Category Archives: Budget proposals

What 8 years of Tories cost the Vale of White Horse

A couple of years back, Vale’s external auditors said council’s Tory administration had let too many senior staff go, in fact to the point that council was no longer able to run the business effectively. So the last three years have seen an expensive structural reorganisation taking place.

About three years ago, I read a newspaper article about how angry and shocked local people were in another authority when they learned their Local Plan has cost them over £3mil. I thought ours had probably exceeded that, so I asked our Head of Service. At that point they didn’t track the cost of Local Plan work separately (!?). But they said all their policy budget was essentially for Local Plan work. So there have been eight years of Local Plan work, at £1mil per year, and we still have no complete local plan. That should be in the news. That’s how the Tories have managed the planning policy budget.

In 2018, we learned that the estimated £9mil savings to be realised from the 5 Councils Partnership (5CP) outsourcing scheme was lost. The financial outcome at that time was described by the council’s Chief Exec as ‘break even, at best‘ (my emphasis). This decision to outsource was a huge, risky decision, made in secret, without ever coming past Vale Scrutiny Committee or Vale Full Council. I heard the former Deputy Leader of Vale say on radio during the 2019 elections debate, that it HAD come to council. That isn’t true. Obviously the contracts weren’t thought through or evaluated enough. There were errors in the calculations of current costs of service. Some critical services weren’t even IN the contracts (such as wifi in the council offices, a basic provision). There was not enough time allowed nor people involved to ensure it was a good deal for the taxpayers. £9mil in forecast savings, gone. Unsurprisingly, Council’s external auditors found problems with council’s value for money assessment. Council is still spending money to improve the contacts and services that are part of this 5CP. Many services have already been brought back in house. There are seven more years to run in this contract.

Council has three main income streams: business rates, new homes bonus, and council tax. Government frequently modifies the business rates scheme and new homes bonus schemes, and ministers have said they expect local councils to maximise their income from council tax. For years, Tories decided, against officer advice, to freeze council taxes. They are proud of this past; they still brag about it. But now we are in a bad state; the medium term financial plan shows council will run out of money in about 4 years time, unless something happens to fix the problem. The cost of these Tory decisions to freeze council taxes is estimated by our accountants to be > £10mil over the medium term. This failure to responsibly incrementally raise council taxes has led to an over reliance on new home bonus, which was always a fragile scheme. This year the new homes bonus has been wound up, leaving us in a perilous financial situation.

It all started in 2011, when Tories announced their free 2 hr parking scheme, a clever bribe for votes, which actually worked to get them into power for the first time in years. Who wouldn’t vote for free parking in their market towns? Tories assured everyone it would increase footfall and the spend in town centres. The cost to our taxpayers is £200,000 per year, and it’s ongoing. So, £1,600,000 of taxpayer money, income that could have been used for frontline services,  has been lost due free 2 hour parking for car drivers over the 8 years. When asked for evidence to support their benefit claim of increased footfall, no evidence was provided, since none is available. Tories produced zero evidence of any benefit for that spend. In fact evidence around the nation shows that city centres actually suffer when free limited parking is provided. People come and instead of lingering for lunch (etc), pop in and get out before their free parking time expires.

Most recently, the Tories gave about £250,000 to the Abingdon Flood Scheme, which has since been cancelled as forecasted costs rose beyond what was viable. It was public money down the drain.

It’s obvious the Tories never had enough people in place to do the work required. That has cost the council both financially and in terms of reputation.

So the Tories lost control in the recent election. We, the Liberal Democrats, were elected instead. We have made it our highest priority to get the council’s finances under control.

Vale budgets and income sources

I wanted to share what I’ve learned recently about how our Vale council is funded, the insecurities in funding, and how that affects our ability to plan and provide services.

I’ll use approximate but correct figures here. That way it’s easier to follow.

Our annual budget is currently a bit over £15m per year. We earn about £800,000 on our investments each year. So that leaves a little over £14m to be provided by the other sources of income:

  • New Homes Bonus: 33% of our income
  • Business Rates Retention Scheme: 16% of our income
  • Council tax paid by residents: 47% of our income
  • (these don’t add to 100% because of rounding)

Our population is about 130,000, so it costs council about £110 per person to provide the services we do today. (130,000 times £110 is £14.3m.)

New Homes Bonus (NHB) has been a Government scheme to reward councils for successful housing growth. Vale has excelled at this and as a result 33% of our income has been from the NHB scheme. But Government is ending this scheme and this is the last year for it. They’ve not yet announced what scheme will replace it. As a result, we are unable to effectively plan for our medium to long term future, which has brought about the current pause in discretionary capital spending.

Business Rates Retention Scheme (BRRS) is a Government scheme to promote business growth in the district. Council retains a portion of the business rates we collect. But there’s a hitch. The percentage we retain depends on income being over a certain threshold, which was set when the scheme started in 2013-14. In our council, immediately after this baseline was set, Didcot power station closed and the Culham Science Centre gained charitable status, so neither of them had to pay business rates any longer. As a result we haven’t exceeded our threshold from the very beginning. So our retention rate is low, and even though the Government has been the same party as the Vale administration, there’s been no success in trying to get a correction for this on our behalf. So we’ve been losing out every year due to an accident of timing that hasn’t been remedied. BRRS is low, then, at 16% of Vale income.

The only income stream under any sort of council control is the council tax that we pay as residents. For the current year, 2018-19, it is £126.69 per year. Councils are allowed to raise it by the greater of £5 or 3% each year. For many years the Tory administration decided not to raise it at all, which has meant that the portion of council income that was under our control wasn’t maximised. That’s set back our financial position by several £m, as a result. (That’s another post for another day.)

Councils across the UK vary in their dependence on Government schemes for their budgets. Where councils have managed their council tax rate so that council tax is set at a level that covers most or all of services, those councils aren’t overly concerned with the whims of central Government and their frequent changes to local authority funding schemes. They are more stable. But Councils where their council tax is set very low, and who rely heavily on Government funding, are having the worst times right now. We reap what we sow, in my opinion. By freezing council tax for many years, Vale is relatively more reliant on Government funding, and that dependence has brought us to where we are today. Financial uncertainty for the medium to long term, and the pausing of discretionary capital spending.

What do you think should happen now?

My council tax

I know many of us think council taxes are too high. I have a mixed view.

I pay £178 each month for ten months of the year. That is a lot.

£142.00 goes to Oxfordshire County Council.

£18 goes to Thames Valley Police.

£12 goes to Vale of White Horse District Council.

£4 goes to North Hinksey Parish Council.

(Doesn’t exactly add up as I’ve rounded the monthly numbers.)

So the £12 I send to Vale each month contributes to our waste and recycling collections, leisure centres, parks maintenance, housing and homelessness services, planning policy and development services. And more.

District councils are allowed to raise council tax by the greater of 3% or £5 per year. If they want to raise it more than that, a referendum must be held (and those are expensive).

A council tax rise of £5 per year would be 50 pence per monthly payment. Most of us wouldn’t notice that amount, even if it happened every year. Plus, people who would find this a hardship can take advantage of a fund kept on hand to help people who can’t afford to pay their council tax. That pot has never been depleted, so everyone is clearly coping.

As far as I know, there is no legal limit to the amount a parish precept may rise each year. Mostly parishes assess what’s really needed and set the precept to cover it.

I personally would like both the district council and the parish council to charge me enough council tax to fund the local services we need. I think I could squeeze out a bit more in tax and precept to bring safer pedestrian crossings for our children as they walk to school, some parking enforcement to make cycling, driving, and walking safer and more hassle-free, our children’s centre to be able to serve local families, funding help for local leisure facilities, covered bus stops with a place to sit, maintained grass verges. Et cetera.

Those are the things we need, and I would be content to pay a little bit more to have them.

Budget decisions at Vale

Yesterday, the Tory Vale of White Horse Cabinet decided that next year’s budget will contain NO discretionary growth bids at all. They also decided to stop all optional capital projects, such as the new leisure centre in Wantage and any other bricks and mortar projects.

All potential capital projects will go into a waiting bin until there is money to spend. Then each project will be considered based on affordability.

Finances are very uncertain for local authorities right now. It’s still not known how much we’ll have to spend and what the sources of funding will be for the medium term.

Generally, I like to blame the Tories. This time though, considering the situation they’re in, the local administration is doing the right thing by halting spending. It’s the Tory national Government stitching us up so there’s not enough money to provide the services the residents expect. Well, that, and the fact that local Tories haven’t raised council tax over the years in order to keep the funding coming in. So after all, I do blame the local Tories. They’ve brought us to a place where we can’t afford to do the things we’ve planned to do.

Government was supposed to announce the funding this past week. But they say it was delayed due to the Brexit debates and vote.

Council tax 2018-19

Each year, parish and town councils set their precepts to cover their planned expenses for the next administrative year. Here (above) are the Band D total council tax rates for 2018/19 for each of the four local areas in our ward. I Include Oxford City and Abingdon for comparison.

Of the total council tax (rightmost column) Oxfordshire County gets £1426.19 per year. Thames Valley Police gets £182.80 per year, and  Vale gets £126.69 per year.

Budget 2017/18 speech to council

On 15 Feb here’s what I had to say about the Tories’ proposed budget:

This council is constrained by central Government’s continued cuts in funding to local government. We expect no complaints from the ruling administration about that; it’s their party running the show.

This budget is supported by a c tax increase for residents. I heard the leader of County Council said yesterday, ‘Who in their right mind would vote for a c tax increase?’ Does the Leader of this council agree with that sentiment?

In this past year, we’ve adopted a Corporate Plan, which lists councils priorities for five years. Tonight’s budget is for year two of the five. Since the details of the Corporate Plan are delayed a little, we don’t yet have sight of what this administration plans to do to achieve our objectives. So it’s not easy for council members to see how the proposed budget supports this councils’ priorities.

The Corporate Plan explicitly prioritises keeping our position as a top performer on waste collection and recycling. This budget shows reduced income and higher costs for waste and recycling. How much more yearly expense is it worth to keep our position as a top performer? What IS a top performer, exactly?

We have a Corporate Plan priority of ‘Supporting community events through our grants scheme.’ But this budget eliminates community festival grants. Really?

The Corporate plan says right up front that ‘housing is our greatest challenge’. Which of these budget growth items will provide more housing at affordable prices, to rent or to buy, for residents of Vale?

In keeping our Corporate Plan’s promise to keep communities clean and attractive, what sort of budget support is there for litter picking along our A roads? How about intractable problems such as the Fly Tip Mountain in Redbridge that made the news just this week?

It appears this year’s budget decisions were driven by something other than our adopted Corporate Plan, but I don’t know what that was, because the process is not yet open to public scrutiny. Hopefully our Scrutiny Committee can improve that.

We are in year one of the Five Councils partnership for outsourcing. From the essential  growth bid we see a £1.5million hit in savings forecast over the next two years. I’m surprised this council didn’t get some financial benefit for being the first to go live, considering the extra risk on our shoulders for going first and letting our partners benefit from our learning. Was this the intention?

In order to make some limited revenue savings, this budget sells our planning officers’ time to other councils for training and service. I question whether this a good idea. Do our planning officers actually have extra time on their hands that we can sell to other authorities? I’d like to see a net financial statement for this please.

For six years  my colleagues and I in the northeast area of the Vale have persisted in arguing for a fair provision of leisure facilities for people who live in Botley, Cumnor and surrounding communities. This budget sees a 2-days-a-week Vale officer to help the Botley community plan for the leisure facilities they need and want. Then when the money is received from the sale of West Way, some of it is to be prioritised for the provision of leisure facilities for the people in the Botley area. I’ve been told off the record that this is the intention. Will the leader confirm publicly that these things are a priority for council to provide for the people in Botley and the northeast area of the Vale?

Budget setting processes take place behind closed doors. We used to hold public consultations on the budget, but that has shut down in recent years. I’d like to see council be more transparent in how it determines what growth bids are included and wish care rejected.  After all, it’s public money and the public should have a view into and a say on how it’s all managed.

In times of austerity (even when that austerity is imposed arbitrarily from central government) we owe it to our residents to make our budget decisions based on our agreed corporate objectives, ensure our agreed expenditures are systematically managed and overseen, and that our performance is assessed at year end against our objectives. I don’t think council is doing its best in this, and I’d like to see improvement.

Children’s Centres Grants speech to council

On 15 Feb here’s what I said about the Children’s Centre grants amendment motion:

I think we all agree the Children’s Centres provide vital community resource for early intervention for children under 5 and their families. It’s the main programme I’m aware of that improves children’s social mobility and therefore their life chances.

I heard this Government tout grammar schools as a way to give every child a chance at achieving their potential. But studies show unequivocally that children’s life outcomes are largely determined by the time they are 5 years old. Their life achievements are more predicted by the demographics of their families than any other thing. So it makes sense that programmes designed for early intervention have the best chance for success.

I’ve heard the argument that children’s centres are not district business, they are county. Clearly  county can’t afford to support the children’s centres any longer. Towns and parishes are doing what they can to help their local children’s centres, because it’s the right thing to do. We aren’t proposing taking on the management of children’s centres; they are actively working toward managing themselves. We propose a grants pot to help those organisations through their first year.

I’ve heard the argument that it’s not a statutory responsibility. We do lots of things we aren’t required to do. Did you know we have no statutory responsibility to supply leisure centres? But we spend millions on them.

Children’s Centres are exactly the sort of not-for-profit organisation our grants schemes are intended to support. Once we have transformed our local government into a unitary authority, this sort of service provision will be very much in our remit. In the meantime, we are able to help, and we should.

Vale Budget 2017/18

Well, we tried to get some support for the beleaguered Children’s Centres. Tories voted us down, even those councillors from communities where the parishes or towns wanted to help their local children’s centers. It’s like they’ll help their own, not those in other areas of Vale.

The Liberal Democrats submitted a bid to set up a grants pot for the Vale’s Children’s Centres. We think the children’s centres provide vital community resource for early intervention for children under 5 and their families. So we re-submitted it as a motion to amend the budget to include £100,000 to help children’s centres who are working toward becoming self-sufficient. Please read more about it here (there are a couple of articles):  http://cllrdebbyhallett.com/category/grants/

Tories voted against our amendment. It’s sadly predictable. They are all for spending money on economic growth that no one wants, but have no time to spend on the people already living here who might need more support.

The budget includes a £5 per year council tax increase, or 4.3%. As far as I can tell, this is to make the budget balance, which councils are required to do.

To double check my assumption, I asked the Cabinet member for Finance, Cllr Robert Sharp, how he would answer the question of why he raised council tax. His reply, ‘To safeguard and maintain the excellent services provided for residents.’

As far as I’m concerned, it’s questionable whether we can really afford to spend £18.8m on a new leisure Centre in Wantage in these times of government austerity.  Yes, you read that correctly: eighteen point 8 million pounds on a leisure centre for Wantage and Grove.

Here’s what I said about the children’s centres budget amendment at full council meeting: http://cllrdebbyhallett.com/2017/02/20/childrens-centres-grants-speech-to-council/

Here’s what I had to say about the overall budget: http://cllrdebbyhallett.com/2017/02/20/budget-201718-speech-to-council/

Cllr Emily Smith, on children’s centres

Last night Vale considered a Liberal Democrat amendment to the 2017/18 budget. We proposed to set up a modest grants scheme to help the Vale’s Children’s Centres that are working toward self-sufficiency through this challenging first year.  

— The Tory councillors all voted against, even those who sit on town and parish councils who are actually supporting their Children’s Centers. So the amendment failed. 

Here’s what Cllr Emily Smith had to say as she seconded the amendment motion.

Children’s Centres improve children’s life chances and strengthen their resilience. They intervene in problems early on before these problems become too difficult to reverse. Across the Vale, these Centres support parents with employment, housing and parenting. They also give under 5s a safe place to play and socialise, helping to ensure that all children are ready when they start school. 

The centres provide a focal point for local families where they can access health services, information and form supportive relationships with other parents that continue as their children grow. The centres we have are well used and fulfil a number of the aims set out in the Vale’s Corporate Plan – particularly in relation to community safety, supporting community groups and encouraging volunteering.

There is a wealth of evidence that investing in early intervention is the best way to reduce inequality and give all children the chance to fulfil their potential.   

As funding for Children’s Centres is withdrawn, the County Council focuses more on the families in greatest need. This means that the universal provision that so many of our residents rely on is disappearing. This is of great concern to me. 

Post-natal depression, domestic abuse, illness, disability, unemployment, bereavement or social isolation can happen to anyone – not just people living in deprived communities. Children’s Centres provide support with a huge range of issues quickly, before they escalate, reducing demand on Social Care and Health services.   

Also, without services that are open to all families, how will know who needs the most support? We risk leaving families struggling until they reach a crisis point.  

Children’s Centres are highly valued by service users and the communities they are based in. This is evidenced by the fact that so many local people are willing to contribute their time, knowledge and expertise to form community groups to keep these services going. But these groups need our help. 

Creating a grant pot, to top-up the Transition funding available from the County Council, will help ensure these not-for-profit groups are able to afford the set up costs for this initial year. It really could mean the difference between these new community groups succeeding or not.  

We have heard some Councillors suggest that Children’s Centres are not the District Council’s responsibility, but the budget being proposed this evening includes spending on both statutory and discretionary items. The discretionary items (that we don’t have to pay for) include leisure centres, the Beacon coffee shop, the outdoor pool at Abbey Meadow and the CCTV Hub. So should we remove these from the budget, because we don’t have to provide them either.  

We all have residents in our wards who rely on Children’s Centres and our communities are stronger because of the services these centres provide. Our finance officers have confirmed the we can easily afford to help these new community groups, so I ask all Councillors here tonight to support this amendment. Not because we have to, but because we can, and it is the right thing to do.

Children’s Centres Grant Scheme – 2017/18 

For full council on 15 Feb 2017 at 19:30.

Liberal Democrat motion to amend the budget: proposed by Cllr Judy Roberts, seconded by Cllr Emily Smith

This council recognises the valuable work carried out the Children’s Centres across the Vale and is deeply concerned about the impact on local families and our communities when the County Council ceases provision of universal children’s services on 1st March 2017. The children’s centres in Botley, Abingdon, Grove & The Hanneys, Faringdon, Southmoor and Wantage provide essential well-being services to children under 5 and their families.

This council also recognises the significant efforts of parents and community groups working to find alternative ways of providing universal services for our families and the financial challenges involved. Their hard work for a good cause underlines how they feel about the value of these services.

This council is in a position to help fund the set-up costs for these projects in the coming year, via our grants scheme. Therefore, the budget for 2017/18 will include a grant fund of £100,000 for groups to apply for and £3,000 to pay for officer time to administer these grants following the same procedure as the New Homes Bonus and Community Capital Funds.

————————–

Background

The Head of Finance has confirmed that these costs are sustainable within the 2017/18 budget.

Vale’s Corporate Plan for 2016 – 2020 outlines council’s aims, which include:

• Supporting community groups and community events through our grant scheme.

• Assisting voluntary and community groups that provide important services to residents, to attract volunteers.

• Working with partners as part of the South and Vale Community Safety Partnership to deliver the annual plan aimed at reducing crime, tackling antisocial behaviour and supporting vulnerable people.

These Vale corporate objectives are met by the successful early intervention services that Children’s Centres provide.

We’ve heard the argument that children’s centres are county’s business, not district’s. Clearly county can’t afford the children’s centres any longer, so many centres are working to find their own ways of being viable and self-sustaining. It’s exactly the sort of not-for-profit organisation our grants schemes support. Once we have transformed our local government into a unitary authority, this sort of service provision will be very much in our remit. In the meantime, we are able to help, and we should.

Recent developments, please note:

• Members of Abingdon Town Council agreed unanimously to raise their precept in order to place £30,000 per year for three years into a reserve fund, to be paid out to South Abingdon Children’s Centre, subject to certain conditions being met.

• Cumnor Parish Council have donated £5000 to their local Children’s Centre.

• Wantage Town Council donated £10,000 per annum for three years to a newly formed group to manage local children’s centre services.