Agenda item

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Bryning, Hamilton-Cox, Hanson, Leytham and Sands)

 

Report of Head of Resources

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Bryning, Hamilton-Cox, Hanson, Leytham and Sands)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Resources to consider the annual review of fees and charges for 2013/14.

 

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

 

In order to assist the decision making process the report was structured into four main areas as follows:

n       Environmental Services - Car Parking

n       Health & Housing

n       Wellbeing

n       Regeneration & Planning – Cycle Parking Lockers

 

These set out the key considerations for Members in context of the latest budget projections and listed the relevant options, options appraisal and officer recommendations either in the body of the report or in the appendices.  It was important to remember that income budgets had been set based on the best information available at this time, but also that the impact of the current economic climate could continue to adversely affect income generation.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – CAR PARKING

It was agreed that consideration of proposals regarding car parking fees and charges be deferred until the January Cabinet meeting when it was hoped the county council would had confirmed their proposals regarding on-street parking charges. If this was the case it would still allow for implementation in April 2013.

 

HEALTH AND HOUSING

Appendix D to the report set out the current charges and options for increases for 2013/14. 

 

Pest Control Fees

The pest control fees were increased last year by 5% on the previous year. Any further large increase could deter the public from seeking expert advice.  This could lead to people carrying out their own DIY treatments, which might have serious health and safety implications.  It also allowed pest problems to escalate to a point at which the Council would be forced to intervene, by which time treatment was more difficult, more labour?intensive and more costly.

 

Cemetery Fees

Neptune Baby and Young Child Memorial Garden.

As in previous years, uptake of memorial options in this area had been limited.  It was again proposed therefore that the fees for burial options, cremated remains, memorial plaques and associated extras be retained at the same level as last year.

 

General Fees & Charges

Most of the fees and charges covered in the report related to the provision of statutory services but the council did have flexibility in setting fees for these services. 

For the discretionary services, the council was at discretion to set its own level of fee provided that the fees remained competitive and affordable to retain customers.  The pest control service was estimated to operate at a loss of £89,600 inclusive of recharges, and £20,800 excluding recharge in 2013/14, based on the latest draft budget which included an inflationary increase of 2%.  If Option 2 (5% increase) was approved the deficit would be reduced by £3,300.

 

 

	Option 1 To approve an inflationary increase of 2% in fees.	Option 2 To approve a 5% increase.	Option 3 To do nothing and retain the existing fees and charges.
Advantages	This option allows for increased fee revenue of £8,200 in line with the current budget projections whilst retaining fees at competitive levels.   The increase in pest control fees reduces the council’s subsidy of this service by a substantial amount whilst retaining pest control fees affordable compared to some private sector providers.	This option would generate additional income of £12,800.	This option would mean no price increases for customers.
Disadvantages		Any increase in fees is likely to be unpopular with customers.	No opportunity to raise additional revenue through fees and charges.  There would be a budget shortfall of £8,300 which would need to be met from savings elsewhere.
Risks	There is always a risk that customers will choose not to access services if fees are too high.   However, evidence gathered shows core fees and charges are comparable to other nearby local authorities.	There is always a risk that customers will choose not to access services if fees are too high.   There is a risk that even current income levels will fail to be achieved if fees are perceived to be too high.	This option increases the difficulties of securing a viable budget at a time when additional income and savings are required.

Option 1 was the officer preferred option.  Last year fees were increased by more than inflation and it was felt inappropriate to do so for a second year, therefore the basic inflationary increase of 2% was being proposed.

 

WELLBEING

Appendix E to the report set out the current charges and proposed increases for 2013/14. 

	Option 1 To increase fees as set out above.	Option 2 To approve a different increase (either in percentage of £ income terms).	Option 3 To do nothing and retain the existing fees and charges.
Advantages	This option makes anadditional contribution of £15,700 to the2013/14 budget process, whilst retainingfees at competitive levels.	This option potentially allows for a greater increase in revenue, therefore making a greater contribution to the 2013/14 budget process.	This option would mean no price increases for customers (and so the ‘subsidy’ of associated services by all council tax payers would increase, irrespective of whether they use those services or not). This option could, potentially, have a positive effect on income generation should throughput increase significantly asa result of no increases, but there is no strong evidence to support this.
Disadvantages	Any increase in fees is likely to be unpopular with customers.	Alternatively, if an increase less than the 2.6% general inflation assumption is approved, it would not meet the current budget requirements, and revenue raising opportunities would be lost. An increase in fees above the recommended amount is likely to meet with customer resistance. This could result in reduction in income generation and as such customer dissatisfaction that may be difficult to respond to.	Lost opportunity to raise additional revenue through fees and charges in areas that may stand an increase. This option will not meet the current budget requirements by some £27,400, requiring additional income or savings to be generated from other activities / services undertaken by the council.
Risks	There is always a risk that customers will choose not to access services especially with any increase in charges.	There is always a risk that customers will choose not to access services if fees are too high or move to one of the key competitors in the district. There is a risk that evencurrent income levels will fail to be achieved iffees are perceived to be too high.	This option increases the difficulties of securing a viable budget at a time when additional income and savings are required. There is no compensating increase in throughput and the Council suffers loss of income. Perceived greater unfairness by tax payers generally.

 

The range of increases were based on officers knowledge of market demand and supply, factors such as inflation and VAT and the need for the Council to operate services which provide value for money. The prices were the maximum charge and officers retained the flexibility to reduce charges in line with market demand or specific schemes such as the £1 swim sessions at Salt Ayre Sports Centre.  If the proposed increases were approved they would generate £13,200 more than the draft budget which equated to an average increase of almost 3%.  The opportunity to increase prices above inflation for certain activities enabled officers to maximise the potential income generation on those activities and at the same time enabled price freezes on other activities that would otherwise see a drop in customer demand. 

 

The proposed increases were set out in Appendix E to the report and were the officer preferred option.  These would generate more than the overall 2% inflationary increase by some £13,200.

 

REGENERATION & PLANNING: CYCLE PARKING LOCKERS

In 1999 Cabinet recommended that cycle lockers be provided free of charge in order to support cycling in the district.  Details of the current cycle locker provision for the public, was attached at Appendix F together with the advantages and disadvantages. Further issues were that open access lockers had been tried in the public domain at various sites in Lancaster city centre and Carnforth station with little success. A variety of locking mechanisms were also tried without success - coin operated versions were vandalised, and use of the lockers was abused as they were not being used for their intended purpose.  In addition, the alternative of Sheffield stands were readily available (capacity was saturated at Lancaster station but there was capacity in and around the city centre). However, cyclists often cited these as being barely adequate in terms of being theft or vandalism proof. 

 

If such issues were to be overcome or at least improved then financial investment would be required.  As a starting point it would therefore seem appropriate to consider the introduction of charging for cycle lockers to generate income to contribute to the investment required.  At present there was no officer preferred option other than to ask Members to consider whether charging for cycle lockers should be introduced, and if so officers be instructed to set out the investment requirements needed, to develop the process and fee structure and report back in due course.

 

Councillor Hanson proposed, seconded by Councillor Hamilton-Cox:-

 

“(1)      That consideration of car parking charges be deferred to the next meeting to enable the County Council to confirm their proposals with regard to on-street parking charges.

(2)        That the Environmental Health and Private Sector Housing fees as set out in  Appendix D to the report be increased by 2%.

(3)        That the charges for Salt Ayre Sports Centre, Community Pools, Williamson Park, Parks and Recreation Grounds and the Platform be increased in line with the proposed percentages (rounded to nearest £0.10) and arrangements as set out in Appendix E to the report.

(4)        That consideration be given in principle to the introduction of charging for cycle lockers.”

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)        That consideration of car parking charges be deferred to the next meeting to enable the County Council to confirm their proposals with regard to on-street parking charges.

(2)        That the Environmental Health and Private Sector Housing fees as set out in  Appendix D to the report be increased by 2%.

(3)        That the charges for Salt Ayre Sports Centre, Community Pools, Williamson Park, Parks and Recreation Grounds and the Platform be increased in line with the proposed percentages (rounded to nearest £0.10) and arrangements as set out in Appendix E to the report.

(4)        That consideration be given in principle to the introduction of charging for cycle lockers.

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.30 and reconvened at 11.45.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Bryning and seconded by Councillor Smith and resolved unanimously:

 

“That recommendation 5, as set out in the report, be approved.”

 

Resolved:

 

(5)        That the Fees and Charges Policy as set out in Appendix A be approved with no further areas of income generation being identified.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head of Health & Housing

Head of Environmental Services

Head of Community Engagement

Head of Regeneration & Planning

Head of Resources

 

Reasons for making the decisions:

 

Environmental Services – Car Parking – Recommendation (1)

Being aware of the county council’s proposals will assist Cabinet in making their decision in January.

 

Health & Housing – Recommendation (2)

The proposals took account of the Council’s stated intention to try to protect the most vulnerable in our community by keeping increases to a reasonable level and retaining the reductions for those in receipt of council tax /housing benefit.  This had been balanced against the need to generate additional income.

 

Wellbeing – Recommendation (3)

The decision to increase prices above inflation for certain activities enabled officers to maximise potential income generation on those activities whilst enabling price freezes on other activities that would otherwise see a drop in customer demand.

 

Regeneration & Planning: Cycle Parking Lockers (4)

The in principle decision enables officers to set out the investment requirements needed to develop the process and fee structure and report back to Cabinet in due course.

 

Fees and Charges Policy (5)

Fees and charges formed an integral part of the budget setting process, which in turn related to the Council’s priorities.  Under the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), income generation was a specific initiative for helping to balance the budget.  The proposed increased were considered to be fair and reasonable.