To discuss the Revenue Budget 2012/13 Provisional Spending Targets for Residents and Visitors

The Executive Lead for Tourism and Environment introduced the item to the meeting, outlining the difficulties and challenges faced by the Council in the budget setting process. In response to questioning the Executive Lead for Tourism and Environment assured the Board that as outlined in the documents and reports issued in December 2010 the savings identified and required from 1^st April 2012 can be achieved, and some are already in the early stages of implementation, with some already implemented. The Board heard how the cost implications of not implementing some of the savings identified are outlined within the documentation issued in December for consideration at Full Council. The Board were advised that Residents and Visitor Services also faces additional budget pressures in terms of increased rate costs and utility costs – however these have been factored into the base budget.

The Board questioned whether the income outlined in the budget proposals regarding Beach Huts was achievable. The Executive Lead for Tourism and Environment advised the Board that the income from Beach Huts was achievable, and that the income lines proposed were calculated based upon current service usage (with 7 year waiting lists in some areas) and that a slight decrease in service usage had also been factored into these figures. The Board were advised that subsequent areas of income generation and savings, along with the associated risks, are again detailed within the paperwork issued in December.

In response to questioning the Board heard how grants and grants in kind (which includes rent and rate rebates, arts and museums) do not form part of the proposals. The Board were advised that where income was generated (and it is usually limited) it would be used to support of offset other pressures as outlined in earlier questioning. The Board heard how implementation costs associated with the budget proposals are outlined with the budget papers.

In response to questioning the Board heard how a subsidy grant of £232,000 is proposed within the budget papers for Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust for 2012/2013. The Board were advised that this is subject to inflation and that Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust have additional pressures which they are working to reduce and a recovery plan is being prepared.

The Board were advised that full impact assessments on the detailed proposals for libraries would be available for the meeting on the 25^th January and that the full consultation results would also be made available.

In response to questioning the Board were advised that there were other services within Residents and Visitors Services from which savings can be found to lessen the impact on libraries, however cuts to these services would also impact the customer. The Board heard how some services with Residents and Visitors Services are already very small and that many are now outsourced (i.e. TOR2). They were advised that libraries is the biggest service offered with the largest budget, and in outlining the budget proposals the Executive Head for Residents and Visitor Services advised the Board that reductions needed to be fair and proportionate. The Board were advised that there was no intention to close any of the libraries across the bay, and that any reduction in hours would be done fairly across all libraries (including the mobile library service).

In response to questioning the Board heard that subsidy money, of around £23,000 was available for buses to provide a service to local communities that may not otherwise be commercially viable. The Board heard how the Number 12 service run within Torbay is the most profitable service outside of London.

In response to questioning the Board heard how RPIX (inflationary) costs are set for the TOR2 contract at around 4% which equates to approximately £400,000. The Board heard how around £10 million pounds will be saved over the life of the long term TOR 2 contract. The Board heard around £100,000 was reduced from the contract last year and that this presented real challenges, the Board were advised that any further reductions would pose real challenges and difficult decisions relating to some of service currently provided. The Board questioned whether the interest payments are negotiable and a recommendation has been put forward to investigate this further.

In response to questioning the Board heard how the vacant office space within Paignton Library and Information Centre is being addressed; the Board were advised that this space may be utilised as staff accommodation.

The Board heard 3 representations from members of public specifically in relation to proposals relating to libraries:

Representations (lasting no longer than 3 minutes each) were made by:

• Jenny Harriman
• Kim Paynter
• Christopher Fransella

The Board questioned the proposals to reduce the library service by 37 hours and heard how footfall in the libraries was used to measure usage during the libraries opening hours, specific details of which are available within the budget proposals document.

The Board questioned the proposed staff reductions within libraries (6FTE) and were advised that the reductions will be made as a result of a restructure within this department and will be back office staff as well as reduction in hours of employees rather than through staff losses. It was advised that it was difficult to assess the full impact until the actual hours closure had been determined.

The Board questioned the £90K saving and whether this took into account the loss of income from Torre Abbey and were advised that the saving target proposed included all the loss of income and expenditure expected during the close down period for refurbishment works to take place, The Board were advised that if we had we not closed the Abbey completely while the works were being carried out it would have cost more and the income reduced as only part of the museum would be available for viewing.

The Board asked whether figures could be provided in relation to the grants made to museums in the Bay. They were advised that Torquay Museum will receive £76,500 in 2012/13 Brixham will receive £20,300 with an additional rebate against rent of £1,500.

In response to questioning the Board heard about proposals for Shoalstone Swimming Pool in Brixham and how discussions are taking place to hand the estate over to Brixham Town Council. The Board were advised that discussions are ongoing and no firm commitment had yet been given.

In response to questioning the Board heard how contingencies in relation to the parking proposals had been built into the proposals, this included a slight decrease in occupancy levels based upon previous patterns of usage. The Board were assured of the confidence in achieving the income proposals in relation to Parking. In response to questioning the Board heard how some of the income generated would be reinvested to assist with the cost of repairs caused by bad weather such as pot holes.

The Board questioned the grant currently being made to the Tourism Company and asked whether any reductions were being made to the grant. The Board were advised that a 30% reduction in the grant being paid to the Tourism Company is part of the contract we have with them.

Resolved:

1)    That for future meetings Business Plans should be given to the Board to allow them to receive further details such as Business Plans for Museums, RICC etc.  

2)    That the Board recommends to the Mayor he considers inflationary issues relating to the TOR2 contract (currently use RPIX rates) and whether it would be possible for this to be more flexible.

3)    That further information be provided, as soon as it becomes available on the breakdown of cuts within the Library Service

(Note: Councillor Darling declared a personal interest (minute 678/13/01/12) as he is a member of Seascouts and on the Management Board of the Acorn Centre.)