Minutes for Cabinet meeting, Feb 17 2009, 10.00AM official page

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

 

Report of the Corporate Director (Community Services).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

 

The Corporate Director (Community Services) submitted a report to provide options for toilet provision in 2009/10. In order to provide options that would have a budgetary impact in 2009/10 the report listed 14 toilets where there was immediate scope for review:-

 

West End (Regent Road) Morecambe

Toilets adjacent to the Dome- Morecambe

Heysham Village

Sunderland point

Glasson Dock

Cockerham

Silverdale

Warton

Red bank shore

Carnforth

Bolton Le Sands

Hest Bank

Bull Beck

Victoria Institute- Caton (cleaned by Council)

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

 

 

 

Option

Pros

Cons

 

1- status quo

Retains existing levels of toilet provision.

·         Does nothing to meet requirements of MTFS.

·         Many of the toilets where City Council are in need of major repair, suffer from ongoing vandalism and are in exposed locations.

2- Mothball 14 toilets as listed in para 2.2 -from April 1 2009, with capital changes in para 2.4

·         Provides a £100,000 per year saving to revenue budget.

·         Provides a £100,000 general capital budget, for future works (including any demolition).

·         Mothballing toilets allows for medium term / long term consideration of their future.

·         Allows other bodies the opportunity to consider taking over the ongoing running of the facility.

·         Many of these toilets are in need of major repair, suffer from ongoing vandalism and are in exposed locations.

·         Represents a significant service reduction and will be unpopular with many.

·         Mothballed public buildings are unsightly and can attract vandalism.

·         Although the facility is mothballed it will still incur some service / maintenance charges.

·         If at a future date the decision is taken to reopen or demolish the mothballed toilets there will obviously be further financial implications to consider, and these might not be fully covered by the £100K capital provision.

3- Mothball some toilets of the toilets in the list in para 2.2- from April 1 2009, with capital changes in para 2.4

·         Would provide some savings to revenue budget.

·         As above.

·         Reduced service reduction.

·         The mothballing proposal of 14 toilets has been designed to generate the maximum saving from the resources that are used (eg staff, transport etc). Leaving some open would greatly reduce the saving as it would not be as efficient (ie. staff and a vehicle still have to be allocated to cleaning a reduced amount of toilets).

·         If at a future date the decision is taken to reopen or demolish the mothballed toilets again there will obviously be further financial implications to consider.

4- Community Toilet Pilot - from April 2009

·         Retains levels of service provision.

·         Cheaper to run (Pilot, but assume £20,000 per annum).

·         Provides toilets that are clean, safe, located within managed buildings and available when people need them.

·         Will impact positively on the businesses that participate through an annual contribution, publicity and signage.

·         Using 2009/2010 as pilot year allows for time to assess effectiveness and then make recommendations for 2010/2011

·         Businesses may not be willing to participate.

 

Because of the need to make savings the officer preferred option is option 2 (mothball 14 toilets as listed in para 2.2) combined with option 4 (Community Toilet Pilot). The effective date for this would be 1^st April 2009.

 

It was moved by Councillor Barry and seconded by Councillor Archer:-

 

“(1)      That, with the exception of Bull Beck, the 13 toilets listed in the report (para 2.2) are ‘mothballed’ with effect from 1^st April 2009 and the draft revenue budget is updated accordingly.

 

(2)               That the £26,000 savings options for Bull Beck are put into the budget process for consideration.

 

(3)               That the draft capital programme is updated to reflect the proposed changes highlighted in paragraph 2.4 of this report.

 

(4)               That a ‘Community Toilet’ scheme is put in place from April 2009 and that £20,000 is allocated to this in 2009/10.

 

(5)               That a further report is brought to Cabinet in 2009/10 to make further recommendations for the medium / long term future of these toilets and to make recommendations for the future of the ‘Community Toilet’ scheme.  In the meantime, if Parish Councils express an interest in acquiring toilets in their Parish, Cabinet would support this.”

 

By way of an addendum to recommendation (1) regarding Bull Beck toilets, which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, Councillor Gilbert proposed:

 

“(1b) That officers explore, as far as possible, ways to reduce expenditure on Bull Beck toilets including the possibility of renewing the septic tank and looking at the possibility of locking the enclosure at night to reduce vandalism.”

 

By way of amendment, Councillor Mace proposed and Councillor Charles seconded:

 

“(6)      That discussions be commenced with Parish Councils to investigate the long term future of and funding of the public toilets situated in Parished Areas of the District, and that the outcome of these discussions be reported to Cabinet.”

 

2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted in favour of the amendment and 7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted against, whereupon the Chairman declared the amendment lost.

 

Members then voted on the substantive motion:-

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 2 Members (Charles and Mace) voted against).

 

(1)        That, with the exception of Bull Beck, the 13 toilets listed in the report (para 2.2) are ‘mothballed’ with effect from 1^st April 2009 and the draft revenue budget is updated accordingly.

 

(1b)      That officers explore, as far as possible, ways to reduce expenditure on Bull Beck toilets including the possibility of renewing the septic tank and looking at the possibility of locking the enclosure at night to reduce vandalism.

 

(2)               That the £26,000 savings options for Bull Beck are put into the budget process for consideration.

 

(3)               That the draft capital programme is updated to reflect the proposed changes highlighted in paragraph 2.4 of this report.

 

(4)               That a ‘Community Toilet’ scheme is put in place from April 2009 and that £20,000 is allocated to this in 2009/10.

 

(5)               That a further report is brought to Cabinet in 2009/10 to make further recommendations for the medium / long term future of these toilets and to make recommendations for the future of the ‘Community Toilet’ scheme.  In the meantime, if Parish Councils express an interest in acquiring toilets in their Parish, Cabinet would support this.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Corporate Director (Community Services)

Head of City Council (Direct) Services

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The decision takes account of the “Community Toilet” example of best practice whilst also providing budgetary savings.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Burns)

 

Report of the Head of Democratic Services.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Burns)

 

The Head of Democratic Services submitted a report advising Cabinet of options for marking the centenary of the opening of Lancaster Town Hall in 1909.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

 

Officers in Cultural Services, Democratic Services, Economic Development and Tourism and Property Services have worked together to develop the following options which can be delivered within existing resources as indicated:

 

Town Hall Tours

 

It is suggested that a series of enhanced tours of the Town Hall are arranged as part of the Heritage Open Day Tours on 12^th/13^th September and over the weekend of 25^th/26^th/27^th September 2009 to coincide with the Lancaster Unlocked promotion being organised by the Heritage Group where events at museums and places of interest in the town are specially marketed and promoted for a particular weekend.

 

The intention is to widen the scope of the tours of this weekend to introduce an historical interpretation using an actor to play the role of Lord Ashton who will lead the tours as if he is showing members of the public around his new building, culminating in refreshments in the Mayors Parlour with the Mayor.  A second actor playing the role of Mr Belcher, the Ashton Memorial Architect could also be used to tie in the celebration of 100 years of the Ashton Memorial in Williamson Park.

 

Charges are made for Town Hall Tours which cover the cost of opening the building.  Funding for the additional costs of hiring a ‘Lord Ashton’ would need to be identified and refreshments could be provided from the Mayoral Functions budget.  Savings can be made on events within the Civic programme to provide additional funding for this purpose, eg. reductions in numbers invited to the Annual Council Mayor Making Lunch.

 

Guided Walks

 

A local blue badge guide could also be employed to lead Edwardian Lancaster (or  'Lord Ashton’s Lancaster') themed guided walks on at least some of the Heritage open days & Lancaster Unlocked days referred to above.

 

Funding for the cost of these would also need to be identified.

 

Mayoral At Homes

 

The Mayoral At Homes event have previously taken place in May each year.  However this year they have been moved for the first time and are due to be held in March 2009.  If during 2009/10, these are held in January 2010 instead the At Home in Lancaster can be promoted to the public as replicating the open days held in January 1910 and a similar acted scenario using a Lord Ashton and Mr Belcher could be included.

 

Funding for the additional costs of staging the scenario would need to be identified.  There would be no additional costs for refreshments other than those budgeted for on an annual basis.

 

Lancaster Fireworks Festival

 

It is suggested that the Fireworks in November 2009 be arranged around an Edwardian Theme, both during the day and in respect of the music in the evening.

 

Subject to approval of the proposed Festival programme, funding for this is included in the Cultural Services budget – there would be no additional costs.

 

Community Festival – Williamson Park

 

Subject to further approval of the 2009/10 budget process, a sum of £7,500 is provisionally allocated for holding events in the Park.  This could be used to hold an Edwardian themed Fair in the Park, possibly alongside the Community Festival held for the past few years in which the Council participated for the first time in 2008.  This would enable the public to look at Lancaster as it was 100 years ago alongside the Lancaster of today.

 

Community Leaders Event/Choral Concert

 

If funding can be identified, a community event could be organised in the Ashton Hall during December to be hosted by the Mayor.   The Lancaster and District Male Voice Choir are interested in performing a concert with the support of Leyland Brass Band who are willing to provide the music for them.  This choir performed a concert in the Ashton Hall 100 years ago and were the first public performance in the room.  This could be arranged as a separate concert or as part of a Community Leaders Event.

 

Interest has also been expressed by the NCBI in Lancaster who have recently done a new Welcome poster for the Town Hall steps and it is suggested that the promotion of this could be timed and themed to mark the centenary.

 

Costs of organising a Community Leaders Event could be met from the as yet unallocated 2008/09 Area Based Grant Reserve for Community Cohesion.  A separate concert would need to be a ticketed event and self financing.

 

Cabinet are requested to consider whether they wish to pursue any or all of the above options.  Alternatively Cabinet may agree not to make any arrangements to mark the centenary of Lancaster Town Hall or the Ashton Memorial.

 

 There is no Officer preferred option.

 

It was moved by Councillor Barry and seconded by Councillor Fletcher:-

 

“(1)      That Cabinet approves the Mayoral ‘at homes’; Lancaster Firework Festival and Choral Concert in Ashton Hall to mark the centenary of the opening of Lancaster Town Hall.”

 

By way of amendment, which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, Councillor Mace proposed and Councillor Charles seconded:

 

“That in order to mark the centenary of Lancaster Town Hall and the Ashton Memorial, arrangements be made for the following:

 

(1)               The Lancaster Fireworks Festival in November 2009 to be arranged around an Edwardian Theme, both during the day and in respect of the music in the evening, subject to the approval of the proposed Festival programme as part of the 2009/10 budget process

 

(2)               A Choral Concert in the Ashton Hall

 

(3)               That the Mayor for 2009/10 be requested to hold Mayoral ‘at homes’ in January 2010 to enable promotion of the Lancaster ‘at homes’ as replicating the open days held in January 1910 at no additional cost beyond that contained within the existing budget

 

(4)               The Mayor for 2009/10 be requested to consider holding the following events at a suitable time and appropriately themed to mark the celebration:

 

(a)   Visit of Lancashire Civic Heads, subject to any decision on the funding of the 2009/10 civic programme as part of the budget process

 

(b) A Mayor’s Ball/Charity Dinner.”

 

Members then voted as follows:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

That in order to mark the centenary of Lancaster Town Hall and the Ashton Memorial, arrangements be made for the following:

 

(1)               The Lancaster Fireworks Festival in November 2009 to be arranged around an Edwardian Theme, both during the day and in respect of the music in the evening, subject to the approval of the proposed Festival programme as part of the 2009/10 budget process

 

(2)               A Choral Concert in the Ashton Hall

 

(3)               That the Mayor for 2009/10 be requested to hold Mayoral ‘at homes’ in January 2010 to enable promotion of the Lancaster ‘at homes’ as replicating the open days held in January 1910 at no additional cost beyond that contained within the existing budget

 

(4)               The Mayor for 2009/10 be requested to consider holding the following events at a suitable time and appropriately themed to mark the celebration:

 

(b)   Visit of Lancashire Civic Heads, subject to any decision on the funding of the 2009/10 civic programme as part of the budget process

 

(b) A Mayor’s Ball/Charity Dinner.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Executive

Head of Democratic Services

 

Reason for making the decision:

 

The decision allows for a programme of events to mark the 100^th anniversary of  Lancaster Town Hall and the Ashton Memorial, within existing resources.

Report of the Chief Executive.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

The Chief Executive submitted a report at the request of Councillor Mace, seeking Cabinet’s views on pay inflation for 2009/10 and the application of Redeployment and Early Termination of Employment Policies. The Policies and the comments made by the North West Employers Organisation (NWEO) during its review of the Policies were attached to the report.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred options, were set out in the report as follows:

 

Pay Inflation

 

(a)        Option 1 – Take no further action.  The risk is that, at this stage, we do not know whether the National Agreement on pay inflation will match budget provision.  However, it is not possible at this stage to estimate the outcome of national pay inflation.

 

(b)       Option 2 – Adjust the amount included in the budget.  The City Council is already at the lower end of pay inflation assumptions, however, when compared with other authorities, and coupled with this, the Council is facing greater financial risks generally in terms of its budget proposals for next year, than has been the case in recent years.

 

(c)        Option 3 – Lobby National Employers to introduce a zero pay inflation increase across the Local Government workforce.

 

(d)        Option 4 – Begin negotiations to remove Lancaster City Council from the National Pay Agreement and instead agree an approach through local pay bargaining.  This is a complex process and it is not possible to identify timescales.  There is a high risk of industrial relations problems.

 

There is no specific preferred officer option, but Officers would not recommend Option 2, given the financial risks outlined above.  Furthermore, Officers would not recommend Option 4 as being realistic within the timescales required for setting the 2009/10 revenue budget. Clearly, whilst the financial and budgetary aspects of pay are a matter for Cabinet, the terms and conditions on which staff are employed are a matter for the Personnel Committee, and if options 3 or 4 were to be pursued, then Personnel Committee should be involved.

 

Voluntary Redundancy

 

(a)        Option 1- Offer voluntary redundancy as an approach to people in posts “affected”.

 

(b)        Option 2 – Offer voluntary redundancy to people in those Service areas “affected”.

 

(c)        Option 3 – Offer the opportunity to apply for voluntary redundancy to all post holders apart from those in areas already identified as priorities.  For example, refuse collection and street cleansing.

 

(d)        Option 4 – Offer the opportunity to apply for voluntary redundancy to all post holders.

 

The officer preferred options are 1 or 2.  These approaches fall within the scope of the Council’s Early Termination of Employment Policy, and represent least risk (including financial risk) to the Council, of all the options outlined.  On the other hand, options 3 or 4 would require a review of the general approach set out in the Policy, and this would need to be considered by Personnel Committee as part of any review of the Policy.

 

Review of HR Policies

 

To request Personnel Committee to review its Redeployment Policy and Early Termination of Employment Policy.  Officer comments on the work of the NWEO would be included in any report to Personnel Committee.  Furthermore, if voluntary redundancy requests were sought in line with any of the options outlined above, the timing of such actions would need careful consideration, in view of any Policy review.

 

The three separate issues of Pay Inflation, Voluntary Redundancy and Review of HR Policies, as set out in the report, were considered in turn.

 

Regarding Pay Inflation, it was moved by Councillor Bryning and seconded by Councillor Blamire:-

 

“(1)      That Option 1 as set out in the report, to take no further action regarding pay Inflation, be approved.”

 

By way of amendment, Councillor Mace proposed and Councillor Charles seconded adding to the motion:-

 

“(2)      That Option 3, as set out in the report, to Lobby National Employers to introduce a zero pay inflation increase across the Local Government workforce, be approved.”

 

Upon being put to the vote, 2 Members voted in favour of the amendment (Councillors Charles and Mace) and 7 Members voted against (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) whereupon the Chairman declared the amendment lost.

 

Members then voted as follows on the original proposition:-

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted against.)

 

(1)        That Option 1 as set out in the report, to take no further action regarding pay Inflation, be approved.

 

Regarding Voluntary Redundancy, Councillor Bryning proposed and Councillor Blamire seconded:-

 

 “(2)     That Option 2, as set out in the report, to offer voluntary redundancy to people in those service areas “affected” be approved.”

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) abstained.

 

(2)        That Option 2, as set out in the report, to offer voluntary redundancy to people in those service areas “affected” be approved.

 

Regarding Review of HR Policies, Councillor Bryning moved and Councillor Kerr seconded:-

 

“(3)      That Cabinet requests Personnel Committee to review its Redeployment and Early Termination of Employment Policy.”

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(3)        That Cabinet requests Personnel Committee to review its Redeployment and Early Termination of Employment Policy.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decisions:

 

Chief Executive

Head of Legal and Human Resources

 

Reasons for making the decisions:

 

The 2009/10 projected budget includes provision for an estimated 2% pay increase and the decision to take no further action regarding pay inflation means that this provision will remain in the budget. The decision regarding voluntary redundancy represents less financial risk to the Council that some of the other options presented in the report. The decision regarding HR Policies recommends a review of the Council’s Redeployment and Early Termination of Employment Policies following on from a recent desktop review by the North West Employers Organisation.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Burns)

 

Report of the Head of Democratic Services.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Burns)

 

The Head of Democratic Services submitted a report advising Cabinet of options for reducing expenditure on the Civic Programme in 2009/10.

 

The budgets for Civic Receptions and Mayoral Functions and for floral decorations at Civic Events were detailed in the report, with options for reducing expenditure. The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

 

Visit by Civic Heads of Lancashire

 

Option 1 –  not to hold the event at all, producing a saving of at least £500.  The content of the event is personal to each Mayor and the event in 2008 cost over £900 due to the requirement to hire a coach.

 

Option 2 -   to hold a small scale event based in Lancaster Town Hall comprising an afternoon reception with tea and coffee and a tour of the building.  This could be run on similar lines to the reception for overseas students held in 2008, tying in a tourism presentation to publicise the district.

 

Annual Council

 

Option 1 –  Not to hold a celebratory reception at the end of the Annual Council meeting.  This would produce a saving in excess of £3,000.

 

Option 2 –  To reduce the number of guests being invited to a reception on the same basis as in previous years, eg a three course lunch.  Reducing the number of invitees by half would produce a saving of over £1,500.  A separate report on the Lancaster Town Hall Centenary celebrations for 2009 has already identified that a reduction in the number of guests would produce a saving which could then be utilised to enhance the Heritage and Lancaster Unlocked weekends.

 

Option 3 – To set a total budget allocation for this event, say £1,000 or £2,000 and with the agreement of the Mayor choose a reduced level of catering, e.g  a buffet rather than a served meal.  Numbers would be invited according to the budget allocation.

 

Attendance at the Royal Garden Party in London

 

The City Council applies annually for the full allocation of four places to attend the Royal Garden Parties in London in July.  The City Council at present pays for a short break to London for the four guests, usually the Mayor and Mayoress/Consort and the Deputy Mayor and their Mayoress/Escort.  The cost of the break includes hotel accommodation and rail travel and in 2008 cost the City Council £683.03.  The Council then also covers the cost of food and travel (eg taxi fares) whilst in London, raising the cost of this to approximately £840.

 

Option 1 – that the City Council applies for the allocation of 4 tickets to enable attendance at the Royal Garden Party in London, but that the cost of attending is covered by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor from within their allocated Mayoral Allowances should they wish to attend.

 

Option 2 -   that the City Council does not apply for the allocation of tickets and is not represented at  the Royal Garden Party in London.

 

Floral Decorations

 

The budget for floral decorations, currently estimated at £2,300 for the 2009/2010 financial year could be deleted.  Limited floral decoration could be provided from the remaining Civic Receptions and Mayoral Functions budget allocation for specific events where required.

 

There is no officer preferred option.  Members need to understand however that this budget has been substantially reduced over the years and all events reviewed to ensure that they provide value for money.  It would not be possible to continue to provide the same level of events at reduced costs.  Savings can be made, but only by cutting a specific event or making major alterations to events.

 

It was moved by Councillor Blamire and seconded by Councillor Gilbert:-

 

“(1)      That the budget for floral decorations, currently estimated at £2,300 for the 2009/2010 financial year, be deleted.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)     That the budget for floral decorations, currently estimated at £2,300 for the 2009/2010 financial year, be deleted.

 

It was moved by Councillor Gilbert and seconded by Councillor Archer:-

 

“(2)      That the number of guests being invited to a reception on the same basis as in previous years, (eg a three course lunch) be reduced and that Elected Members and their guests be charged for their lunch.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(6 Members (Councillors Archer, Blamire, Bryning, Charles, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 3 Members (Councillors Barry, Fletcher and Mace) abstained.

 

(2)        That the number of guests being invited to a reception on the same basis as in previous years, (eg a three course lunch) be reduced and that Elected Members and their guests be charged for their lunch.

 

Councillor Blamire proposed and Councillor Barry seconded:

 

“(3)      That a budget of £8,400 be allocated to the Civic Programme for 2009/10 for the Mayor to prioritise.”

 

Members then voted as follows:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(3)        That a budget of £8,400 be allocated to the Civic Programme for 2009/10 for the Mayor to prioritise.

 

 

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decisions:

 

Chief Executive

Head of Democratic Services

 

Reasons for making the decisions:

 

The decisions allows savings to be made without reducing the Mayoral profile.

 

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.30pm and reconvened at 1.00pm.

Report of the Chief Executive.

The Chief Executive submitted a report asking Members to review Cabinet appointments to Outside Bodies, Partnerships and Boards following the appointment of a new Leader of the Council and the consequential changes to Cabinet portfolios.

 

The current appointments were set out in the report and it was noted that Councillors no longer sit on the Governing Body of Lancaster and Morecambe College Corporation or on Groundwork Trust, Lancashire West.

 

It was moved by Councillor Bryning and seconded by Councillor Blamire:-

 

“(1)      That the Cabinet appointments to outside bodies, as set out in the report, remain in place until the end of the 2008/9 municipal year.”

 

Members then voted as follows:-

 

Resolved:

 

(6 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Charles, Gilbert and Mace) voted in favour, 2 Members (Councillors Archer and Kerr) voted against and 1 Member (Councillor Fletcher) abstained.)

 

(1)        That the Cabinet appointments to outside bodies, as set out in the report, remain in place until the end of the 2008/9 municipal year.

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Executive

 

Reason for making the decision:

 

Representation on outside bodies is part of the City Council’s Community Leadership role. The most appropriate time to align appointments as closely as possible to individual Cabinet Member’s portfolios was considered to be the start of the new Municipal Year.

Report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration).

 

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report proposing a new corporate approach, including the establishment of a central, corporate team, for the management of programmes and external funding and project delivery.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:-

 

Option 1

The proposal is to create three new teams with specific responsibilities for (i) programme management and external funds, (ii) regeneration project delivery, and (iii) worklessness, with effect from 1^st April 2009.

(i)    Programme management and external funds

The proposal suggests a core, established team, which can provide the capacity guarantees that will be required and can deal with the level of work that is known at this time.  It assumes further development of close working relationships with other corporate services and an exchange of expertise with those services.  It specifically suggests the transfer of the Projects and Performance Officer into the team to ensure that the approach to project management (LAMP) is integrated with project monitoring and vice versa and also reinforce the link with performance monitoring for all projects.  In the case of other specific officers, where there are clear overlapping interests, it may be useful to arrange part-time secondments into the team to work jointly on key developments. This can be flexible and short term or ongoing, depending on the requirements.   The way in which the proposed new team works with existing services has been developed in consultation and is flexible, adaptable and focused on achieving results.

This approach also offers the opportunity to capture the Council’s contribution to the overall model and identify this as match funding, offering value for money to external funders whilst not incurring additional costs for the Council. 

The philosophy behind this approach is very much about enabling strong delivery and achievements, supported by good management and sound processes.  There is a very clear focus on end results and the presentation of the approach is centred on facilitation, improvement and cooperation.

(ii)   Regeneration Projects Team

With regards to the actual delivery of major projects, the Council currently has officers who operate out of several different services, and provides for a mixture of core funded staff on permanent contracts, and externally funded staff on temporary, short term contracts.

The proposal is to organise officers into a core team within Planning Services.  This would ensure that a consistent, corporate approach is taken to the delivery methodologies of all major projects.  It will also provide for a strong core team who can facilitate working up the detail of regeneration projects, and provide capacity for delivery, whilst at the same time ensuring full conformity with the LDF.  This team should also include two posts currently allocated into Strategic Housing, which deliver housing capital projects in the Poulton and West End renewal projects.  It is anticipated that this team would ensure a strong corporate direction is taken in delivering the requirements of the Council’s approved Local Development Framework document, and will provide strong strategic direction in the Council’s corporate regeneration agenda.

The proposal also provides to incorporate the City Council’s Strategic Housing Officer and associated support (currently in Health and Strategic Housing) into the ‘LDF’ planning team, which aligns the work currently being carried out on the sub-national review.

(iii)  Worklessness Team

A separate proposal is being made to continue the work of the Worklessness Team, and subject to an external funding bid to the LDLSP, it is anticipated that the team (currently within the West End delivery team) will work alongside the Council’s current business development unit.

Benefits

The proposal offers the Council a number of benefits including:

·                 Coordinated strategy development across the Council, clear presentation of objectives and priorities

·                 Maximised access to external funds

·                 Maximised delivery of benefits, outcomes, performance

·                 Efficiency and cost effectiveness – achieving more with existing resources

·                 Joint working to develop streamlined processes that avoids duplication and utilises key skills and experience

·                 Added value

·                 Raising quality and managing risk

·                 Revising quality of delivery of projects

·                 Ensure early tie in of major projects to the Council financial and legal obligations.

·                 Provides flexibility of having a strong core team (using external sources only when required)

Risks

·                 The proposals being put forward require a re‑grouping of some posts, and will also bring to an end the need for temporary posts.  The proposal is also subject to external funding being successful.

Financial Issues

(i)    Programmes Team

The structure provides that the City Council seeks to extend the temporary contract arrangement of officers, subject to future funding being made available from external funders.  Such posts are essential in ensuring that sufficient capacity is in place to submit further, substantial funding bids in future years.  It is anticipated that the NWDA bid will be made before March 2009 with negotiations already being carried out.  As an interim measure, funding will be needed to be allocated on a temporary 6 month basis to permit staff to remain in post, until the NWDA determine the application for funding. The total costs of the proposed restructure on a 6 month basis are approximately £267,300 (this includes existing Council funding of £158,800). The additional staff costs of £108,500 arising from an unsuccessful bid would be covered by the Project Management Reserve.

It should also be noted that, should funding not be forthcoming from the NWDA, then the City Council will need to serve statutory notice of termination of fixed term contract posts, which will have a financial cost to the City Council of approximately £55,400.

 (ii)  Regeneration Team

A revised delivery timescale for current and new projects in accordance with new proposals to be submitted to funders is not likely to come on line for at least two years.  In the meantime the Council continues to deliver a range of major high profile projects which rank the authority as a credible regeneration body.  These include Luneside East, The Bailrigg Science Park, and Townscape Heritage Initiative II at Morecambe.  At the present time it is envisaged that the existing core staff plus one additional post, will provide the sufficient capacity to manage this programme, work alongside the Local Development Framework Team to develop an Action Area Plan for Central Morecambe, and work up further projects in line with the Council Regeneration Programme.

Whilst there is a cost associated with providing any level of management service, this particular proposal is unusual in that it brings efficiencies in terms of existing Council resources as well as the potential to draw down a considerable contribution from external funding sources.  As such, it is unlikely to create additional costs overall.  It captures the current contribution of external funders to management costs which is considerable and has historically required only a very small contribution from the Council, allowing other resources to be focused on delivery. 

Where additional funding is offered to support delivery of projects, the Council will have the opportunity to consider costs and benefits of this alongside any funding contribution.  There is no automatic assumption that the Council will accept the Accountable Body role and Council decision making to determine this will be supported by internal appraisal and risk assessment in the normal way.

There will, inevitably, be a cost of terminating contracts, and these will need to be assessed, and, as detailed, there is a requirement to funding an initial 6 month period or less, subject to the NWDA making a decision on funding. 

(iii)               Worklessness Team

 

As detailed previously, a bid is being made into the LDLSP to continue the work of this team.  In the meantime, Lancashire County Council has agreed to provisionally extend its current contract with the City Council with regards the Supporting People programme.  This will effectively leave an initial gap in funding for the team of £29,300 for a 12 month period.  Cabinet are therefore requested to support this 12 month gap funding through the Project Implementation Reserve.

 

It should also be noted that, should funding not be forthcoming from the LDLSP or Lancashire County Council, then the City Council will need to serve statutory notice of termination of fixed term contracts, which will have a financial cost to the City Council of approximately £35,000.

Legal Issues

Members will be aware that the current fixed term contract posts covered by these proposals are all on notice to terminate from 31^st March 2009.  Should Cabinet approve recommendation Option 1 in extending the posts relating to this report for 6 months, then this will be carried out as an extension to the existing fixed term contracts.  If funding is not available, Lancaster City Council will need to find sufficient funding for termination of these contracts.

With all the proposed posts in the new structure, subject to funding approval, it is recommended that they are all made “permanent”, despite only 3 years funding possibly being available.  The justification for this is that currently the City Council pays a “premium” on many fixed term contract posts, because, by their very nature, officers are usually happy to accept uncertainty about their permanent employment and take a larger salary to compensate.  The law provides that any employee exceeding 2 years employment has the right to receive statutory redundancy payments on termination, which effectively means that the City Council is currently paying “redundancy costs” to all staff to which temporary contracts are being terminated at a higher level than had the post been permanent.

On all the posts identified in the report, the salary quoted is existing salary and will be subject to any amendment as a result of the City Council’s Job Evaluation process.

Option 2

The City Council does not progress the proposed structure.

Risk

The City Council would find it more difficult to provide a coordinated approach to the Programmes and Regeneration teams.  It would not be in the best position to bid for further regeneration funds from NWDA and HCA, and as such, the Council’s priority on regeneration may be affected.

The Council currently has contractual programme and project agreements with funders.  Not having appropriate arrangements in place to manage this will significantly raise the risk of any clawback of external funds.

Benefits

There are few benefits in remaining with existing structures, particularly as the sub-national review of economic regeneration is progressing the consequence of this, as detailed in ‘Risk’, in that the City Council will have to have strong government structures in place to deal with rapidly changing agendas.

The officer preferred option is Option 1.

 

It was moved by Councillor Bryning and seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

 

 “1.   That Cabinet approves the re-structure of existing staff resource to create three new sections; (i) the external funding/programmes team, (ii) the regeneration Project Delivery Team, (iii) the Worklessness Team, and agree the budgetary provision identified in the report. 

 

2.       That Cabinet approves the proposal to integrate Housing Strategy into the Local Development Framework (LDF) Team with Planning.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted against.)

 

1.       That Cabinet approves the re-structure of existing staff resource to create three new sections; (i) the external funding/programmes team, (ii) the regeneration Project Delivery Team, (iii) the Worklessness Team, and agree the budgetary provision identified in the report. 

 

2.       That Cabinet approves the proposal to integrate Housing Strategy into the Local Development Framework (LDF) Team with Planning.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decisions:

 

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

 

Reasons for making the decisions:

 

External funding, which has in recent years been closely guarded by regional agencies, now looks set to be delegated down to local areas that meet certain conditions. Lancaster District is very well placed to achieve this but will be required to guarantee its management capacity and capability. This decision has been made to meet this need and deliver additional benefits to the Council in terms of corporate management, efficiencies and added value.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Fletcher)

 

Report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration) to follow.

 

 

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Fletcher)

 

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report asking Members to consider savings options in respect of Salt Ayre Sports Centre and the three community swimming pools in Carnforth, Heysham and Hornby. The report was in two parts; the first dealt with Salt Ayre Sports Centre (SASC) and the second with the proposals regarding savings in respect of the three community swimming pools in Carnforth, Heysham and Hornby.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment for SASC, were set out in the report as follows:

 

Option 1

 

Officers enter into early negotiations with CAPITA regarding the facilities management issues and seek to address where, and if possible, savings that can be made.

 

Operational Risk

Financial Risk

Legal Risk

Benefits

In re-allocating the facilities management function, care needs to be taken that the building operates in accordance with the Service needs and a strong Service Level Agreement will need to be in place.

 

 

Clarity around fixed cost budgets should provide clarity around monitoring of budgets and future financial management.

 

It would also mitigate future increasing costs such as utilities.

The City Council has substantial health and safety, and corporate liabilities.  A more focussed approach to facilities management should reduce the risk associated with this area.

The City Council is currently setting itself challenging targets following recommendations made in the recent Carbon Trust report and a more proactive approach to facilities Management will assist this. 

 

Mitigate increasing unknown costs associated with utilities.

 

Option 2

 

Cabinet resolve to request a financial saving of 10%, which equates to £119,000 from the Service Delivery budgets, and request that a further report be brought back to Cabinet advising which areas of Service delivery have been affected by the proposal.

 

Operational Risk

Financial Risk

Legal Risk

Benefits

Any cut in service costs will have an issue on the level of service provided.  Officers will need to carry out a full options analysis and consultation process to identify where a revised capped budget can best achieve maximum service delivery, whilst minimising any effect on income.

The above option will include the opportunity for officers to consider the possible closure of the SASC for 1 or 2 days.

 

Providing a set budget will provide clarity around monitoring of budgets and future financial management.

 

 

The service provision is discretionary.  However, there may be employment and other contractual arrangements in place, which may be affected by redefining the services.  However, these will be addressed as part of the options analysis that officers will undertake.

Setting a revised fixed budget will offer up the necessary contribution to the 2009/10 Budget Process, and by allowing officers the flexibility and time to carry out a full options appraisal on future services delivery, will ensure that minimum service disruption within budget is achieved.

 

Option 3

 

With regard to the revenue income (£956,600), Cabinet request officers look to explore possibilities of increasing additional income generation, and maximise such income, bearing in mind possible service delivery cuts, should Option 2 also be taken.

 

Operational Risk

Financial Risk

Legal Risk

Benefits

Should the service savings be taken under Option 2, this may affect the capability of increasing income.

 

For a number of years, Cultural Services have adopted a ‘market pricing policy’ which subsidises targeted users via the Passport to Leisure scheme (PTL).  If these are to be reviewed, this may have an impact on disadvantaged groups.

 

Any increase in income fees that are sustainable can only be a financial benefit to the City Council. 

 

Care must be taken not to exceed the fees of any competitive market as this could cause a reduction in use and therefore income.

There is no legal risk as fees are entirely at the City Council’s discretion.

Increased income can have a direct knock on effect of increasing service delivery as in theory more budgets could be made available to improve future service delivery.

 

The issues of service delivery and the cost of delivering services are cyclical.

 

Option 4

 

To retain existing budgets and service provision within SASC and not take any savings from the service.

 

Operational Risk

Financial Risk

Legal Risk

Benefits

There are no operational risks

There would be no contribution from SASC towards the City Council’s challenging financial position, and the cost is likely to increase as a result of additional utility costs.

There is no legal risk as the service is discretionary.

Cultural Services contributes to 3 out of 4 of Lancaster City Council’s corporate objectives, and delivers against 6 out of 7 of the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) priority themes.  The work undertaken by, and with, the district’s sports organisations contribute to the City Council’s service priorities as well as local and national indicators.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment for the community swimming pools were set out in the report as follows:

 

Option 1

 

Cabinet resolve to serve notice on Lancashire County Council to terminate its current agreements with regards to the community swimming pools, with effect from 31 March 2010, and officers provide support over the next 12 months in assisting users to seek alternative venues.

 

Operational Risk

Financial Risk

Legal Risk

Benefits

The City Council currently only operate the facilities due to the fact that Lancashire County Council withdrew its service provision.  Closure of the pools would clearly have an impact on community provision but it would be hoped that these could be picked up within the other private/public facilities available (including SASC).

The Council would make significant cost savings.  It would also mitigate future increasing costs such as utilities.

The cost of redundancies will need to be addressed.

 

 

The City Council would need to ensure that it terminates the contracts in accordance with the Legal Agreement in place.

 

The Council has no statutory requirement to make provision for community, or educational, swimming.

Substantial budgetary savings without impacting on statutory service provision.

 

Mitigate increasing unknown costs associated with utilities.

 

Option 2

 

Continue with existing Agreement.

 

Operational Risk

Financial Risk

Legal Risk

Benefits

The City Council currently only operates the facilities due to the fact that Lancashire County Council withdrew its service provision.  Closure of the pools would clearly have an impact on community provision but it would be hoped that these could be picked up within the other private/public facilities available (including SASC).

The cost of operating the pools would still have to be met by the Council.  In addition, this cost may increase if the current increased energy costs continue into future years.

The Council has no statutory requirement to make provision for community, or educational, swimming.

 

 

The officer preferred option for the community swimming pools is option 1.

           

It was moved by Councillor Fletcher and seconded by Councillor Gilbert:-

 

“That, regarding Salt Ayre Sports Centre:-

 

(1)        That Options 1, 2 and 3 for savings at Salt Ayre Sports Centre, as set out in the report, be approved.”

 

By way of amendment, which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, Councillor Barry proposed:-

 

“(2)      That energy savings be as high as possible within the £119,000 savings.”

 

Members then voted as follows:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(Councillor Archer was not present when the vote was taken.)

 

That, regarding Salt Ayre Sports Centre:-

 

(1)        Officers enter into early negotiations with CAPITA regarding the facilities management issues and seek to address where, and if possible, savings that can be made.

 

(2)        Cabinet resolve to request a financial saving of 10% per year, which equates to £119,000 from the Service Delivery budgets, and request that a further report be brought back to Cabinet advising which areas of Service delivery have been affected by the proposal.

 

(3)               That energy savings be as high as possible within the £119,000 savings.

 

(4)               With regard to the revenue income (£956,600), Cabinet request officers look to explore possibilities of increasing additional income generation, and maximise such income, bearing in mind possible service delivery cuts.

 

Regarding the Community Pools, it was moved by Councillor Fletcher and seconded by Councillor Mace:-

 

“(5)      That, in recognition of the value of the 3 Community Pools, they are retained. In light of increasing energy costs, the 3 pools are involved in the facilities management review in order to achieve year on year reductions in energy costs.”

 

By way of amendment, which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the proposer and seconder of the original motion, Councillor Gilbert proposed:-

 

 “(6)     That officers investigate raising charges to service users.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(5)               That, in recognition of the value of the 3 Community Pools, they are retained. In light of increasing energy costs, the 3 pools are involved in the facilities management review in order to achieve year on year reductions in energy costs

 

(6)        That officers investigate raising charges to service users.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decisions:

 

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Head of Cultural Services

 

Reasons for making the decisions:

 

The decisions allow the Council to make ongoing savings and achieve value for money.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

 

Report of the Corporate Director (Community Services).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

 

The Corporate Director (Community Services) submitted a report informing Members about the options for the future of the Council’s Memorial Safety Programme, as requested by Cabinet at its meeting on 20^th January 2009.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

 

 

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Risk Assessment

Financial

1

To make the Memorial Safety Team (reduced to 2 posts), full time.

Retains expertise to allow:

§      Implementation of rolling testing programme.

§      Ability to repair unsafe and vandalised memorials.

§      Ability to monitor work of private masons to ensure future compliance with standards.

§      Provide the necessary operational resources to deliver essential services required at the time of burial.

§      To carry out permanent repair to previously staked and banded memorials.

§      Provides extra resilience for business continuity in the event of a major incident.

 

§      Ongoing revenue costs as outlined in financial implications section.

§      One post made redundant

§      Noticeable reduction in GM standards, especially grass cutting.

 

Ensures Council is complying with legal responsibilities and cemeteries good management.

§      2-man team including equipment, tools and vehicle approximately £55k/year.

§      In 2009/2010 up to £6,000 redundancy costs required

§      In 2010/2011 onwards memorial safety programme would be fully funded from within existing cemeteries grounds maintenance budgets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Risk Assessment

Financial

2

Laying flat memorials.

§      Cost saving on materials that would be used to make a permanent repair.

§      Would interfere with grass cutting operation leading to increased costs.

§      Would affect neat and tidy appearance of lawn sections leading to increased complaints.

§      Increased officer time in dealing with complaints and distress caused to relatives and public by laying flat large numbers of headstones.

 

§      Large scale laying down of memorials may be deemed to be maladministration should a complaint be made to the Ombudsman.

§      Potential trip and slip hazard.

§      Potential for damage to headstone by grass cutting operation.

§      Could lead to bad PR for Service and Council.

§      By not carrying out a repair, approximate annual saving would be £3,000 on materials.

 

 

 

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Risk Assessment

Financial

3

Carry out a repair to staked and banded memorials to ensure compliance with NAMM standards.

§      Makes memorial safe.

§      Preserves lawn section layout and allows for cost effective grass cutting and maintenance.

§      Increased material costs when compared with laying flat.

 

§      Reduces risk of accidents and potential litigation.

§      Cost in materials for in-house repair is £20/memorial.

§      Costs can be met from within the allocated running costs budget of £3,500 for 2009/2010.

§      Cost of repair will be recouped from relatives should contact be made with them in the future.

 

Option 1 is recommended for approval on the basis that it enables the Council to meet its responsibilities for Memorial Safety in a cost effective way which can be delivered operationally.

 

Option 3 (refixing memorials in place) is the recommended option for effecting a permanent solution which reflects recently published guidance and best practice.

 

It was moved by Councillor Kerr and seconded by Councillor Mace:-

 

“(1)      That the two person Memorial Safety Team be retained

 

(2)               That the preferred method of making memorials permanently safe is to re-fix headstones in place rather than lay down.”

 

Members then voted as follows:-

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Blamire, Bryning, Charles, Gilbert, Kerr and Mace) voted in favour and 2 Members abstained (Councillors Barry and Fletcher.)

 

(1)         That the two person Memorial Safety Team be retained

 

(2)         That the preferred method of making memorials permanently safe is to re-fix headstones in place rather than lay down.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decisions:

 

Corporate Director (Community Services)

Head of City Council (Direct) Services

 

Reasons for making the decisions:

 

Expertise will be kept within the Memorial Safety Team. Repairing memorials has more advantages and less disadvantages than laying memorial flat.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

 

Report of the Corporate Director (Community Services).

 

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

 

The Corporate Director (Community Services) submitted a report providing Cabinet with options for service reduction in the area of grounds maintenance.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

 

The options are as follows-

 

Option

Description

 

Pros

Cons

1

Maintain current levels of service provision.

·         Targets for LAA and corporate plan assume current levels of service.

·         Will maintain the current level of cleanliness of streets and public spaces.

·         Does not generate any savings for 2009/2010 budget.

2

Reduce current levels of service provision through selection of some of or all of the sub- options set out below.

·         Generates savings for 2009/2010 budget

·         The options have been designed to be realistic and can be immediately implemented.

·         The options have been designed so that they do not impact on the District’s parks.

·         Savings will be very visible

·         Will generate ongoing complaints from residents / visitors / users.

·         Likely to have negative impact on corporate plan priority outcomes and targets in LAA

 

The sub- options for option 2 are as follows-

 

Sub - option

Description and officer comments

Saving per annum

2a

Cease over marking of football pitches- currently pitches are over marked 15 times per season. They would be marked only once at the beginning of the season.

Users of the pitches will consider this is something they contribute to via pitch fees.

£3,100

2b

Turf over 33 of the 37 flower beds in Harbour garden area of Morecambe promenade- regeneration work is taking place in the adjoining area. The flower beds are in need of some redesign.

£6,800

2c

Turf over all flower beds in the sunken gardens at Morecambe Town Hall- the flower beds are a long standing and popular feature. They are not visible from the main road.

£3,300

2d

Turf over all 4 flower beds in the oval gardens in Dalton Square- the flower beds are a long standing and popular feature.

£1,800

2e

Reduce the playground improvement revenue budget by 50%- this budget is used to repair/ replace broken playground equipment throughout the year. If the budget was reduced the remaining amount would be spent on a priority basis (using playground priority list). Equipment in playgrounds lower down in the priority list would be removed once damaged / broken.

£18,100

2f

Reduce number of grave plots that are mown on a regular basis in Lancaster cemetery- currently all areas are mown 16 times per year. If the budget was approximately 50% of the plots would only be mown once per year.

 

£8,900

2g

Reduce frequency of mowing on Broadway Bridge bankings to once per year- currently these bankings are cut 16 times per year. The area would be included on a more frequent litter picking schedule if this option was selected.

£4,700

 

The officer preferred option is option 2 with the exception of 2a.

 

It was moved by Councillor Barry and seconded by Councillor Fletcher:-

 

“(1)      That, from the list of savings described in 2a-2g of the report, only 2f (reduction in mowing at Lancaster Cemetery) and 2g (Reduce frequency of mowing on Broadway Bridge bankings to once per year) are taken through as budgetary savings.”

 

Members then voted as follows:-

 

Resolved:

 

(6 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher and Gilbert) voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted against.)

 

(Councillor Kerr was not present when the vote was taken.)

 

(1)        That, from the list of savings described 2a-2g of the report only 2f (reduction in mowing at Lancaster Cemetery) and 2g (Reduce frequency of mowing on Broadway Bridge bankings to once per year) are taken through as budgetary savings.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Corporate Director (Community Services)

Head of City Council (Direct) Services

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The decision can be quickly implemented and generate savings.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

Report of Head of Financial Services.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

The Head of Financial Services submitted a report setting out the position regarding the 2009/10 to 2011/12 Treasury Management Strategy for Cabinet’s approval.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

 

As part of the adoption of the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management it is a statutory requirement that the authority has a Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy.  In this regard, Cabinet may put forward alternative proposals or amendments to the proposed documents, but these would have to be considered in light of legislative, professional and economic factors.  As such, no further options analysis is available at this time.

 

Furthermore, the Strategies must fit with other aspects of Cabinet’s budget proposals, such as investment interest estimates and underlying prudential borrowing assumptions, feeding into Prudential Indicators.  It should be noted that the Prudential Indicators will also be covered in the Budget report, elsewhere on this agenda.

 

The officer preferred option and justification:

 

To approve the annual Treasury Management Strategy Statement as set out, including the Investment Strategy, for referral on to Council, but as updated for Cabinet’s final budget proposals.

 

It was moved by Councillor Bryning and seconded by Councillor Barry:-

 

“(1)      That Cabinet approves the Treasury Management Strategy for the period 2009/10 to 2011/12, including the Investment Strategy, and as updated for Cabinet’s final budget proposals, for subsequent referral to Council.”

 

Members then voted as follows:-

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) abstained.)

 

(1)     That Cabinet approves the Treasury Management Strategy for the period 2009/10 to 2011/12, including the Investment Strategy, and as updated for Cabinet’s final budget proposals, for subsequent referral to Council.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance)

Head of Financial Services

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

As part of the adoption of the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management it is a statutory requirement that the authority has a Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

Joint report of the Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) and Head of Financial Services to follow.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) and the Head of Financial Services submitted a joint report informing members of the latest position following Council’s consideration of the Budget and Policy Framework at its meeting held on 4^th February, to make recommendations back to Council in order to complete the budget setting process for 2009/10.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

 

Cabinet are now requested to finalise their preferred revenue budget and capital programme proposals for referral on to Council, using the latest information as set out in this report.

           

Corporate Plan and Policy Framework

 

This is for noting only and therefore no options have been put forward.

 

Funding Assumptions and Achieving a Balanced Capital Programme

The broad options for achieving a balanced programme are set out below and are very much dependent on Members’ views on spending priorities.  As such, a full options appraisal and risk assessment cannot be completed until budget proposals are known in more detail.  That said, the basic options for achieving savings include:

 

-            removing schemes from the draft programme, taking account of service needs and priorities;

-            reducing proposed net expenditure on schemes, where possible;

-            generating additional capital resources (e.g. receipts, direct revenue financing or borrowing), within affordable limits;

-            deferring projects into later years – although this would not help with the overall five-year programme unless schemes were deferred until after 2013/14.

 

Should surplus resources be available, these could be used:

 

–         to repay borrowing, or to reduce the call on the revenue budget;

–         to fund new capital schemes;

–         to make provision for other anticipated liabilities.

 

As referred to in earlier reports, setting a balanced capital programme is an iterative process, essentially balancing service delivery impact and aspirations against what the Council can (and is prepared to) afford.  The programme attached represents the outcome of the work undertaken to date.

In deciding the way forward, Cabinet is asked also to take into account the relevant basic principles of the Prudential Code, which are:

 

-          that the capital investment plans of local authorities are affordable, prudent and sustainable, and

-          that local strategic planning, asset management planning and proper options appraisal are supported.

 

Revenue Budget

 

As Council have now determined the City Council Tax Rate for 2009/10, there are no options to change the total net revenue budget for next year (recommended at £23.999M) but Cabinet now needs to put forward detailed budget proposals that add back to that amount.  Detailed options would be dependent very much on Members’ views on spending priorities and as such, a full options analysis could only be undertaken once any alternative proposals are known and it should be noted that Officers may require more time in order to do this.  The Head of Financial Services (as s151 Officer) would advise as strongly as possible that emphasis should be very much on achieving recurring reductions to the revenue budget, and avoiding any “unidentified” savings targets that undermine the robustness of the budget and financial planning arrangements generally.

 

With regard to the use of surplus balances, Cabinet could put forward alternative arrangements with regard to the £191K available, but this would result in the need to make other budget savings.

 

Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS)

 

In terms of target Council Tax increases for future years and Government’s position on capping, it is felt that there is little scope for increasing the target above 4%, as Government has made it very clear about expecting increases to be substantially below 5%.  In considering any lower target, Members should have regard to the impact on service delivery, the need (and capacity) to make savings, or to provide for growth, and the impact on subsequent years.

 

Officer Preferred Option and Comments

 

The recommendations as set out in the report are in line with Officer recommendations.

 

Recommendations put forward by Cabinet should fit with any external constraints and the budgetary framework already approved (i.e. establishing a balanced, affordable capital programme, approving a budget level to tie in with a 4% increase in Council Tax and the Government’s stance regarding capping).  The recommendations as set out meet these requirements; the detailed supporting budget proposals are then a matter for Members.

 

Members firstly considered the General Fund Capital Programme and the Corporate Plan.

 

It was moved by Councillor Bryning and seconded by Councillor Gilbert:-

 

“That recommendations 2-7, as set out in the report, be approved.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(5 Members (Councillors Archer, Blamire, Bryning, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour, 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted against and 2 members (Councillors Barry and Fletcher) abstained.)

 

(1)               That Cabinet notes the actions of the Head of Financial Services with regard to the funding of asset acquisitions as outlined in section 3.1 of the report.

 

(2)               That Cabinet approves the current year’s revised General Fund Capital Programme as set out at Appendix B (as amended for items elsewhere on the agenda), for referral on to Council.

 

(3)               That Cabinet approves the draft Capital Investment Priorities for 2009/10 onwards, as set out at Appendix C.

 

(4)               That Cabinet approves the five-year draft Capital Programme from 2009/10 onwards as set out at Appendix B (as amended for items elsewhere on the agenda), together with the supporting principles and information as set out in section 3 of the report, and refers the resulting 5-year Programme on to Council, for final approval.

 

(5)               That the associated Prudential Indicators at Appendix D be updated in line with (4) above, and be referred on to Council for approval.

 

(6)               That the existing Capital Investment Strategy be updated in line with (3) and (4) above, for referral on to Council.

 

Members were provided with the current draft of the Corporate Plan and were reminded that Council approved the Plan at its meeting on 4^th February 2009, and asked that the remained outstanding sections of the Plan be completed and referred to the Council’s Business Committee for further consideration prior to Council formally signing off the Plan.

 

Councillor Bryning moved and Councillor Barry seconded:-

 

“That Cabinet notes the latest position regarding the Corporate Plan.”

 

Members then voted as follows:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(7)               That Cabinet notes the latest position regarding the Corporate Plan.

 

The meeting adjourned for a comfort break at 2.30pm and reconvened at 2.40pm.

 

Cabinet then considered the General Fund Budget.

 

(The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) declared an interest with regard to the part of the report relating to Williamson Park, in view of his role as Secretary to the Williamson Park Board of Directors).

 

Councillor Fletcher proposed and Councillor Kerr seconded:-

 

“(8)      That Cabinet recommends that £12,700 of the Every Child Matters reserve of £22,700 be retained, thereby offering up £10,000”.

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(5 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour, 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted against and 2 members (Councillors Archer and Bryning) abstained.)

 

(8)        That Cabinet recommends that £12,700 of the Every Child Matters reserve of £22,700 be retained, thereby offering up £10,000.

 

Councillor Bryning moved and Councillor Blamire seconded:-

 

“(9)      That Cabinet notes the position regarding estimated Collection Fund balances.

 

(10)      That Cabinet approves the reassessment of reserves as set out in section 5 of the report (as amended by Resolution 8 above), and notes that the full policy on provisions and reserves, as updated, will be reported into Council in support of Cabinet’s budget proposals.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(9)        That Cabinet notes the position regarding estimated Collection Fund balances.

 

(10)      That Cabinet approves the reassessment of reserves as set out in section 5 of the report (as amended by Resolution 8 above), and notes that the full policy on provisions and reserves, as updated, will be reported into Council in support of Cabinet’s budget proposals.

 

Members then looked, item by item, at the information in Appendix G to the report, relating to Provisional Savings and Growth.

 

Councillor Blamire proposed and Councillor Mace seconded:-

 

“(11)    That Cabinet recommends the reduction to Cemeteries Grounds Maintenance of £8,800 in 2009/10; £8,900 in 20010/11 and £9,000 in 2011/12, as set out in Appendix G to the report”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(4 Members (Councillors Blamire, Bryning, Charles and Mace) voted in favour, 1 Member (Councillor Kerr) voted against and 4 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Fletcher and Gilbert) abstained.)

 

(11)      That Cabinet recommends the reduction to Cemeteries Grounds Maintenance of £8,800 in 2009/10; £8,900 in 20010/11 and £9,000 in 2011/12, as set out in Appendix G to the report.

 

Regarding Community Transport and the introduction of a flat fee, Councillor Mace proposed and Councillor Charles seconded:-

 

“(12)    That Cabinet recommends that a cap on the budget should not be introduced for this service.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(4 Members (Councillors Barry, Charles, Gilbert and Mace) voted in favour and 5 Members (Councillors Archer, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher and Kerr) abstained.)

 

(12)      That Cabinet recommends that a cap on the budget should not be introduced for this service.

 

Councillor Barry proposed and Councillor Gilbert seconded:-

 

“(13)    That Cabinet requests a further report on the Community Transport service level agreement.”

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted against.)

 

(13)      That Cabinet requests a further report on the Community Transport service level agreement.

 

Members then went on to consider Financial Support to External Organisations (Minute 151 refers) before returning to Provisional Savings and Growth.

 

Councillor Bryning proposed and Councillor Barry seconded:-

 

(14)           That Council be recommended to approve the General Fund Revenue Budget at £23.999M for 2009/10, excluding parish precepts.

 

(15)           That, after consideration of provisional savings and growth within the table in Appendix G to the report, Cabinet makes the following recommendations regarding a balanced revenue budget for 2009/10, for referral on to Council:

 

·         reductions in support to outside bodies as detailed in Minute 151,

·         adjustments to the figures for Public Toilets and Grounds Maintenance (Minutes 140 and 148 refer)

·         removal of proposed savings on Community Pools, the Dog Warden service and Special Responsibility Allowances for Group Leaders and Administrators

·         removal of both the Legal and HR provisional growth items for voluntary registration with the Land Registry and increased Occupational Health advice.

 

The revised table of provisional savings and growth is attached as an Appendix to these minutes.

 

(16)           That the existing Medium Term Financial Strategy be updated in line with Cabinet’s budget proposals, for consideration by Council.

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted against.)

 

(14)      That Council be recommended to approve the General Fund Revenue Budget at £23.999M for 2009/10, excluding parish precepts.

 

(15)      That, after consideration of provisional savings and growth within the table in Appendix G to the report, Cabinet makes the following recommendations regarding a balanced revenue budget for 2009/10, for referral on to Council:

 

·         reductions in support to outside bodies as detailed in Minute 151,

·         adjustments to the figures for Public Toilets and Grounds Maintenance (Minutes 140 and 148 refer)

·         removal of proposed savings on Community Pools, the Dog Warden service and Special Responsibility Allowances for Group Leaders and Administrators

·         removal of both the Legal and HR provisional growth items for voluntary registration with the Land Registry and increased Occupational Health advice.

 

The revised table of provisional savings and growth is attached as an Appendix to these minutes.

 

16.              That the existing Medium Term Financial Strategy be updated in line with Cabinet’s budget proposals, for consideration by Council.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance)

Head of Financial Services

 

Reasons for making the decisions:

 

The decisions enable Cabinet to make recommendations back to Council in order to complete the budget setting process for 2009/10. The report outlined the actions required to complete the budget setting process for 2009/10 and to set the financial planning framework for future years.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

Report of the Chief Executive to follow.

 

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

The Chief Executive submitted a report asking Members to consider the future level of funding to those external organisations set out in the report, to approve the recommendations listed in the table below, and to make additional recommendations where required.

 

 

Name of Organisation

Grant £

Recommendation

Savings for 2009/10

1

Age Concern, Lancashire

3,800

(no inflation)

This is match funded by the County Council. Recommended - no reduction.

 

2

CAB Lancaster

87,300 +

£7,200 rent

(no inflation)

Consider options to reduce total support to CAB’s by between £20 - 50,000

 

3

CAB Morecambe

88,300

(no inflation)

“          “             “            “          “

 

4

CVS

18,900

(including inflation)

Joint agreement with County Council.

 

No recommendation to date.

 

5

One Voice

6,000

(no inflation)

This organisation, similar to Thumbprint below, operates out of the Cornerstones in Lancaster and provides advice and support to the disabled.

No recommendation to date.

 

6

Lune Valley Transport

(Dial a Bus)

3,300

(no inflation)

Continue with grant following consideration at Cabinet on 20^th January, 2009

 

7

Relate

6,800 rent (no inflation)

No recommendation to date

 

8

Rainbow Centre

2,500

(no inflation)

Joint agreement with the County Council.

Recommended – no reduction.

 

9

Samaritans

1,500

(no inflation)

Recommended – no reduction

 

10

Shopmobility (Preston Community Transport)

12,900

(including inflation)

Operates mobility scooters for hire one day per week in Lancaster and Morecambe.

 

No recommendation to date

 

11

Thumbprint

4,000

(no inflation)

See One Voice at 5 above.

No recommendation to date.

 

12

Twinning Association

(includes grant of 4,100 and sundry expenses)

6,300

(including inflation)

The service level agreement requires the Twinning Association to ’assist in the organisation of cultural, sporting, socio-economic and educational exchanges, between Lancaster and its official and associated twin towns of a non-Civic nature’ and ‘to strengthen links between Lancaster and its official and associated twin towns.’

Whilst it could be argued that following the decision of Council to cancel the Youth Games for 2009 this would assist in maintaining relationships with our twin towns, the anticipated hosting of guests and assisting in arrangements for the Games in Lancaster will not now be necessary and anticipated expenditure will be reduced. Recommend withdraw funding for 2009/10 (in line with decision not to host the Youth Games in 2009).

 

6,300

13

Victim Support

5,000

(no inflation)

No recommendation to date.

 

 

 

   =======

 

======

 

Sub Total

253,800

 

6,300

 

 

 

 

 

1

Miscellaneous Grants

7,500 (including inflation

Recommend - discontinue funding

7,500

2

Welfare Grants

4,100

This is a net figure and is match funded by the County Council but has been reduced in line with previous years spending patterns. Recommended - no further reduction.

2,600

 

 

=======

 

========

 

Sub Total

11,600

 

10,100

 

CULTURAL SERVICES

 

 

Name of Organisation

Grant £

 

Recommendation

Savings for

2009/10

1

Dukes Playhouse

167,800

Options requested for reduction up to £75,000

 

2

Friends of the Storey Institute

35,000

Recommended - no reduction

 

3

Groundwork Trust

18,500

Agreement already terminated – adjusted in base budget.

 

4

Ludus

29,900

Recommended - reduce grant

10,000

5

Morecambe Music Residency

11,400

Recommended - reduce grant

  5,000

6

Lancaster Lit Fest

9,100

SLA linked to the Storey Institute

Recommended – no reduction

 

7

Community Projects

10,800

Recommended discontinue funding

10,800

 

 

======

 

 

 

Sub Total

282,500

 

25,800

 

PLANNING SERVICES

 

 

Name of Organisation

 

Grant £

Recommendation

Savings

1

Heysham Heritage Centre

5,100

Officer Recommendation - Discontinue grant

5,100

2

Countryside Projects

9,600

Recommended - no reduction

 

3

Arnside & Silverdale AONB

13,900

Recommended - no reduction

 

4

Forest of Bowland AONB

7,000

Recommended - no reduction

 

 

 

======

 

======

 

Sub Total

35,600

 

5,100

 

 

HEALTH & STRATEGIC HOUSING

 

 

Name of Organisation

Grant £

 

Recommendation

Savings

1

Signposts

 

 

 

 

 

 95,300

 

 

 

Following the development of the Homelessness Strategy 2008-2013, the City Council resolved to put contracts with voluntary organisations out to tender to target the money much more closely on the priorities identified in the Homelessness Strategy. It is anticipated that greater value for money will be gained by one contract as opposed to the six current SLA's.  The 3 year contract to 31.3.2012 has just been awarded to YMCA/Signposts. These are the savings are as a result of this approach.

6,700

2

Portland Street Night Shelter

3

L/C Homeless Action Service

4

M/C Homeless Action Service

5

Women’s Aid

6

YMCA

 

 

======

 

 

 

Sub Total

95,300

 

6,700

 

 

 

Total of Support

2008/09

678,800

 

54,000

 

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment, was set out in the report:-

 

The risk in any grant reduction will be born by the individual organisations.  However, Members should be aware that some of these organisations contribute to the aims of the Sustainable Community Strategy. Officer comments are included in the tables above where appropriate.

 

Where Service Level Agreements exist, Members should be aware that any reduction in funding will result in a re-negotiation of the level of service to be provided.

 

Proposals to amend the level of funding to organisations were considered, and voted on, in turn:-

 

(Councillor Charles declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item as far at it related to the CAB, in view of her role as a member of the CAB. It was noted that Councillor Gilbert had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item as far at it related to the CAB, in view of his role as a member of the CAB. Both Councillors left the meeting prior to consideration of matters in the report relating to their interest).

 

Regarding the CAB grant, it was moved by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Archer:-

 

“(1)      That Cabinet recommends that support for the management of the two CABs be reduced by £20,000 for 2009/10 onwards in total (£10,000 reduction for each CAB).”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(5 Members (Councillors Archer, Blamire, Bryning, Kerr and Mace) voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Barry and Fletcher) voted against).

 

(1)        That Cabinet recommends that support for the management of the two CABs be reduced by £20,000 for 2009/10 onwards in total (£10,000 reduction for each CAB).

 

(Councillors Charles and Gilbert returned to the meeting.)

 

Regarding the grant to the CVS, it was moved by Councillor Blamire and seconded by Councillor Archer:-

 

“(2)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the CVS be reduced by £3,900 to £15,000 for 2009/10 onwards”

 

By way of amendment, Councillor Charles proposed and Councillor Mace seconded:

 

“(2)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the CVS be reduced by 50% for 2009/10 onwards”

 

Councillor Charles then withdrew the proposed amendment and Members voted as follows on the original proposition:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(2)        That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the CVS be reduced by £3,900 to £15,000 for 2009/10 onwards.

 

Regarding One Voice, it was moved by Councillor Kerr and seconded by Councillor Archer:-

 

“(3)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to One Voice remain the same (£6,000) for 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(5 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour, 2 Members (Councillors Blamire and Bryning) voted against and 2 members (Councillors Charles and Mace) abstained).

 

(3)     That Cabinet recommends that the grant to One Voice remain the same (£6,000) for 2009/10 onwards.

 

Regarding Shopmobility (Preston Community Transport), it was moved by Councillor Kerr and seconded by Councillor Archer:-

 

“(4)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Shopmobility (Preston Community Transport) be reduced by £1,000 to £11,900 for 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(8 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Charles, Fletcher, Kerr and Mace) voted in favour and 1 Member (Councillor Gilbert) voted against.

 

(4)        That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Shopmobility (Preston Community Transport) be reduced by £1,000 to £11,900 for 2009/10 onwards.

 

Regarding the Twinning Association, Councillor Bryning moved and Councillor Blamire seconded:-

 

“(5)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the Twinning Association (£6,300) should be removed in full for 2009/10 onwards”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(8 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Charles, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 1 Member (Councillor Mace) voted against.

 

(5)        That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the Twinning Association (£6,300) should be removed in full for 2009/10 onwards.

 

Regarding Miscellaneous Grants, Councillor Bryning moved and Councillor Blamire seconded:-

 

“(6)      That Cabinet recommends that support for Miscellaneous Grants be discontinued.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(8 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Charles, Fletcher, Gilbert and Mace) voted in favour and 1 Member (Councillor Kerr) abstained.

 

(6)        That Cabinet recommends that support for Miscellaneous Grants be discontinued.

 

Regarding Welfare Grants, Councillor Gilbert proposed:-

 

“(7)      That Cabinet recommends that support for Welfare Grants be reduced by £2,600 to £1,500 for 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(7)        That Cabinet recommends that support for Welfare Grants be reduced by £2,600 to £1,500 for 2009/10 onwards.

 

Regarding the Dukes Playhouse, Councillor Kerr moved and Councillor Archer seconded:-

 

“(8)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the Dukes Playhouse be reduced by £60,000 to £107,800 for2009/10 onwards.”

 

By way of amendment, Councillor Charles proposed and Councillor Mace seconded:-

 

“(8)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the Dukes Playhouse be reduced by 50% (£83,900) for 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Councillor Charles then withdrew the amendment.

 

By way of amendment, Councillor Mace proposed and Councillor Charles seconded:-

 

“(8)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the Dukes Playhouse be reduced by £75,000 to £92,800 for 2009/10 onwards.”

 

2 Members voted in favour of the amendment (Councillors Charles and Mace) and 7 Members voted against (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr), whereupon the Chairman declared the amendment lost.

 

(At this point Councillor Fletcher declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the report as far as it related to the Dukes Playhouse, in view of her role as a member of the Board of the Dukes Playhouse, and left the meeting).

 

By way of amendment, Councillor Barry proposed and Councillor Gilbert seconded:-

 

“(8)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the Dukes Playhouse be reduced by £40,000 to £127,800 for 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Members then voted on the amendment:-

 

Resolved:

 

(4 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Bryning and Gilbert) voted in favour and 4 Members (Councillors Archer, Charles, Kerr and Mace) voted against. The Chairman used his casting vote in favour).

 

(8)        That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the Dukes Playhouse be reduced by £40,000 to £127,800 for 2009/10 onwards.

 

Members then voted on the substantive motion, as amended:-

 

Resolved:

 

(4 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Bryning and Gilbert) voted in favour and 4 Members (Councillors Archer, Charles, Kerr and Mace) voted against. The Chairman used his casting vote in favour).

 

(1)               That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the Dukes Playhouse be reduced by £40,000 to £127,800 for 2009/10 onwards.

 

(Councillor Fletcher returned to the meeting).

 

Regarding the Friends of the Storey Institute, Councillor Archer proposed and Councillor Kerr seconded:-

 

“(9)      That Cabinet recommends that the grants to the Friends of the Storey Institute (£35,000) and the Lancaster Literature Festival (£9,100) remain unchanged for 2009/10.”

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(9)        That Cabinet recommends that the grants to the Friends of the Storey Institute (£35,000) and the Lancaster Literature Festival (£9,100) remain unchanged for 2009/10.

 

Regarding Ludus, Councillor Blamire proposed and Councillor Bryning seconded:-

 

“(10)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Ludus be reduced by £10,000 to £19,900 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

3 Members voted in favour of the proposition (Councillors Barry, Blamire and Bryning) and 5 Members voted against (Councillors Archer, Charles, Gilbert, Kerr and Mace) whereupon the Chairman declared the proposition lost.

 

Councillor Archer proposed and Councillor Kerr seconded:-

 

“(10)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Ludus be reduced by £15,000 to £14,900 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

2 Members voted in favour of the proposition (Councillors Archer and Kerr) and 7 Members voted against (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Charles, Fletcher, Gilbert and Mace) whereupon the Chairman declared the proposition lost.

 

Councillor Gilbert proposed:-

 

“(10)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Ludus be reduced by £3,000 to £26,900 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

There was no seconder to this proposal, which was therefore withdrawn.

 

Councillor Kerr proposed and Councillor Archer seconded:-

 

“(10)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Ludus be reduced by £12,500 to £17,400 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

4 Members voted in favour of the proposition (Councillors Archer, Charles, Kerr and Mace) 4 Members voted against (Councillors Blamire, Bryning Fletcher and Gilbert) and 1 Member (Councillor Barry) abstained. The Chairman used his casting vote against, whereupon he declared the proposal lost.

 

Councillor Gilbert again proposed and Councillor Fletcher seconded:-

 

“(10)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Ludus be reduced by £3,000 to £26,900 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

2 Members voted in favour of the proposition (Councillors Fletcher and Gilbert) 7 Members voted against (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning Charles, Kerr and Mace), whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal lost.

 

Councillor Blamire proposed and Councillor Bryning seconded:-

 

“(10)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Ludus be reduced by £7,000 to £22,900 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

3 Members voted in favour of the proposition (Councillors Blamire, Bryning and Fletcher) 6 Members voted against (Councillors Archer, Barry, Charles, Gilbert, Kerr and Mace), whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal lost.

 

Councillor Kerr moved and Councillor Archer seconded:-

 

“(10)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Ludus be reduced by £12,000 to £17,900 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

4 Members voted in favour of the proposition (Councillors Archer, Charles, Kerr and Mace) 4 Members voted against (Councillors Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher and Gilbert, Kerr and Mace) and one Member (Councillor Barry) abstained. The Chairman used his casting vote against, whereupon he declared the proposal lost.

 

Councillor Archer moved and Councillor Bryning seconded:-

 

“(10)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Ludus be reduced by £10,000 to £19,900 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Charles, Fletcher and Mace) voted in favour, 1 Member (Councillor Gilbert) voted against and 1 Member (Councillor Kerr) abstained.

 

(10)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Ludus be reduced by £10,000 to £19,900 in 2009/10 onwards.

 

Regarding Morecambe Music Residency, Councillor Charles moved and Councillor Mace seconded:-

 

“(11)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Morecambe Music Residency be reduced by £5,000 to £6,400 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

By way of amendment, Councillor Archer proposed and Councillor Kerr seconded

 

“(11)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Morecambe Music Residency be reduced by £1,400 to £10,000 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Resolved:

 

(5 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour, 4 Members (Councillors Blamire, Bryning, Charles and Mace) voted against).

 

(11)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Morecambe Music Residency be reduced by £1,400 to £10,000 in 2009/10 onwards.

 

Regarding Community Projects, Councillor Barry moved:-

 

“(12)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Community Projects (£10,800) be removed in full in 2009/10.”

 

Councillor Barry then withdrew the proposal.

 

Regarding Community Projects, Councillor Charles then moved and Councillor Mace seconded:-

 

“(12)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Community Projects (£10,800) be removed in full in 2009/10.”

 

Resolved:

 

(4 Members (Councillors Bryning, Charles, Kerr and Mace) voted in favour, 3 Members (Councillors Archer, Fletcher and Gilbert) voted against and 2 Members (Councillors Barry and Blamire) abstained).

 

(12)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Community Projects (£10,800) be removed in full in 2009/10.

 

Regarding Countryside Projects, Councillor Fletcher proposed and Councillor Kerr seconded:-

 

“(13)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Countryside Projects be reduced by £5,000 to £4,600 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Upon being put to the vote, 3 Members voted in favour (Councillors Blamire, Fletcher and Kerr) and 6 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Bryning, Charles, Gilbert and Mace) voted against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposition lost.

 

Councillor Bryning proposed and Councillor Blamire seconded:-

 

“(13)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Countryside Projects be reduced by £3,000 to £6,600 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour, 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted against).

 

(13)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Countryside Projects be reduced by £3,000 to £6,600 in 2009/10 onwards.

 

(It was noted that Councillor Fletcher had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item as far as it related to the Arnside and Silverdale AONB in view of her involvement with Arnside and Silverdale AONB.  Councillor Fletcher left the meeting prior to consideration of matters in the report relating to this interest).

 

Regarding Arnside and Silverdale AONB Councillor Archer proposed and Councillor Kerr seconded:-

 

“(14)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Arnside and Silverdale AONB be reduced by £3,900 to £10,000 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

By way of amendment, Councillor Barry proposed and Councillor Gilbert seconded that:-

 

“(14)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Arnside and Silverdale AONB be reduced by £1,000 to £12,900 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Upon being put to the vote, 3 Members voted in favour (Councillors Barry, Blamire, and Gilbert) and 4 Members (Councillors Archer, Bryning, Charles, and Mace) voted against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposition lost.

 

Members then voted on the original proposition. 2 Members (Councillors Archer and Kerr) were in favour, 3 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire and Bryning) voted against and Councillors Charles and Mace abstained, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposition lost.

 

Councillor Bryning proposed and Councillor Kerr seconded:-

 

“(14)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Arnside and Silverdale AONB be reduced by £2,500 to £11,400 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(3 Members (Councillors Archer, Bryning and Kerr) voted in favour, 3 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire and Gilbert) voted against and 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) abstained. The Chairman used his casting vote in favour.)

 

(14)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Arnside and Silverdale AONB be reduced by £2,500 to £11,400 in 2009/10 onwards.

 

(Councillor Fletcher returned to the meeting.)

 

Regarding the Forest of Bowland AONB Councillor Archer proposed and Councillor Kerr seconded:-

 

“(15)    That Cabinet recommends that the grant to the Forest of Bowland AONB be reduced by £1,000 to £6,000 in 2009/10 onwards.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(6 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour, 1 Member (Councillor Blamire) voted against and 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) abstained.)

 

(15)      That Cabinet recommends that the grant to Forest of Bowland AONB be reduced by £1,000 to £6,000 in 2009/10 onwards.

 

Regarding Heysham Heritage Centre, it was noted that the funding of £5,100 from 2009/10 onwards would be removed from the budget.

 

Regarding the Health and Strategic Housing grant, Councillor Gilbert proposed and Councillor Charles seconded:-

 

“(16)    That Cabinet recommends that the Health and Strategic Housing grant savings be noted.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Charles, Fletcher, Gilbert and Mace) voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Archer and Kerr) abstained.)

 

(16)      That Cabinet recommends that the Health and Strategic Housing grant savings be noted.

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decisions:

 

Chief Executive.

 

Reasons for making the decisions:

 

The decisions were taken in the context of the budget position and the need to make ongoing savings and achieve value for money, as well as proposed priorities and the impact on service users.

Members are asked whether they need to declare any further declarations of interest regarding the exempt appendices to the following reports. 

 

Cabinet is recommended to pass the following recommendation in relation to the following items:- 

 

“That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business, on the grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7a of Schedule 12A of that Act.” 

 

Members are reminded that, whilst the following appendices have been marked as exempt, it is for the Council itself to decide whether or not to consider each of them in private or in public.  In making the decision, Members should consider the relevant paragraph of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and should balance the interests of individuals or the Council itself in having access to information.  In considering their discretion Members should also be mindful of the advice of Council Officers. 

The Chairman asked for any further declarations of interest from Cabinet Members regarding the exempt reports.

 

It was moved by Councillor Bryning and seconded by Councillor Barry:-

 

“That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business, on the grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 12A of that Act.” 

 

Members then voted as follows:-

 

(1)        That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business, on the grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 12A of that Act.

Report of the Chief Executive.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

The Chief Executive submitted a report seeking Cabinet’s approval for the filling of established vacancies where recommended. 

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

 

The information contained within each form provides details related to the risks of not filling the related vacancy.  Cabinet has the option of releasing funding on either a time limited or permanent basis or withholding funding.  If funding is not released, there will be an impact on Service provision.  If funding is time limited, it will be more difficult and possibly more expensive to fill a post.

 

The officer preferred option is to fill those posts as recommended by Service Heads unless Cabinet identifies the work as being of a low priority.

 

It was moved by Councillor Bryning and seconded by Councillor Blamire:-

 

“(1)      That the increase in hours for post CL0372 be approved.

 

(2)        That posts CL0325 and PL0042 be filled as recommended in the reports.”

 

Resolved:

 

(4 Members (Councillors Blamire, Bryning, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour, 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted against and 3 Members (Councillor Archer, Barry and Fletcher) abstained.)

 

(1)        That the increase in hours for post CL0372 be approved.

 

(2)        That posts CL0325 and PL0042 be filled as recommended.

 

It was moved by Councillor Barry and seconded by Councillor Fletcher:-

 

“(3)      That the reduction in hours of post TC0014 be approved.”

 

Resolved:

 

(6 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour, 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted against and 1 Member (Councillor Blamire) abstained.)

 

(3)        That the reduction in hours of post TC0014 be approved.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Barry and seconded by Councillor Bryning:-

 

“(4)      That posts CH0077 and CH0283 be filled as recommended.”

 

Members then voted as follows:-

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Archer, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Gilbert and Kerr) voted in favour and 2 Members (Councillors Charles and Mace) voted against.)

 

(4)        That posts CH0077 and CH0283 be filled as recommended.

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decisions:

 

Chief Executive

 

Reasons for making the decisions:

 

The decisions enable the decision made at Cabinet on 11^th November 2008, removing the delegated decision making to fill employee vacancies away from Service Heads to Cabinet to be implemented.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Archer)

 

Report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration).