Agenda item

The Committee considered the Council’s 2020/21 Draft Budget / 5-year MTFS 2020/21 – 2024/25 proposals in relation to Your Council/Priority X. The report was introduced by Frances Palopoli, Head of Corporate Financial Strategy & Monitoring. Richard Grice, Director of Transformation and Resources was also present. The following points was raised during the discussion of this agenda item.

 

YC01- Reduction in Paper Usage

 

The Committee raised a general point about separating out income generation proposals from budget savings in future reports. In response, officers advised that the two were treated in terms of budget proposals but acknowledged that they could be separated out in future. 

 

YC02- Income from joining the London Counter Fraud Hub

 

The Committee sought clarification on whether joining the hub was dependent upon 26 local authorities signing up to it and whether the prospects of this happening were looking good. Officers confirmed that a minimum of 26 local authorities were required to make the hub viable. Officers also advised that although they were not there yet, that discussions had been overwhelmingly positive and it was hoped that there would be 26 other local authorities willing to sign up to it.

 

The Committee also enquired whether £50k income was a conservative estimate given the potential amounts at stake through Right to Buy fraud etcetera. In response, officers advised that £50k was the best estimate of shared returns, based on pilot schemes in other authorities and evidence to date.

 

In response to a request for clarification, officers advised that the initial joining fee for the scheme was £75k and that the £705k set out at the bottom of page 68 of the pack was a typographical error.

 

 

YC03- Legal income from Clinical Commissioning Group.

 

The Committee suggested that this proposal seemed slightly theoretical. Officers assured the Committee that they were confident that this saving would take place and suggested that it may already have been implemented. 

 

YC04- Finance Directorate Savings .

 

The Committee sought clarification about the suggested loss of posts and where these would take place. In response officers advised that of the total £540k saving, £340k was earmarked for the next financial year. Of that £340k, it was anticipated that this would include a loss of 2 FTE posts (£70k).  The majority of the FTE posts lost would take place in the second tranche of the saving, which would take place in 2022/23. Committee Members were assured that the impact of the changes would be reviewed and assessed before the second tranche was implemented but that it was too early to accurately quantify the number of FTE reductions at this stage.

 

YC05- Alexandra Park and Palace Charitable Trust (APPCT).

 

The Committee sought assurance around whether the proposed £195k reduction in revenue grant from the Council had been communicated to APPCT in the context of the huge savings that had been made from the Council’s budget over the last ten year period. In response officers advised that they were confident that this was the case and that those conversations had taken place.

 

The Committee commented that there was a lack of detail in this proposal and requested further information about how the Palace would mitigate this budget gap in order to make an informed judgment on this saving proposal. The Committee sought assurance that the reduction would not impact some of the Trust’s outreach work as well its ability to provide free access to community events and inclusive exhibitions. The Committee were also concerned about any reduction in events and exhibitions that were disability friendly.

 

Further information was requested in relation to how APPCT would met the budget gap arising from YC05 for the 23^rd January. (Action: Frances Palopoli).

 

YC06- Re-imagining Libraries.

 

The Committee sought clarification about the individual saving proposals and areas of income generation and raised concerns about any attempt to reduce the general service offer in libraries including opening times. Officers advised that the core service offer would remain the same and that there was no intention, for instance to reduce the number of libraries or the opening times. Instead they would be looking at developing a co-ordinated opening hour timetable across all of the libraries and co-ordinating joint services.

 

The Committee raised concerns around the proposal for developing work spaces for small businesses and start-ups in Wood Green and Marcus Garvey. In response to these concerns, officers advised that this would not entail any loss of books or book shelves as, Wood Green Library was a big building with a significant amount of vacant space that could be utilised. The intention was to maintain core library facilities but also ensuring that the space in each building is being used to its full potential and developing economy opportunities through job fairs, workspace, pop-up events and volunteering opportunities. In response to further discussion, the Committee felt that aspects of this proposal were nebulous and that they did not fully understand how the savings would be made and the degree to which this would enhance and improve the service offer.  

 

Officers advised that a piece of work was underway to look at what activities could be undertaken and how library spaces could be better utilised. Officers added that part of this was also about seeing how libraries could be improved and the making the space work better. The Committee requested that work space be provided for third sector and community groups.

 

The Committee enquired whether officers were looking at involving a community interest company. Officers advised that this would continue to be run as a mainstream council service.

 

In response to a question, officers advised that no evaluation had been done as yet around likely take-up levels from small business to workspace facilities. However, there was a project currently run by the British Council at Wood Green Library on support for small business which had seen significant take-up. Officers set out that they felt there was a real market for these type of services and that the take-up was there.

 

YC07- Extending FOBO approach to across Council Services.

 

The Committee raised a general point around hearing different experiences from residents in terms of accessing Council services through Customer Services Centres or long waiting times on the telephone to the Council, than was perhaps given by officers in previous discussions around these issues. The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods acknowledged these concerns and emphasised that the driver of this proposal was around service improvement and widening the lessons learnt from FOBO to across all Council services. In response to a question, the Cabinet Member advised they she was confident of delivering this and that the FOBO programme had demonstrated that it could achieved up to 30% savings in areas of customer service and the back office.

 

 

The Chair emphasised the need for provision to be in place to deal with urgent situations and crisis management in response to urgent needs and outside of standard response times. Officers accepted that systems needed to be able to respond to a moment of crisis and that work was being undertaken to ensure that this was in place. Officers advised that they were working to categorize the nature of interactions with residents and where there was an urgent need or request in order to make sure that the Council was responding appropriately.   

 

 

YC08- Part Capitalisation of CPMO.

 

In response to a question around the nature of capitalisation costs referred to, officers advised that the capitalisation would involve the cost of equipment but also the cost of staff brought in to specifically help deliver the project. The costs of existing staff would not be capitalised. 

 

YC09- Income from filming and venue management .

 

The Committee had no comments in relation to this proposal.

 

YC10- Income from Outdoor Media.

 

The Committee raised concerns about how the Council would ensure that any advertising undertaken using Council infrastructure was not contrary to the Council’s stated aims, such as fast food advertising or adverts for the betting industry. Officers responded that there was a standard of service that any company had to sign up to and uphold if they were to use Council assets for advertising. The Chair commented on some recent examples she had seen and officers advised that any concerns or infringements had should be reported to the relevant officers and would be investigated.

 

 YC11- Review of Corporate Centre.

 

The Committee had no comments in relation to this proposal.

 

 

YC12- Capitalisation of IT infrastructure staff.

 

In response to a question about the nature of the savings put forward in this proposal, Officers advised that savings would be realised through the use of Capital and Capital Receipts to fund certain parts of staff work where it was shown that the work produced tangible assets or was transformational to the Council.

 

The Committee requested further information on the figures presented in relation to this proposal. In particular, the Committee sought clarification on the discrepancy between the estimated £416k staff cost savings from capitalisation and the £345k figure outlined in the financial benefits summary section of this saving. (Action: Frances Palopoli/Richard Grice).

 

Capital Programme

 

In response to a query around the nature of the term self-financing, officers confirmed that broadly speaking, it meant that the income generated would meet the cost of that proposal and that a clear business case was developed and signed off in each instance to demonstrate this.  

 

The Committee  sought clarification around the capital investment used in the proposal to re-imagine the Council’s library offer and questioned where would the saving come from, if for example, opening times were being maintained at current provision. Officers set out that the savings would be made by reducing net costs through better utilisation of the whole library infrastructure. This was categorised as being about growth rather than savings or a reduction in service. The Committee also sought clarification about what the term co-ordinated opening hours meant and whether libraries would be unstaffed for example. Officers agreed to come back to the Committee with further information on this.  (Action: Charlotte Pomery).

 

The Chair advised that she would co-ordinate the final budget recommendations in relation to Your Council with Committee Members via email. (Action: Chair).

 

RESOLVED

 

     I.        That the Committee considered the 2020/21 Draft Budget/MTFS 2020/21-2024/25.