The Head of Legal and Property Services and Interim Property Section Head gave a presentation on the current Property review.  The Interim Property Section Head outlined the various sections of the review and the issues which had to be taken into consideration for each of the topics.  Members were informed about the investment portfolio and its total value.  The investment income from the portfolio equated to 5.7% of its valuation and was approximately 30% of the Council’s net budget.  The Interim Property Section Head advised that officers were developing a programme and would be balancing value and cost.  Workshops would be held to consult on future plans and would include Members. 

Following the presentation officers responded to Members questions.

There was a change of membership for this meeting: Councillor Qureshi replaced Councillor Watkin.

There were no disclosures of interest.

Under minute number 35 (Housing Value for Money Phase 2) Councillor Dhindsa said that he was unsure whether he should declare an interest.  He advised that he owned several properties, however he would have no financial gain from the proposals in the report.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2011 to be submitted and signed.  (All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2011 were submitted and signed.

Minute 25 – Service Prioritisation Review

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

The Chair asked that it was noted that he had not been in favour of charging residents for the installation of disabled bays.

Report of the Managing Director

The Panel received a report of the Managing Director which asked Budget Panel to consider a number of proposals for identifying future savings or alternative strategies.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head said that the Managing Director had sent his apologies that he was unable to attend the meeting.  She advised that the report included the proposed approach to deliver a further £2 million savings.

Following a question from the Vice-Chair about Citizens’ Juries, the Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that Citizens’ Juries were a different approach to the Citizens’ Panel but were not out of alignment.  They had been set up by other local authorities.  They were not required by legislation.  The aim would be to work with a group of residents and build up their understanding of the issues facing the council.

A Member asked about the proposal under the Localism Act about referendums on Council Tax increases.

The Head of Strategic Finance explained that the Secretary of State had put in a control mechanism regarding Council Tax increases.  If a local authority wanted to increase Council Tax above the maximum level set by the Secretary of State, the local authority would be required to hold a referendum to seek its residents views.  Following a further question from the Chair, the Head of Strategic Finance stated that authorities were not required to increase Council Tax by the amount suggested by the Secretary of State; it could be lower. 

A Member referred to previous discussions about sharing the management arrangements with another local authority.  He had noted in the update attached to the report that the suggestion of sharing the Managing Director’s role had been put on hold.  He asked whether this was a temporary or permanent measure.  He also asked for an explanation of what had driven the decision.

The Executive Director (Resources) replied that this proposal had not been dismissed completely.  Discussions had taken place between senior Members from Watford and the other council, the outcome of which had been to conclude that a shared role was not appropriate at the present time.  She said that it was understandable given the current agenda for both councils.

The Portfolio Holder added that there was opportunity to share more at director level as retirements occurred but currently not at the Managing Director level.

A Member noted the recommendation contained in the report.  He said that the four bullet points on the first page of the report were right and he could not see anything that could be added to the approach.  Earlier in the day he had listened to the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement and had been interested to hear that the Government would be easing the TUPE arrangements.  This would help simplify matters when considering other services.

The Member added that the Council must not rely on the use of reserves as this was not sustainable in the long term. 

The Chair said that he did not agree about the proposed TUPE arrangements.

A Member said that he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

The Vice-Chair took the Chair

Report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head

This report is an update on the Corporate Process Improvement Programme and the benefits it has achieved.

The Panel received a report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head which provided an update on the Corporate Process Improvement Programme (CPIP).

The Executive Director (Resources) reported that nine out of the 12 projects had been completed.  An additional £150,000 savings had been identified.  A further two projects would be completed this year. 

A Member said that the report was impressive and a lot of hard work had gone into the programme.

The Chair congratulated officers on the additional savings.  He asked what impact the savings would have on service delivery.

The Executive Director (Resources) replied that overall service improvements had been achieved through a variety of means.  For example, the scanning contract for planning applications had been renegotiated and a better value for money contract had been achieved.  Both this project and the Planning admin review meant that the service was able to operate more efficiently with fewer staff, through reducing the need for vacancies to be filled. 

The Chair commented that he was still concerned.

The Portfolio Holder stressed that there had been cases, for example where there had been the need for two licences for software programmes prior to Shared Services, only one licence was now required.  This meant that there was a saving of the cost of the licence for one operating system.

The Vice-Chair (in the Chair) commented that it was evolution.

The Head of Strategic Finance reminded those Members who had been on Budget Panel in previous years of the Planning value for money review.  He advised that some of the CPIP savings helped to reduce perceived high costs of the service.

RESOLVED –

that Budget Panel’s comments be noted.

Chair in the Chair

Report of the Head of Community Services

The Panel received a report of the Head of Community Services setting out the proposed new staffing structure, which had taken account of the findings of internal and external reviews of the service.  The aim was to align the staffing budget as closely as possible to the required savings of £150,000.  The report was due to be considered by Cabinet at its meeting on Monday 5 December 2011. 

A Member referred to the staff involvement in the review and asked for confirmation that they felt the proposal was the best way forward.

The Housing Section Head replied that there was broad support for the Supply/Demand model from Housing staff.  There had been productive feedback during the consultation on issues around individual roles, job descriptions and the recruitment process which were being examined. Although all but three of the section were at risk staff were continuing to deliver the service well, despite the personal pressures being experienced.

A Member commented that the staff should be commended for engaging with the consultant.  The proposals appeared to be workable and a lot of thought had gone into them.  The review had been very timely.  There were major changes being introduced by the Government to housing policy.  One example was that the Council would soon be able to discharge their homelessness duty through use of the private rented sector as well as social housing.  He thoroughly commended the report.

The Chair stated that he was concerned about the proposals as the homeless problem was likely to increase in the future.  He questioned how the service would manage with a cut in staffing at this time.

The Housing Section Head replied that any reduction in the number of staff was a huge challenge.  The review had involved looking at the work carried out and how best to align the resources to where they were needed, for example within the Supply Team.  The proposed structure had been geared towards reducing pressure on the Demand side by working more effectively on supply issues. 

The Chair asked about the work with private landlords and how the delay in Housing Benefit affected them.  He believed that landlords preferred to rent to someone who was able to pay the rent themselves.  He had contacted some local letting agents to enquire about the number of properties available.  He had been informed that there were not many properties available and those that were available were quickly let.

The Housing Section Head explained that the role of the Supply Team was to look at all housing stock, both in the private sector and the social housing sector.  Private landlords were still talking to the Council about letting properties.  She added that she was optimistic that the service could involve private landlords.

At this point the Chair questioned whether he should have declared an interest as he owned several properties.  He added that he would not receive any personal gain from the proposals in this report.

A Member said that he had noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Report of the Head of Strategic Finance and Head of Environmental Services

The Panel received a report of the Head of Strategic Finance providing background information relating to the trade waste service and its financial viability.  Members were asked for their comments about an increase in charges for 2012/13.

The Head of Strategic Finance informed the Panel that trade waste was not a statutory service as long as there was a provider in the area.  The Panel was asked to consider the Council’s options which included not providing the service or to make it self-financing.  He advised that it might be counter-productive to not provide the service.  With regard to the service being self-financing, the Head of Strategic Finance stated that it had achieved this in 2010/11 and would probably achieve it in 2011/12.  Next year there would be an unavoidable increase.  The charge needed to take account of the County Council’s disposal costs; fuel costs and a possible increase in staffing costs.  If there were a deficit next year it would need to be covered by Council Taxpayers.  He asked Members whether this should be the responsibility of Council Taxpayers.

A Member said that he agreed with the Head of Strategic Finance’s comments in paragraph 3.5 of the report.  The service should not be withdrawn.

Another Member commented that this was a commercial service provided by the Council.  The current policy required the service to break even and should not be subsidised by the Council Taxpayer.  If officers felt 5% was the required increase then this should be agreed.  He added that other companies would have similar increases in costs.

The Chair said that he did not necessarily agree that the service should be retained.  He was not sure that it was the right time to increase charges as traders were suffering.

A Member questioned whether it was right that a local authority should underwrite the cost of a private company.  He considered 5% a reasonable increase.

A Member stated that the Council’s charge appeared to be lower than the private companies.  The other companies would also need to increase costs.  They would need to consider staffing costs.

The Portfolio Holder added that some companies charged higher and others were lower.  The Council’s service had a turnover of £1.4 million and it could not afford to be run at a loss.  A 5% increase was reasonable when compared to the other charges.

RESOLVED –

that Budget Panel supports a 5% increase in charges for 2012/13.

Report of the Head of Strategic Finance and Head of Planning

The Panel received a report of the Head of Strategic Finance and Head of Planning reviewing the current levels of income received by the parking service and analysis of the potential draw on the Parking Reserve by proposed traffic related schemes. 

The Head of Planning informed the Panel that there was an increasing gap between income and costs.  It was necessary to take funds from the reserves without the Parking Reserve being replenished.  Officers were suggesting a 30% increase to the cost of a permit.  She referred Members to Annexes B and C, which set out the existing charges and the cost with varying increases and comparative costs of residents’ permits.

A Member said that the Council should try to encourage single car households.  He suggested an increase of 10% for the first permit and 30% for second permits.  He asked what impact this would have on revenue.

The Portfolio Holder responded that when the increase had been levied previously officers had found that the amount raised for second cars was very small.  At that time it had been agreed to keep the two to one difference, as a discouragement for second cars.  Other authorities mainly charged twice the cost of the first permit.  There were some that charged one and a half or one and a quarter times the cost of the first permit.

The Head of Planning added that very little had changed.  It had been calculated that the average car ownership in West Watford was 1.1 cars per household.

A Member suggested that £20 was a small amount.  She felt that if someone owned a car they were likely to be able to afford £30.  She agreed with the sentiment of discouraging more cars.

Another Member asked when the last increase had been charged and the exact figures of the previous amount.

The Head of Planning explained that the last increase had been charged in 2005 and the cost of the first permit had increased from £16 to £20. 

A Member commented that the rationale for the increase was the shortfall in the reserve.  He suggested that it was necessary to look at the figures in more detail and more options should be included.  He added that the benefits of bringing the parking service in-house should also be considered.  He asked whether there was scope for an increase for visitors’ permits.  He agreed that £30 did not seem to be a lot of money but the Council needed to be mindful of public perception that the Council was raising funds.  He said that officers had referred to the cost of bringing in new schemes but had not factored in the income from new schemes.

The Head of Strategic Finance reported that Annex A included details of essential works and potential new schemes.

The Vice-Chair said that he was worried about public perception.  He could see the reason for raising the charge but the Council needed to consider how it was done.  He had noted the Member’s suggestion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Report of the Head of Strategic Finance

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

The Portfolio Holder commented that the Shared Services Joint Committee had been pleased with the collection rates.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

·               Wednesday 11 January 2012

·               Wednesday 8 February 2012

·                        Wednesday 11 January 2012

·                        Wednesday 8 February 2012

The Chair thanked officers for attending the meeting and responding to Members’ questions.

The Chair said that he wanted it recorded that he was concerned about the timings of the reports.  They should be produced in a more timely manner.