meetings, public meetings, online consultation, coffee mornings and events at Jubilee 2, which the public had been supportive of. 6,000 copies of the special budget Reporter had been distributed and 500 responses had been received so far. Young people were being engaged through the Kidsgrove Youth Parliament and it was important that their voices be heard. The Head of Communications felt that the consultation was going quite well. It had been a learning curve, with some elements being good and some not so good. Lessons were being learnt should the process be conducted again.

Members considered that the use of resources was an important element to consider. The results of the consultation would be brought to the next meeting of the Committee on 10 December. Members questioned what the attendance had been at the public meetings. These had been the least successful element of the consultation exercise, with the face to face meetings being the most successful. Asking people to come to you did not work, it was necessary to go where the conversations were, as engaging the public was difficult. Members considered that it was difficult to quantify the consultation results and questioned how the results would be fed into the outcomes, and how they would affect the final decisions. This could be considered alongside best practice compared to neighbouring authorities. The Council was doing well compared to its neighbours considering the number of responses and the size of the population. It was hoped that there would be around 600 responses in total. If there was a clear steer from Borough residents then this would be given weight.

Members considered that the consultation questions on the questionnaire were quite simple and that most residents would like improvements. They questioned how the exercise could be validated when most people would consider the options extremely important. The Head of Communications considered that the two documents distributed had worked as a pair, with context being established from the special edition Reporter. The questionnaire would not being distributed in isolation. People were taking the time to complete the questionnaires and make comments; they were not just ticking the boxes.

The question was raised by Members as to why a question had not been included regarding council tax, and it was asked whether there would be a freeze or a reduction in council tax. As of the date of the meeting there would be a steer to the Executive Director Resources and Support Services that a freeze would be desirable. If the settlement for central government funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider any business which is urgent within the meaning of Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There was no urgent business considered.