There was a change of membership for this meeting: Councillor Aron replaced Councillor Greenslade.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2011 to be submitted and signed.  (All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2011 were submitted and signed.

Report to follow separately

The Panel was informed that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.  The consultation on the proposals had commenced that day.  A report would be presented at the next meeting.

This report informs the Budget Panel of significant changes to the financing of local government which are due to take place from 1^st April 2013.

The Panel received a report of the Head of Strategic Finance setting out information about the significant changes to the financing of local government, which were due to commence from 1 April 2013.  The Head of Strategic Finance circulated a copy of his email response to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). 

The Head of Strategic Finance explained the current system of financing local government.  He advised that Watford Borough Council collected approximately £60 million and received £6 million back from the Government.  He explained the new procedures which were currently being circulated by DCLG for consultation. 

The Head of Strategic Finance said that one issue which might affect Watford was the proposal that the New Homes Bonus should be absorbed into the overall financing scheme.  The New Homes Bonus was about the increase in housing supply in the Borough.  He felt there may be a conflict in that land was a finite resource and priorities might be geared to housing or business but not necessarily both.  It was important that transparency remained and that the specific grant for the New Homes Bonus should continue.  In 2012/13 the Council was expecting to receive about £1 million for the New Homes Bonus, however, the exact figure would not be known until the Revenue Support Grant settlement had been announced.  The announcement would be at the end of November.

A Member stated that the officer’s report had clearly stated the difficulties for some local authorities to review the technical papers.  He referred to the re-distribution of the Business Rates and said that areas like Watford should receive some benefit as there were cost implications to the council.  The scheme should be designed to benefit authorities.

Another Member said that in principle the scheme was a good idea and may benefit Watford.  It was clear that Watford had a vital business sector as a substantial number of Watford residents worked in Watford.  In order to support growth he felt it was important to consider incentives for businesses.  PR was important.  Watford needed to sell itself to encourage businesses to move to Watford. 

The Member said that he was concerned about the methodology in the way the income would be apportioned between two tier authorities (77% County, 23% District).  He did not feel the County Council’s economic development initiatives justified such a high percentage.  There needed to be a fairer apportionment. 

The Head of Strategic Finance accepted this point but felt there was a possibility that Watford would be a loser in the new system and that would mean under the proposed apportionments that the County Council would lose the most.  It was a two edged sword.  He referred Members to the East of England assessments and said that Watford might find itself in receipt of safety net protection.  By comparison, the New Homes Bonus was currently split at a ratio of 80% to District Councils and 20% to County Councils and this needed to be kept separate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

This report is to update Budget Panel on the savings achieved to date through the delivery of year 1 service prioritisation proposals and on the current state of play with regard to income generation against projected targets. The report relates to financial information as of Period 6 2011/12.

The Panel received a report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head updating Members on the savings achieved to date and income generation against projected targets.  The Panel was asked to comment on the three proposals outlined in paragraph 3.2.1 of the report which would be considered by Cabinet at its next meeting.

Proposal 11 – Reduce frequency of the disability awareness course for taxi drivers

This proposal had been absorbed into proposal 10 which was expected to deliver savings in Service Prioritisation Year 2.

The Panel had no comments about this proposal.

Proposal 64 – Close Church Street and Subway public conveniences

The Panel was informed that the proposal to be considered by Cabinet was not to close the Subway public convenience.

One Member said that it was necessary to consider how much it would cost to keep the public convenience open for the public, including the capital costs to maintain it in future years.

Other Members who referred to the Subway public convenience said that it was right that the toilets should remain open and the Council should continue to find the funding for them. 

One Member said that the footfall through the subway had increased exponentially over the last 18 months.  For example, West Herts College had expanded and there were more students passing through the subway during term time.  The Colosseum had since opened and performances would be taking place more regularly and its audiences were likely to be parking in the Gade car park.  The evening footfall would be higher.

Another Member said that the Council wanted to improve the Town Centre and it was therefore not an option to close these toilets.

The Portfolio Holder agreed that the Subway public conveniences were needed.

Proposal 72 – Introduce charge of £150 for installation of disabled bays

The new proposal was that this charge would not be introduced and the income generation would be reduced by £43,000 per year.

One Member said that he felt the suggested income would not have been as high as estimated.  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head agreed that when charges were set it was difficult to judge the impact.

The Member said that the need for a disabled parking bay was less of a personal choice than other services that incurred a charge.

The Portfolio Holder explained that the disabled parking bays were costly to provide.  The Council had to arrange for the bays to be painted on to the road.  When they were no longer required the paint had to be burnt off.  Disabled drivers were able to obtain an ‘A’ board which could be placed in the road.  In 2010/11 budget Panel had asked the Executive to find out how much it cost to provide these spaces and then make a charge.

A Member said that he had listened to the Portfolio Holder’s comments but he felt that there should be some charge for provision of the bays.  It should not be assumed that if someone was disabled  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Report to follow separately

The Panel received a report of the Head of Strategic Finance setting out the reported budget variances as at the end of September 2011. 

A Member noted that the original budget had been revised and there had been a net increase to the General Fund.

The Head of Finance Shared Services advised that this had been explained in the first section of the Finance Digest, paragraph 1.2 and largely related to a carry forward provision.

The Portfolio Holder said that the situation was currently stable.  It was still important to keep a check on expenditure.  Officers and the Executive would continue to look at areas where further savings could be made, including the smaller items, for example telephone costs.  All expenditure however large or small came from the Council Tax payers.  The Council would provide services at a reasonable cost.

Following a Member’s request for clarification about the Shared Services variance, the Head of Finance Shared Services explained that this had been due to increased costs incurred by Revenues and Benefits and ICT.

A Member assured the Councillor that there were three Watford Members appointed to the Three Rivers and Watford Shared Services Joint Committee.  The Members were aware of the problems and were monitoring the services.

The Portfolio Holder explained that Revenues and Benefits included the benefits administration for Housing and Council Tax Benefit.  The benefit caseload had continued to increase.  There were currently 380 outstanding cases.  Discussions were taking place to consider extending SERCO’s contract for continued help with the caseload.  Members were concerned that the increased number of cases were dealt with quickly.  There were more Watford applications which would affect the amount the Council had to contribute towards costs.  The Portfolio Holder reminded the Panel that if they were aware of any urgent cases they should contact the Head of Revenues and Benefits. 

The Chair thanked officers for the report.

RESOLVED –

1.      that the report be noted.

Report

The Panel received a report of the Head of Strategic Finance setting out the Council’s current income policy.  The Head of Strategic Finance advised that the Panel would be receiving a report about trade waste at its next meeting. 

A Member said that he felt the parking meter charges should not be increased as they were quite high.

The Portfolio Holder responded that there had been various increases to the meter charges.  There was information which indicated that people tried to avoid parking at meters.  Schemes needed to be considered which were relevant to individual areas.  For example an option for Market Street might be to introduce a 30 minutes free parking period.  It was necessary to introduce a consistent parking policy for the Town Centre.  Previously the parking meter rates encouraged people to feed the meters.

Another Member referred to the recently announced inflation increase.  He said that, in principle, costs should increase at the same rate, however, it was necessary to be looked at in the context of the current economy.  For example, pay increases were less than the rate of inflation.

The Portfolio Holder asked the Panel for their views regarding Appendix 2 to the report, Council Fees and Charges Concession Policy – April 2011.

One member said that this was an excellent policy.  Appendix 1, however, was where he had identified difficulties.

Another Councillor stated that he had looked at both appendices.  Paragraph 3 in the Fees and Charges Policy (Appendix 1) needed to be changed to reflect Appendix 2.  It should relate to income-based benefits.  He did not feel that all pensioners should receive discounts.  He explained that many pensioners were in receipt of reasonable contribution based pensions. 

The Head of Strategic Finance informed the Panel that the policy set out in Appendix 1 of the report had not been reviewed last year.  It would be amended so that it was in line with the concession policy.

The Portfolio Holder thanked the Panel for their views.

RESOLVED –

1.      that Budget Panel’s comments be noted.

·               Tuesday 29 November 2011

·               Wednesday 11 January 2012

·               Wednesday 8 February 2012

·                        Tuesday 29 November 2011

·                        Wednesday 11 January 2012

·                        Wednesday 8 February 2012