To consider any item(s) of business in respect of which notice has been given in

accordance with Part 4 (paragraph 4) of the Council Procedure Rules and which the person presiding at the meeting is of the opinion should by reason of special circumstances be transacted at the meeting as a matter of urgency. 

 

 

The Chief Executive Officer and Interim S151 Officer submitted a joint report, seeking Council approval of the Medium Term Financial Strategy 2018-19 to 2021-22, which included a financial forecast for 2018-22, a detailed revenue budget for 2018-19, and a Capital Programme for 2017-18 to 2027-28.

 

Attached to the report were the following documents:-

 

•           The Medium Term Financial Strategy for the above mentioned period

•           Appendix A – Budget Pressures 2018-19

•           Appendix B – Budget Reduction Proposals 2018-19 to 2021-22

•           Appendix C – Fees and Charges 2018-19

•           Appendix D – Budget by Area of Service Allocation

•           Appendix E – Directorate Base Budgets by Corporate Priority

•           Appendix F – Reserves and Balances 2018-19

•           Appendix G -  MTFS Capital Programme 2017-2028

•           Appendix H – Treasury Management Strategy 2018-19

•           Appendix I –   MTFS EIA 2018-19

•           Schedule A – Cabinet Response to Scrutiny recommendations

•           Schedule B – Corporate Risk Assessment

•           Schedule C – Council Tax 2018-19

 

The Interim Head of Finance then gave a resume of the report and the above attachments for the benefit of Members, by taking out the salient points from each of these areas/sections.

 

The Leader then gave an introductory speech on the Budget.

 

He thanked the Deputy Leader, Senior Management team and all Members for developing the proposals. He advised that for many years Bridgend had worked differently to other Councils. Backbench Members from different political parties and groups, had for a number of years, undertaken a major role in the developing the budget. This year had been no different, and he thanked Members of the Budget Research and Evaluation Panel (BREP), for analysing proposals and asking questions that had at times been difficult to answer, and challenging every line of what they had considered. It had been a constructive, comprehensive and honest budget setting process that had begun last summer, and he thanked Members of all the political groups for their involvement and contributions.

 

The Budget was a fundamental challenge that local authorities had to face year on year, and one that gets more difficult every year, particularly with austerity and since the onset of the recession. This was the same challenge however, for all welsh local authorities.

 

Every Council in Wales had increased its Council Tax, regardless of what political party held power in that particular authority, with the largest increase being 12.5% in Pembrokeshire.

 

None of these authorities had proposed increasing Council Tax out of choice. Such increases were being made, as there was no realistic sustainable alternative. BCBC had already made £35m of savings, and will be required to make a further £32m in future years. 490 people in the Council had been made redundant in 4 years. The Council were now more efficient than it had ever been however, though it would have to continue cutting precious services that mattered to constituents, and that was the reality of the situation.

 

There was only one realistic alternative course of action open to a local authority and that was to increase Council Tax in order to gain sufficient revenue in order to assist in continuing to provide services. If this increase did not take place, then the Council would have to declare itself bankrupt as Northamptonshire County Council recently had.

 

It was difficult for residents to understand, because they don’t see or know that the services that often their family depended on. They may not realise that the cost of educating their two children in the local primary school is £10,660 a year, or that the cost for the Council of looking after their grandmother in a residential home is £560 per week. The Council were supporting a record number of older people in their home, and it also had a record number of pupils in its primary schools.

 

Our flagship school modernisation programme was the centre piece of BCBC’s investment plans for the next five years. Today’s budget would confirm the funding for its new schools for Cwm Garw and Pencoed Primary, in addition to others invested in prior to this. It would also commit us to £65m for Band B of the 21st Century School programme, that levered in £1m in funding to every £1m we commit into new primary school places, welsh medium and english medium, and our special school also.

 

We would also enable the re-development of our residential unit in Bridgend, as a hub for new services for our most vulnerable LAC.

 

Today’s Budget was also crucial, because it committed the Council’s contribution to the re-development of Maesteg Town Hall, to the regeneration of the Salt Lake area of Porthcawl, and of course, to the Caerau mine water energy scheme. The above were all very important reasons the Leader concluded, why he urged Members to support the Budget that was before them today.

 

The Deputy Leader advised that today’s budget would set the direction of the Council for the next 4 years.

 

He commended the extent of consultation on the Budget including with members of the public, and the fact that there had been 2,619 interactions with the public over where they felt cuts required should best be made.

 

He stated that today Council were setting a gross budget of £400m, with grants from Welsh Government and others amounting to around £40m, leaving a net Budget of £266m.

 

18% of this came or just under £75m came from Council tax payments, where the suggested increase would mean a total cost of £1,395 per year for a Band D home. The whole of the Council tax receipt he added, would be less than the Schools delegated budget of £88m. The Council would intend spending more than £108m educating 20,000 learners.

 

The Deputy Leader then referred to Social Services, a service that was essential in order to keep vulnerable citizens safe.

 

In the Bridgend County Borough, there were approximately 5,000 individuals that were dependent upon vital services in order to keep them from harm. Between Adult and Children’s Social Care, the Council would be spending nearly £80m. A further £26m would be spent by the Communities Directorate, for work such as collecting litter, grass cutting and gritting the highway network.

 

He continued by advising that the Capital Programme would deliver an investment of tens of millions of pounds through delivering the Band A School Modernisation Programme, together with a multi-million pound investment in two new Extra Care Homes for the Valleys gate way and Maesteg.

 

There would also be a £5m investment in replacing and resurfacing roads and pavements throughout the County Borough, and £2.5m for installing more efficient LED lights.

 

The Deputy Leader concluded debate on this item, by commending the Budget to Council.

 

A Member stated that welsh funding from the UK government per person is currently at £120 for every £100 spent in England. She remained  concerned that Welsh Labour Government had continued to not effectively fund new legislation, including the Additional Learning Needs Bill, and stop funds for deserving schemes including school uniform grants, funding for which then becomes an additional pressure on the hard working people of Bridgend. She supported innovative, proactive proposals however, contained within the Budget such as the Festival of Learning. She noted £285,000k had been allocated to fund Kier to increase the service for the purple bag absorbent hygiene products. Officers had refused though, to allow the un-redacted waste contract to be seen by Councillors, so on that basis it was impossible for me to vote for the Budget, as members of Scrutiny had no idea what they were ultimately putting local people’s money into. Despite previous failings of the implementation of the Waste Contract, residents have worked hard to make the contract work, even though they had been rewarded with a Council Tax increase.

 

The Corporate Director Operational and Partnership Services emphasised that sharing sight of the Contract had not been refused, and that he would meet with Scrutiny to share this, if reasonable reasons were given to him to do so.

 

Members were concerned with the proposal that cuts would be made to both public toilets as well as bus services, and that this should not take place. A Member felt that the savings made from cuts to these should be found elsewhere, for example, from the School’s Education budget, which the Leader together with certain other Members, did not seem to support.

 

A Member supported the above, but did not think that the £68k saving from closing public toilets should be found from the School’s budget. He added that he was unhappy that there were plans to cut this budget further next year, though accepted that this was something for discussion at a future date. He felt however, that perhaps funding could be providing toward keeping public toilets open through the Community Action Fund that had been allocated to Members.

 

With regard to proposed public toilet closures and reducing  bus routes, the Cabinet Member explained that both these were out to consultation, and that the feedback received would have some impact on both these proposals.

 

The Leader confirmed that this was something, ie the future Community Action Fund,  that he could discuss further with Group Leaders on a cross party basis in due course, in order to establish where they had committed their allocation to. Though the £5k that he had received he had committed to a local primary school, in order to put in place a sensory area for children with ALN, which he felt was a worthwhile area within which to make this contribution.

 

A Member also raised concern over the continued cuts that had been made to the Communities budget, and the effect this was now starting to have on frontline certain services.

 

A Member noted that there were still some considerable overspends that needed to be met, (shown as part of the report that explained the Red, Amber, Green – traffic light symbols on spend), and sought assurance that these would be met as part of the budget.

 

The Interim Head of Finance confirmed that these would be delivered through strong accountability arrangements that had been put in place, as part of next year’s budget.

 

The Corporate Director – Social Services and Wellbeing added, that overspend in her Directorate was being managed through a Directorate Financial Plan, which was aiming to ensure that the overspend made by her Department, would be made-up by end of March 2018.

 

A Member also noted that there was intended within the budget proposals to make a £30k saving in audit reductions, whereby this Unit would only look at statutory work and requirements. She added that she hoped that by imposing such a reduction, this would not compromise ensuring that service areas of the Council perform to the required standards (particularly areas where there was risk).

 

The Interim Head of Finance confirmed that the saving proposed in this area had been assessed, and that it had been considered that this extent of saving was both realistic and achievable, without there being too of a high element of risk. She added that the service was also subject to external auditing, and that Internal Audit, though finding recruitment and retainment of staff difficult, were still providing both an efficient and effective service.   

 

It was moved and duly seconded that a recorded vote be taken on the MTFS, but that firstly, an electronic vote was required to see that there was a consensus of Members for this.

 

Therefore an electronic vote was taken, the result of which was as follows:-

 

For (recorded vote)                   Against               Abstain

 

  47                                               0                          0

 

As the vote for a recorded vote was carried, this was then undertaken, the result of which was as follows:-

 

For (recommendations of report)        Against        Abstain

 

Councillors:-

 

PA Davies                                                -              A Pucella                                

G Thomas                                                               L Walters

JH Tildesley MBE                                                    S Vidal

DBF White                                                               K Rowlands

N Burnett                                                                  A Hussain

R Collins                                                                  C Webster

P Davies                                                                  T Giffard

J Gebbie                                                                   M Voisey

RM Granville

S Baldwin

J Radcliffe

T Thomas

T Beedle

R Penhale-Thomas

DK Edwards

KJ Watts

A Williams

J Williams

R Shaw

G Howells

B Sedgebeer

JP Blundell

S Smith

M Jones

S Dendy

AJ Williams

E Venables

JR McCarthy

M Kearn

D Lewis

JE Lewis

JC Spanswick

CA Green

S Aspey

MC Voisey

PJ White

D Patel

HJ David

HM Williams

CE Smith

RE Young

 

40                                                                                  8

 

RESOLVED:                          That Council approved the MTFS 2018-19 to 2021-22, including the 2018-19 revenue budget, the Capital Programme 2017-18 to 2027-28 and the Treasury Management Strategy 2018-19. In particular it approved the following specific elements:-

 

• The MTFS 2018-19 to 2021-22.

• The Net Budget Requirement of £265,984,097 in 2018-19.

• The 2018-19 budgets as allocated in accordance with Table 9 in paragraph 3.3 of the report.

• The Capital Programme 2017-18 to 2027-28 (Appendix G of the report).

• The Treasury Management Strategy 2018-19 and Treasury Management and Prudential Indicators 2018-19 to 2021-22 (Appendix H of the report).

• A Band D Council Tax for Bridgend County Borough Council of £1,395.51 for 2018-19 (Table 11) and the Council Tax for the areas outlined in Section 6 of the report.

• The Council Tax charges for Band D properties for 2018-19 for each of the community areas as outlined in Table 20 (of the report).