REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGETS 2007/8

APPENDIX 4

 

REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGETS 2007/8

 

Comments and proposed amendments by Cllr Tom Leimdorfer

 

General comments

 

Budget papers and consultation documents over the past months represent an advance in clarity over past years and this is to be welcomed. There is a clear description of cost pressures, risks and limits on resources. This budget is focused on trying to preserve services given a fixed resource determined by government grant and the need to limit Council tax rise to 4%. The only significant ‘growth’ item is forced by rising care costs of an increasing elderly population. Overall, given inflationary pressures of around 5%, the net effect of year’s proposed budget is about a 1% cut.

 

The paper outlining budget priorities for 2006-8 shows a concentration on improving communication with the public, reduction of anti-social behaviour and substance misuse. ‘Improve transport infrastructure’ is mainly a heading for road maintenance. There is nothing to indicate that this Council has started to take on board the implications of its own ‘Mainstreaming Sustainability’ policy, no serious investment in trying to reduce carbon emissions. The ‘Change for Children’ agenda has had no real investment other than earmarked government grants. Progress within Children & Young People’s Services is being delivered in a very difficult climate. Some of the proposed budget cuts and savings involve risks in service delivery and are contrary to previously agreed principles of safeguarding preventive capacity in order to reduce high costs of crisis response. While improvements in IT systems and customer services are important, it is noteworthy that North Somerset Council’s overall investment in the area of CSU/Best Value/E-Gov has been vastly greater than it’s investment in what was supposed to be the greatest reform of  children and young people’s services for half a century.

 

It is recognised that any significant shifts in budget priorities and allocations will need to await the new Council after the May elections and will be affected by the review of local government finances post 2008. Hence this paper will limit its scope to budget amendments within the proposed target budget total of £125.399m and hence a proposed increase in Council Tax of 4%.

 

P2        Proposed amendments

 

P3        Appendix – explanatory notes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed amendments to Executive’s revenue budget

 

                                                                                                                                    000

1          CYPS S14       Restore half of respite emergency budget                                     40

2          CYPS S15       Smaller reduction for in-house foster care                                    50

3                                  Leisure services access scheme for foster carers                          35

4          CYPS S17       Restore day care budget for disabled children                  20

5          CYPS S19       Restore support to children at risk of abuse                                 12     

6          CYPS S24       Restore cut to music equipment/charges                                      20

                                    Total extra C&YPS                                                                177

 

7          D&E S10         Safeguard subsidies for bus routes                                               40     

8          D&E S19         Safeguard employment support                                                   11

9          D&E S24         Restore toilet repair and maintenance                                          36

10        D&E S29         Restore footpath maintenance                                                     30

11        D&E S34         Restore play equipment maintenance                                           10     

12        D&E S46         Reduce cut to Library Service                                                     35

                                    Total extra D&E                                                                    162

 

 

13        Balanced by elimination of ‘Strategic Allocation’                                        339

Given the proposed cuts and the range of uncertainties (potentially positive as well as negative effects on outcome), I feel that ‘contingencies’ should be managed by virements within departmental budgets, unless extra allocation is agreed by Council from reserves.

 

 

Amendments to Executive’s proposed capital budget

 

A         Residential unit for children with complex needs (Appendix 3h p 57)

            More work will need to be done on this over the coming two months, but this item should be moved to the ‘recommended’ list. It is an ‘invest to save’ item which was unanimously supported by C&YPS Policy and Scrutiny Panel following the report of a special working group. If this item is not addressed within 2007-8, the window of opportunity for setting up the unit could be lost.

 

B          Maintenance of deteriorating non principal roads (Appendix 3h p58)

             In my view, this is a higher priority than some of the maintenance work we do on principal roads, some of which seems unnecessary and even contributes to accidents by giving false impression of fast roads.

 

See notes relating to items 1-12 in Appendix.

                                                                                                            TCL    5/1/07

 

           

           

 

Appendix – notes to accompany proposed amendments

 

1          No emergency budget for respite risks breakdown of care in the child’s home and hence an expensive out of county placement in response to crisis.

 

2          The use of the independent sector is mainly for ‘hard to place’ teenagers. If we reduce capacity within our own foster carers, we will also need to use expensive independent providers when younger children come into care. This cut goes against the conclusions reached as a result of scrutiny in 2005-6.

 

3          The Children’s Champions Group has recommended to Executive in June 2004 and again this year that foster carers should have a concessionary scheme to enable them to access our own leisure centres without prohibitive costs. This is in line with practice in many local authorities and with the recommendations of the recent Green Paper on looked after children.

 

4          This cut seems to go against everything we try to do in order to help disabled children to access local services and is counterproductive.

 

5          Given the pressures on frontline services dealing with children at risk as a result of family breakdown, there should be no cut in preventive services.

 

6          Increasing charges for music service means that it will be affordable for fewer children, eventually making the service less viable.

 

7          We should have more subsidised routes not less, encouraging people to use their cars less. Bristol City Council also has £75K in their budget for grants to innovative neighbourhood transport schemes. We need to explore every avenue to reduce unnecessary car use.

 

8          Is this to help young or disabled people into work? Why are we cutting the grant?

 

9          Clean and well maintained toilets are one of the key measures of a civilised town.

 

10        Footpath maintenance is already badly under-funded. I have had dozens of residents asking for improved footpath maintenance around the village – none asking for renewed tarmac on the main highways.

 

11        It is crazy to invest in extra play equipment one year and cut maintenance the following year.

 

12        Mitigates cut in improvements/renewals, which would have service impact.