Agenda item

A presentation will be given at the meeting as part of the Council budget consultation process for the 2016/2017 budget.

Councillor Rishi Shori (Deputy Leader of the Council) and Stephen Kenyon (Interim Executive Director of Resources and Regulations) gave a presentation setting out the budget consultation for 2016/2017.

Tan Ahmed (ADAB) explained that he heads an organisation that benefits from funding from the Council but Councillor Holt stated he did not need to declare an interest under this item.

        It was explained that funding received from central government would continue to reduce. It was reported that for 2016/2017 it was estimated that the Council will have to cut £11.6 million from its budget as core funding was being reduced by 10.75%. It was anticipated that the Council’s funding would be cut by over 30% in the coming 4 years. This is in top of the £54million lost since 2010.

This is happening at a time when residents’ needs are changing, demands are increasing and expectations are high. The Council and its partners will have to work differently to deliver the best outcomes with the resources available.

The Council will need to prioritise services covering its legal obligations and its priorities to look after the vulnerable; promote a strong local economy and be a good place to live and invest.

The impact of the reduction in budget was set out:-

·                     Service changes – can’t rule out service closures and/or a reduced range of services in future years.

·                     Explore different ways of delivering services and greater use of partnership working.

·                     Increased waiting times and /or reduced quality of service

·                     Limits to what the Council can afford to provide and carry out

·                     A different relationship with residents – understanding what the Council can and can’t do

·                     Greater use of technology

Steve Kenyon set out the cuts that the Council had experienced since 2011 and explained that these added up to £53.561million.

Steve also introduced a slide setting out where the Council spent its money with the top three areas being Older People – 30p per £1, Children’s Services (non schools) – 24p per £1 and Cleansing, Refuse Collection  and Disposal – 13p per £1.

It was explained that the way that the funding was allocated was based on a formula which looked at specific areas such as levels of deprivation and other demographics. This meant that Bury received £331pp compared to the national average of £387pp.

There would also be cuts to a number of grants that the Council receives as well as new concerns such as Apprenticeship Levy, Employers National Insurance and the Living Wage. It was also explained that there was uncertainty around the localisation of business rates and how this would impact on the Council.

Work had been carried out to address the cuts and the following measures had been or would be carried out:-

·                     Alternative Service Delivery Models

·                     Grant Optimisation

·                     Grants to Voluntary Sector

·                     Income generation

·                     Better us of buildings and Assets

·                     Procurement saving

·                     Service Redesign

·                     Staff Restructuring

·                     Use of new technology

The consultation had been launched on 10 December 2015 and was asking residents to consider how savings could be made and suggest new ways of working.

The consultation was due to close on 9 February 2016 and all findings would be fed into the budget setting process. The budget was due to be debated at the full Council Meeting on 24 February 2016.Comments could be sent via e-mail, letter or to a dedicated telephone number.

Those present were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments and the following points were raised:-

·         Tim Boaden (Seedfield TRA) expressed concern that Bury received a poor settlement compared to other Authorities, receiving under the National average per head from central Government and how the Council had lobbied the Government to address this shortfall and what effect the Greater Manchester devolution deal would have?

Councillor Rishi explained that Bury has been under funded for years and the Fair Deal for Bury had been started in order to lobby the Government.  In relation to devolution and the impact on the budget, the combined Authority, with all 10 Councils working together, still need to provide Services to the residents of the Borough and it should bring the 10 Councils closer together.

·         Melanie Waters asked if the Alternative Service Delivery Models would be run privately or through the Council.

Councillor Shori explained it was a Local Authority Trading Company for Services that were charged for. Social care was means tested and some residents had to pay for all their own Services.  The Trading Company would provide good quality Services to people who were not entitled to State support, to bridge this gap.

·         Tan Ahmed (ADAB) asked about Income Generation and Grant Optimisation and if this was an opportunity to look at new areas to generate money and what is Bury’s position in respect of local businesses if the Government grant is cut.

Councillor Shori explained the uncertainty following the localisation of business rates and instead of sharing income and losses with the Government of 50% it is now suggested that this will move to Bury keeping 100% which could be an opportunity to seize.  It was important to ensure businesses stayed in Bury and promote new ones.  The leader of the Council meets regularly with local businesses and there is a Summer Fair to encourage this.

Councillor Holt asked the local Councillors if they would like to ask questions in relation to the presentation.

Councillor Walmsley stated that Bury East had one of the highest areas of deprivation in the Country, not just Greater Manchester.  The Conservative MP for Bury North supports the Government formula of allocating money to Authorities and it was important if residents were unhappy that they contacted him, as the elected MP.

·         Councillor Walmsley asked what the cost was in respect of the recent floods across the Borough.

Councillor Shori stated the costs to the Council would be in the region of £250,000.  It was difficult to assess the impact but that central Government would be lobbied in relation to the lack of investment in flood defences in the Borough.

·         Councillor Southworth stated that the information about the 2016/2017 budget was being presented to all of the Township Forums.  As Bury East TF consisted of all Labour Councillors, Councillor Southworth asked what the response of the Conservative Ward Councillors was at other Township Forums.

Councillor Shori explained that this was not Political and other Forums believed people should pay more Council Tax in order to help the vulnerable with Social care.  Overall Councillors were complimentary but they believe that people should take more personal responsibility. One third of every £ goes to adult Social care.  George Osborne wants another 2% added on to Council Tax to address this and Councillor Shori was interested to see what the response from local residents was over this issue. 

Tan Ahmed asked if the 2% rise in April would be the same the year after and Councillor Smith asked if it was ring fenced.   Councillor Shori replied that it would be 2% year on year until 2020.  Council Tax can’t be increased by more than 2%, however the 2% for Social care would be in addition.

Jimmy Hill asked how much was owed in general rates and Steve Kenyon replied that Bury was the strongest in the whole of Greater Manchester at 97.05 % in relation to rates collection.

Councillor Holt asked for the view of local residents present at the Township Forum on an increase to the Council Tax of a further 2% in order to provide for Social care and the majority decision was in favour of the increase.

It was agreed:

That Councillor Rishi Shori and Steve Kenyon be thanked for their presentation.