Agenda and minutes

Mr. J. B. Rhodes CC, Deputy Leader of the Council

Mr. M. B. Page CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Corporate Resources

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 2009 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35.

Mr Hunt CC asked the following questions of the Chairman:

(A)       George Ward Community Centre

“1.        Could the Chairman:

(a)         Update the Commission on the present management of the George Ward Community Centre, the status of the Steering Committee, and their responsibilities in law?

(b)         Report on current estimated annual income and expenses of the Centre and indicate if the County Council will be meeting any losses, should they arise over the first four years?”

The Chairman replied as follows:

“1.        (a)    The George Ward Community Project Group (the current Steering Committee) is in the process of setting up the George Ward Centre Limited, who will lease the Centre from the County Council (and the Steering Committee as it currently stands will be abolished). They are currently in the process of appointing trustees and representatives to sit on a management committee. The new structure will be in place well before the Centre is due to open in May 2010

1.         (b)    The Group has produced a Business Plan with financial projections for income based on conservative estimates of usage (particularly in the first year of operation) drawn from the experience of other buildings of similar size. The projection shows a break-even position early in Year Three of operation but the County Council will have a representative at Management Committee meetings who will be able to maintain an overview of the financial position.

The Group currently receives £20,000 per annum revenue support from the County Council and there will be £120,000 additional revenue from the money raised from the sale of The Cedars. This is to assist them in running the Centre in the first 3 years of operation and will be tapered as usage of the Centre builds up.

The sale of the Cedars building in 2004 raised £1.72 million. This money was invested and has generated almost £400,000 of interest. We are able to use a proportion of this towards running costs because we secured an additional £220,000 capital grant from the East Midlands Development Agency. The intention is that the Community Centre becomes self-funding, as the County Council has no policy or budget to provide ongoing revenue funding for a community facility.”

Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary question on the reply to question 1(a):

“Is it common practice to establish a limited company in circumstances such as these?”

The Chairman replied to the effect that:

The organisation has been incorporated as a company limited by guarantee as opposed to a company limited by share (the latter being the most common incorporation). Most charitable groups do not need to incorporate because their assets are generally high in relation to liability and the majority of charitable groups do not have their own properties, hence if they fold there is no liability on the trustees, they just deregister as a charity.

However, the George Ward Community Project group are asset rich in the sense that they will have the lease on a £2 million property and operate solely to generate income to support that asset, hence there is greater potential financial risk to the trustees who would become financially liable to the County Council to honour the lease through the termination period, plus pay additional overheads. To prevent this, they will incorporate and thus make the business a legal entity in its own right thereby protecting the trustees by "limiting their liability to the guarantee sum", normally £1 per trustee. However, this does not excuse liability in the event of fraud or acting in a negligent or foolhardy way.  

Further information is available on the Charity Commission’s website at:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

There were no urgent items for consideration.

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

Mr. J. B. Rhodes CC and Mr Page CC each declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of the reports on the ‘Medium Term Financial Strategy 2010/11 to 2013/14’ having been present at the Cabinet meeting when the MTFS was discussed (Minute 45 refers).

The following members each declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in respect of ‘The Leicester and Leicestershire Total Place and Total Capital Pilot Reports’ as members of district/borough councils (Minute 46 refers):

Mr. A. D. Bailey CC

Mr. R. Blunt CC
Mr. G. A. Boulter CC

Mrs. R. Camamile CC
Mrs. J. A. Dickinson CC
Mr. S. J. Galton CC
Mr. Max Hunt CC
Mr. P. G. Lewis CC

Mrs. P. Posnett CC
Mr. R. J. Shepherd CC

There were no declarations of the party whip.

The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 36.

The Commission considered a joint report of the Chief Executive and Director of Corporate Resources concerning the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2010/11 to 2013/14. A copy of the report, marked ‘B’, is filed with these minutes.

The Commission also considered a supplementary report setting out the comments of the Budget and Performance Monitoring Panel and the Overview and Scrutiny Committees on the Medium Term Financial Strategy relating to their respective service areas. A copy of the supplementary report, marked ‘BB’, is also filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting the Deputy Leader of the Council – Mr. J. B. Rhodes CC and the Cabinet Lead Member for Corporate Resources – Mr. M. B. Page CC, who were attending for this item.

Following the publication of an online survey and the circulation of consultation material to members of the public on the budget proposals, the Commission was advised that:

• 127 responses to the online survey had been received, most of which had disagreed with the budget proposals. Many of the responses were in relation to the proposed reduction in the Council’s contribution to the Arts in Education Service;
  
  
• Six comments had been received in response to a consultation leaflet, all of which were in disagreement with the budget proposals.

During the discussion, the following points arose from discussion and questions:

General

(a)               There were risks associated with the delivery of challenging efficiency targets in the later years of the MTFS and it was therefore important going forward that robust project management was in place to manage the efficiency agenda. PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Council’s auditors would be undertaking a review of the governance and project management arrangements in place to deliver the required savings. In the event of a critical situation in regard to the Council’s finances, the Council’s priority would be the maintenance of service provision;

Adult Social Care Department (now ‘Adults and Communities’)

Breaking the Barriers Team

(b)               Concern was expressed in relation to the proposed review of Council investment in the Breaking the Barriers Team and the effect this would have on service users;

Eligibility Criteria

(c)               The proposed changes to the eligibility criteria would generate significant long-term savings. Concern was expressed in regard to those with ‘moderate’ needs who would now no longer qualify for services and would be signposted to the voluntary sector. This, coupled with proposals to reduce voluntary sector funding, may have an adverse effect on the capacity of voluntary organisation services to deliver signposting. It was noted that this issue would be considered again by the Cabinet, arising from a consultation exercise to be carried out in the summer;

Chief Executive’s Department

Voluntary Sector

(d)               The proposal for savings of £50,000 in 2010/11 would be realised through a £10,000 reduction in grant funding provided to Voluntary Action LeicesterShire and a further £5,700 reduction in contribution to each of the community hubs;

Children and Young People’s Service

Arts in Education

(e)               Concern was expressed in regard to the reduction in subsidy for the Service which would affect the provision of drama and dance education. It was suggested that there could be a compound effect of proposed savings on partners that were also suffering their own financial difficulties and having to make significant cuts to service contributions. The Director of Corporate Resources advised that the County Council was involved in ongoing discussions with key partners in regard to their respective budget positions in an effort to identify in advance any service budget shortfalls;

Adult Learning Service

(f)                 Issues relating to funding provided by partners, including the Learning and Skills Council, were also relevant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning the Leicester and Leicestershire Total Place and Total Capital Pilot projects. A copy of the report and supplementary report, marked ‘C’ and ‘CC’ respectively is filed with these minutes.

The Chief Executive reported that the draft Total Place and Total Capital Pilot reports were required by Government by 5 February. The matter would be considered by the Cabinet on 9 February prior to submission to Government in final form by 19 February.

Arising from discussion, the following points were noted:

·                    The findings of the final reports would be fed into the Efficiency Change Programme with a view to developing a £250 million Multi-Area Agreement efficiency target, though many of the identified savings included in the draft documents were, at this stage, provisional. Full Government backing and a lead authority would be required if the project was to progress and  achieve its stated aims;

·                    Seminars on the aims of the project would be held in order to further engage members on the subject and increase understanding amongst the district/borough councils;

·                    The reports did not appear to cover some of the likely knock-on effects of making alcohol more expensive, of which the purchase of cheap ‘legal high’ drugs by youngsters was suggested should be an issue that be given further consideration;

·                    The boundaries for licensing committees did not enable committee members to take account of issues arising in close proximity, but outside the geographical area, resulting in a potential lack of consistency;

·                    Clear pathways of treatment were needed to deal with abuse of alcohol in the same way as abuse of drugs.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet be advised that the Commission is generally supportive of the proposals for the Total Place and Total Capital Pilot projects.

The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 3 March 2010 at 2.00pm.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on Wednesday 3 March at 2.00pm.