Transcript

Okay, welcome everybody to the Environment Communities Committee meeting today, 30th of January, 2024. Just to highlight that the meeting is being audio recorded. We will be uploaded to the Council's website at the time. If you are speaking, if you're speaking, make sure you've got your microphone on and you talk clearly to the microphone. And as well, when we come to vote, please keep the hand raised so we can, until the count is complete. So first thing on the agenda is the apologies for absence. Thank you Chair. We apologise for Councillor Hayley-Wittaker, and Councillor Janet Krauss is present as a substitute. Thank you, welcome Janet. Item two is declaration of interest, members of official raster declaring disposal of hearing interest, all the registrable interest and non-regestable interest in any item on the agenda. Okay, no hands. Thank you. Oh, sorry. I'm going to leave the meeting to Clara and then to Clara. I'm going to leave the meeting on. I'm going to declare it. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to leave the meeting to Clara and then to Clara. Okay. I'm going to leave the meeting to Clara. Item three is the minutes of the previous meeting. I'm going to check on the accuracy of those minutes. I've only got the issues with the accuracy of the minutes. I'm going to propose that they're accurate. I'm going to leave the meeting. I'm going to ask the Jeffery for the second. All those in favour? Okay. Against the abstentions. Okay. Item four is the public speaking. We've got no registered public speakers today. We'll move straight on to item five, which is the third financial review, 2023, 2024, which will be carried out by Tracey. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Good afternoon. This report provides members with the third financial review of Tracey's Council's forecast out to position for the financial year 2024. The report forms a key part of the reporting framework committees and the paper has previously been to the finance committee on the 11th of January and included in the report to the committee today as a copy of full report to finance committee and an appendix extract, which is specifically for the environment of the community. The report includes details for the council as a whole and also details the specifically for the committee, the key messages in the report on page or start on page 24. In summary, the overall, the council is forecasting a net pressure, and this is an improvement of 5.7 million since the second final review. The report considers some of the issues impacts in the authority and the mitigation actions that have been undertaken at the date and also that continue to do so through the end in order to reduce the overall linear pressure down as far as possible. Page 40 of the report back covers the position for the environmental communities committee in some detail and overall the committee are reporting a pressure of 3.1 million against the budget of 48.7 million. This is a reduction of 0.4 million since the second financial review. Just to give some context on the 3.1 million pressure, the details reported indicate in compressors in planning and building control of 1.3 million increased race disposal contract inflation and recycling short for pressures of 1.8 million. Paying inflation pressures of 0.8 million and some one-off charges to the delays of the savings that have been discussed by the committee during the year. They've been offset by in-year improvements linked to capitalization and also used to be a map reserves as well as holding vacancies as some of the litigation actions taken by the electorate. The report on pages 41-50 include also the forecast out turn of 8-15 year proposals approved in the MTFS and also the capital performance round its debts and dear mark reserves positions. The recommendations for the different form are shown on page 60. Can I take any questions? Sorry, page 60. Anybody got any questions for the tracing? Okay, silence. So, we're looking at the recommendations on page 16. Stuart, I'm constantly, you've mentioned about the considered issue. So, I'm trying to back it to go back to page 16 through page 40. It was so much easier than it says page. Oh, it's got 70. Yeah, I've got 70, no. Thank you very much for that IT lesson from my colleagues. So, as I have touched, sorry. So, Mr. Chairman, in other committees, I am concerned about the employment of the work consider in items that we are effectively only being asked to know. We have no authority as members of this committee to change what would be told, particularly given this is a retrospective report, rather than one of which would be asked to make decisions. And therefore, I would propose that items 1, 2, 3, and 4, in addition to the words consider, it should read and note on each of those four items as an amendment. I trust that this can be seconded, isn't it? We have a seconder for that, Councillor Geoffrey, seems that this was me, a brilliant favour, as unanimous and very much. Okay, does anybody want to speak to any of the items on the recommendations? Okay, so we'll go straight to the vote then on the recommendations, I need to propose it for the... Sorry, Mr Chairman, suffering from the tailing of a cold, I'm very fuzzy-headed. I meant to ask a clarification of when it says to scrutinise the contents of an annex 1 and annex 2, and note that any financial mitigating decisions requiring approval will be made in line with relevant investigations. Could somebody please advise me of what those relevant delegations are, please? Councillor, the reference is made in relation to recommendation number 5, and this is to approve the fully funded supplementary revenue estimate. And this in line with the Constitution, this is to support the supplementary estimate between 5,000 and 1,000,000 pounds by the committee. I'll set out by the Finance Procedures, and this is in relation to the sporting grant of £500,000, which is for the swimming pool support fund, and is being used to support the utilities cast associated with ongoing revenue costs. Thank you, Tracy. I understood that bit. It's the relevant delegations. I'm assuming that that is somewhere in the Council's offices. And also there that how they operate, there must be somewhere where it's specified, not those relevant delegations are. I'm being asked to scrutinise something, which I'm going to look at. I can see what it is and ask questions, but I'm not sure what the relevant delegations are. And I think it would be appropriate in future if we're being asked to approve something associated with delegate through responsibility to those asked, spelled out, even if it's only a footprint. Thank you. Thank you. I'll take that forward. Take that back. You just want the reference to the section of the Constitution, the details. I would say, well, what those delegations are, because we are effectively dealing with schedule authority too, an officer to do something. I have no problem in that in principle, but I want to know what those delegations are. Thank you. Okay. So again, do we have any proposal for the recommendations? I'm happy to propose. I have a seconder. Thank you. So recommendations, one to six, inclusive, all those in favour. Against abstentions. Okay. Thank you. That's carried by majority. So I had some six on the agenda, is the medium zone financial strategy consultation, provisional settlement update. And again, I think you're introducing this one, Tracy. Okay. Thank you. Ralph, can you just do the lunch? This is the medium term financial strategy consultation report for the environment and community community. And this is covered in the report pack on pages 5168. Committee are being asked to provide feedback as consultees on the development of the special needs leading financial strategy for 2020-2045. Feedback is to be provided in relation to the responsibilities of the committee. All the feedback will be collated and provided as evidence to the court that policy committee on the 30th February. And then on to full council on the 27th February, it could be approved by the project. This report follows a report to the committee back in November when the committee received a report on the medium term financial strategy. Indicating project envelopes for the 24-25 year. This table is shown on page 52 of the report pack in paragraph 9. Since the report members and officers have worked together to develop the budget proposals for 24-25. And that's been undertaken and these are presented in the tables today. I'll just move on to the next table. Some paragraph 12 of the report is set south for each committee. The impact of the change proposal is identified to date and included in the report. The key message here in this table indicates that overall beds still remain the shortfall of 12.7 million. Absolutely. The next slide focuses on the particular position. So, appendix A in the report on pages 61 to 64 of the agenda pack provides an extra after public consultation proposal for the committee. And then beyond that, this or this in detail, all of the proposals for the committee, not just those that are in the public consultation. In summary, this table shows per the committee that 8.2 million pounds worth of pressures have come forward and that's a combination of both well forward proposals and new pressures that will come on to those in the third slide. And this means that in comparison to the target set, which was a net reduction across from the open budget to the target budget as a net movement of 1.1 million, that savings of 9.3 million would be required by the committee. Within the wrong forward proposals, there were already 4 million pounds worth of savings, like to green waste charging, the grounds maintenance review and also the library via some reductions in pension costs. And just part of the proposals that have been published in the public consultation, there are 7 savings proposals that have been put forward for indicating the 3rd or 4 million pounds worth of savings, leaving a 1.1 short for the committee as it stands. So the recommendations and the intention is that we sort of page through each of the proposals within the appendix A for the report. So the recommendations are shown here and are set up on page 54 of the report pack and the environment increases the committee have been asked to recommend the corporate policy committee for the meeting on the 30th February, all of the proposals within the budget consultation as related to the committee's responsibilities for inclusion in the council's budget for 24.5 and recommend a recommendation be to identify any 3rd of the change proposals. Again, as related to the committee's responsibilities that could assist the corporate policy committee in presenting the noble wallets for its council. I'll just pause there in case I want to query anything before we move on to the proposal. Anybody any questions about Tracy? Mary? And page 61 of the report says that more details of how these savings will be presented in high level business cases. That will be considered by committees in January and February. I just want to clarify when those high level business cases are going to be available. My understanding is they're going to be read in time for the corporate policy committee, so they will be not quite sure the method that's being published at moments and the offenses that be read into the corporate policy committee. I'd like to close. Thank you, Chair. I just wondered when would be the most opportune moment to bring forward the proposed amendments to the recommendation. I'll do it now, then. Thank you very much. So, first of all, I hope everybody has had a chance to look at the two proposals that we sent forward last night. I'd like to thank Mr. Shuffleworth for putting together comments yesterday and actually given the opportunity to discuss them. So we could bring something forward that was compliant with the budget process for this committee. And what you have there is you have a description of the original proposals that are submitted at the beginning of December. You have some comments, some narrative from the offices, and then you have a box with proposals which might be included as part of those recommendations to corporate from this committee that I hope it had a chance to look at. So, in relation to EC4, which is already one of those recommendations, we would like it enhanced. But more importantly, in some ways, that the process is clearly identified by which it will come back to this committee at very earliest stages so that this committee has opportunities for early oversight and scrutiny of those developing policies. I think what's quite important here is that it should be included in the work program, and it would make sense to put it in this part of the quarterly NTFS reviews so that you can actually see exactly, I mean, in terms of libraries, but in terms of all your NTFS proposals, what their progress is. So, therefore, behind you know about it, it will make a good progress so you will also know about it. As we have found in recent NTFS proposals, there is sometimes slippage, sometimes quite a slippage, which will have an impact on the overall budget picture. I think the key thing as well is that this should be very much a bottom-up proposal, and that all library governments' models should remain on the table as part of the library strategy. And in a way, we can't really look at the budget implications until we've actually got that library strategy. It's really exciting to know that you've already seen that, you've approved that, but it needs to be expedited because we can't bring any of the rest of it forward until that strategy is in place. And there are some really excellent resources from the LGA and others that give some idea of some of the sorts of governance models that might be applicable. And in particular, as I say, we have a bottom-up approach that we are going to be better able to produce solutions that best meet the needs of libraries and the communities in which they are based, because it's not a one-size proposal. So I hope that those involved recommendations are acceptable and I'm happy to answer any questions on those. The second key point is in relation to something that's been going for a great many years, parish compacts. And they work, they're part of the equivalent which by a council solution for those councils that do not have that critical mass to take on board, transfer on assets, for example, or some of the major council services. But nonetheless, they can take on some of the different services in particular those related to green space services. And they have worked extremely well in the sense that they receive in real terms less money from the council. But the value added is in that they know the local people that can actually fulfill their authority's possibilities. And bearing in mind that structure is already in place. It may well be a useful adjunct to those really important conversations that I know that the team are having with larger town and parish councils at the moment to bring forward. Those are both services, parish councils, particularly rural parish councils to deliver access to themselves. So I will leave it there for you to discuss. I think the group may have further information on parish compacts. Okay, so we have any questions for Janet and Mary. Thank you. I mean, I think we discussed this at the briefing last week that we did want to see a library strategy and we did want that to be in the work program. So a very welcome map emphasis on that. And there's only one question that I do have a little bit of a problem with is around the green spaces consultation where it says at the bottom of the page about the parish compacts that this should be explored before the green space consultation is finalized. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting it, but I just hope that you're not wanting to pull the report from the first meeting because I do think that we do need to move forward with that on Thursday and get the new maintenance schedules in place. So that was just a lot more clarification on. A really good question. You've got to remember that went in at the beginning of December and it might be possible to read it into what was still an ongoing consultation, but you're quite like that has moved on. And so in terms of proposal three, there is still opportunity. First of all, yes, let's get that through the system. I don't feel with that. But it is timely also over the emerging MTFS period, 24/25 to look and review it further as it's implemented to see whether or not in actual fact, some of those services could also be then evolved to pass. So absolutely right, not to be able to write the process, but not to rule out the opportunities in that area. I'll come to you in a second. So in that case, do you need to amend what's looking on this document here around that? No, because the update proposal is the last one. So as the green space is reviewed, it's implemented, and there's an assumption there that it will be. It is timely to further review green space making over 24/25. In the context of town and parish councils. So one is done, but part of this MTFS, because you don't stop an MTFS process, you are building into the next world. And it may be that we can't do them savings in terms of additional parish compacts in this budget year. But doing the work now, we've got something on the shelf ready to go for the next MTFS process. And that is part of the difficulty we do have. You don't just do one MTFS and sit back and relax you and we'll get you to start the next meeting. Sorry. Okay, thanks. I'll have it. Yeah, I was just going to add that this is foremost business as usual comment, really. Because we already have suited the town parish councils can take on to both services from Cheshire's Council. Call to town councils have a streetscape team for about 10 years. It works very well. It's very high satisfaction in the town. They do maintenance green spaces. They've got street clothes, etc. And there's also Nantwich town councils as well that do this. I guess it's fine to highlight it, but it's probably not going to generate. It's not like a saviour, a landman, really. It's always, it sounds like business as usual in my perspective. Okay. Okay. I think it's better for you to use. If you think this, okay, don't know. Yeah, there's some of the region of 110, 120 parish and town councils across the borough. And the parish compact and the operates in south of the borough in the old Kern Nantwich. You're absolutely right. It's business as usual for our larger town parish councils. They are engaged in those devolution conversations and have been for many years and the transfer of assets. But what we haven't yet done is come together with a similar tool that works for those smaller parishes to enable them to take on some of those devoted services. It will be limited, but when you actually multiply that across the many, many smaller rural in particular parishes, that could add up to a useful sum in terms of savings. And you're quite right. I don't think, yeah, if we knew what all the massive saviour solutions were, we'd have done them already. But to quote the certain supermarket, every little house. Okay. I'm conscious, Stuart, at least I'm looking over here. So my mind doesn't relate to this item. Mine related to something that the finances are set up from respect of working up detailed models of how we're going to situate the achievements, where we move to corporate policy committee. And I feel a little bit like we as a committee are being done to. And we're being asked to prove something today, and yet we don't even have sight of those worked up working models. And that is being taken away from us and those decisions will be taken by others. Now, I accept that there is a government structure within the capital, but given that these are going forward to corporate policy, before the 20th of February, so probably I think it's 13. I find it a little bit narking, if that's a word, but we are not being presented with them today. Because I do think that actually, if we are being asked to prove a savings agreement or a package of savings, we need to know what the implications of those are in terms of operationally how that can impact upon the service users. And I just feel that actually we should have those today, so that's the comment I'm going to make. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Garnt. I fully appreciate what you're saying, and again we'll feed that back to the corporate centre in terms of who coordinates the overall MTFS process. Personally, I would agree in that respect, but I think it's just a case of there is this consistency and they consistently approach the moment is also then taken through to proper policy committee in new rules. Okay, Tony? No, I'm okay now, we're going to include, if you're happy with Councillor Cloud, the amendment and the item being all the recommendations I have. Yeah, if we agree with it, yeah, we will. So, is anybody got any more questions for Councillor Cloud around the amendment? Okay, do we want to discuss the amendment or should we go to the notes if we want to accept it? Okay. So, it's proposed by itself, John, the seconder is Councillor D. All those in favour? Councillor, let's see unanimous. Thank you very much. So, that's added to the recommendations in under item B. So, going on from there, do you want to resume, Tracy? Thank you, Chair. Just pause on each page and see if there's any particular comments on those assumptions. I think I'll take the view of the members, really. As we're going through, if you wish to have a little bit more depth in any of the items, just sit your hand up and we'll pause on that trace, we'll just go through them one by one if that's okay. No questions on this slide, or do we want to? So, we're on the refresh of the early-owned company. Thank you, Chair. I think the intention at this point is just for officers just to go through on each slide and do a very quick intro to each of the savings proposals or growth items that we'll come on to. So, the first one on the reference EC1 is a refresh of the holy on company, overheads and contributions. So, this relates to a review of answer environmental services and arbitrage bereavement services. To consider whether company operating model is a team, it's original objective set out. Now, those companies are now 10 years old, and that objective is obviously to increase commercial opportunities. I think we've set up all those more direct costs for our own services. And importantly, those opportunities could not otherwise be accessed by a local authority acting and more direct capacity. So, a review of the consider how the current company financial positions can more directly support the council's obviously very challenging and immediate financial requirements. So, happy to take any specific questions on that item. First, Councilor D. It is not already underway under another committee in their review of what do we call on the SDVs. Yes, the review is underway. This is to crystallize it, Council, within the anti-FS in terms of that. So, whether or not we are through it, it's happening. So, the review is already commenced as a result of a decision by a current financial committee. Certainly, sort of questioning if I can. And you've got to figure it out. We're really in quid. I just wanted to know if somebody's obviously got an idea of what the end result of that review is to be able to get to a meeting in quid. So, is it quite well advanced? Is that what we're saying? I'm not leaning directly on that particular review process. That's being led by the Monishn officer and his team. So, my understanding is an update will be presented on a targeted presentation back to the Monish Finance Subcommittee to do an update on progress. I think that's my main problem. There's so many of these at the moment that we're asking to approve. You know, there's seven of them that I'm saying it's from. They're very still very vague and cloudy and haven't been crystallized, as you say. So, it's very hard for me to vote for something that I don't know what it actually means on the ground. That's just a general comment. Yeah, okay. Next one. If I could bring, so, the next proposal is EC2. Strategic Leisure Review Stage 2 and I invite Chris Ollman to the responsible head of service to quickly introduce that. Thank you, Tom. This relates to the second stage of the Strategic Leisure Review. We're looking at a variety of different options, pricing, FM costs, alternative ways of living the service more efficiently effectively. Members be aware that we did recently to take a consultation, including some for January. Our consultation along with a number of recommendations, including things like changes to the options scheme, will be presented back to this committee until the 11th of March. The saving part of 1.305 million, which in essence is my commissioning budget for next year for everybody health and merchant. So, a number of proposals will be brought forward to March for members to consider. That's the thing. Sorry, comes to you. Thank you, Chair. I have been asked by a resident of Oxford who is perhaps more qualified than I am to talk about matters relating to leisure services given her professional background. That we are being asked to put a cart before a horse. In so far as we are being asked to approve a budgetary saving of 1.3 million, and yet we do not know whether or not the outcomes of the Strategic Leisure Review are going to facilitate that saving. And I think it is, I can understand exactly where she is coming from. And, obviously, I'm going to ask. He is Mr. Shatworth or Ms. Solman, whether or not they are confident that the proposals that they will present in large will meet the pleasure of this committee, the support of this committee going forward. And, secondly, that if those did go forward, that they are confident that the 1.3 million will be achieved, not forgetting the odds of 500,000. And then, actually, the 5,000 with it. And then, the second list, if those proposals were not approved, do they have a fallback position in order to meet the savings? Okay, thank you, Councillor Gardner. And to answer the first question, Officer would be your proposals forward to the committee, whether they are acceptable to the committee, as the officers we cannot say, one way or the other. And so that will be a member decision at that point, whether they wish to accept those proposals or not. We are in negotiations with everybody, health and leisure, as our trust provider, around achieving that target, and we are calling the on track to getting close to that, if not the whole amount to it. That would depend on the decision that's taken by this committee in March. And, again, those proposals, whether they're accessible to members or not. And then the next question around is an alternatives. Yes, there is, but that depends on the decision that this committee to take at March. So the alternative proposals could be forward, depending on the decision that members make. I'm pleased to hear the second part of that question, because that suggests to me that we are not having our hands tied this afternoon in something that we might be asked to consider in March, because I have been in meetings before. We are suggesting that if anybody in this room, whereby, oh, but you've already made that decision, so you can't go back on it now. And the unintended implications of what you did a few months ago suddenly come kick in the teeth, and if you know that the time you might go differently. So thank you very much for clarifying that matter. I think it helps class. Did you have your hand on it? No, you're okay. It helps with rocks. Yeah, just to comment on putting the car before the horse. I think the officers did bring some clear proposals back a few months ago. We were actually unanimously that we didn't want to know that proposal, so I think it's welcome that we have actually gone back and looked at alternative ways to save the money. Okay, Linda. I need to apologise to the committee. I shouldn't have declared interest, because obviously I work for everybody's health and measurement. Okay. Okay. I'm fine. Okay, we're all done with the BC2. Sorry, Councilor Jeffery. Just to come back to Councillor Gala's point, and the Toronto's reply. So if there is a plan B, is that going to be brought concurrently with Plan A? Because it may be more acceptable to us on Plan A? Are we going to get a menu basically? Or are you going to imagine, oh I have visited that pocket after we've seen that. There will be a number of options that are presented to members in March that range from the issues that are discussed on that, particularly the narrative, so pricing option schemes, different ways to live range, etc. So they will be brought forward to members for consideration in March. Okay, and so I'm just wondering, again, who's going to be what's going on in C1, about 1,000,000 it seems to be from our perspective to come out for now as well. That's a target. So we're going to realize the elastic expectation that we can achieve more than that, or do we need further mitigations to achieve our savings, if that's not that, or more. So we need to work on what savings we need to identify more savings in case that's how we found that. That's correct. I think so, I think, ultimately, these are set in proposals at the current times of savings, you will then be monitored throughout the course of the next 12 months as to the normal process. And clearly then, if for instance, if one of those savings proposals isn't coming forward at the pace, the party was going to, or ultimately, the out turn isn't as great in terms of saving, then we would need to make some in-year adjustments to other budget savings proposals to deal with that particular issue in another way, but that will be highlighted through that sort of quarterly monetary process that comes in front of this committee. So the strategic level, the leisure review, they may be needed on top of that as well. Yeah, so like Chris has sort of highlighted, I think what we'll be bringing forward is a series of complementary proposals. One proposal that's quite fixed in terms of the scope, there will be a series of different proposals, which is in all different elements, but there will be some elements to it that still need some further rationalization because it will rely on some external funding potentially and things like that. So there will still be some risk in that regard, but ultimately it will be a bit of a mixture of different elements rather than just being looking at one particular room forward. That's a question. Thank you, this is not a safe question. It was, it's really interesting to hear that. And I think one of the things that has given some consternation is that all committees are making decisions in advance of anything that may come out of the public consultation, which finished on Friday, and I appreciate that our role today is as one of the consultants in effect. So our decisions today are not impacted. But of course, in the short to medium term, yes, they are, because by the 13th, I am assuming that the public consultation will have been reviewed. And if there are legitimate proposals arising from that contributed by the public, we would want to include those into the 24/25 MTFS as well. So whilst we have a figure here at 1.3 million for EC2, it might well be more than that if there are good ideas coming forward. So at what point would this committee have to wait until the April meeting to know what they were in terms of your own work program? And it's the first time you're going to hear about it's going to be at that meeting and of course at four council. It's really, really difficult to know how to appraise anything that's coming out of the public consultation, because that might have made a difference to some of the decisions you might want to meet today and vice versa. Sorry, just for clarity. Are we stocking specifically here at the leisure review on more generally? More generally, but we know that there is a particular interest in this from previous meetings. Yeah, OK, so obviously the leisure review was subject to its own public consultation. I believe that the outcome from that consultation in terms of the report was published yesterday. I'm just looking at Ms. Ron at the room. The outcomes from that consultation process, which are now available, generally support the intended approach. We're looking at pricing, alternative service delivery models and other operators, not several of the current one specific size, et cetera. So that would be considered as part of the proposals that get brought forward as a result of the leisure review. But that's informing those discussions that we're having with other partners like everybody health and measure principally. OK, so that again, I can say, we'll factor into that paper that we bring currently targeted at the 11th of March. Yeah, and that has cognizance to the revised number that's currently being brought forward for the next iteration, the MTFS. So I'm not the previous one to the current MTFS, but there's no missing on screen here in terms of other proposals. OK, so in other words, we're not looking back, looking at what might be the case. There's a bit of full consultation on the 7th of February and developing those proposals to support that, what you're saying is target. How's the date? Yeah, just some explanation because I'm conscious that people opposite haven't been involved in this in yourself, Mr. Chairman, will you? The reason was a lot of nervousness on this side of the table is we tried to call in two decisions, one made by this committee and one made by another committee last year. On both occasions, they were refused to go to their full council, and the reason given on both occasions by the monitoring officer was when you voted for the budget in your February budget meeting last year, this item was in the budget. Therefore, the full council has already approved it, so you can't refer that decision back. Really been waste charges was one of them, closure of the Stanley Center was the other. So we're a little bit nervous now to say yes to this, because we haven't got the detail yet in March, and then you try and take it back to full council for review on the answer being no no. The budget meeting was in February, and you haven't got this information to a march, but the budget said yes, and you can't go back on it, that's where all our nervousness is coming from. Yeah, I can understand what you're saying. I've got a answer for you. To be honest, the answer to Mr. Allman has given is pretty good that there is other options going to be available, but hopefully that's the same for all of them, rather than what we say today, and these figures in here setting the stone, because some of them obviously have been calculated yet. I think particularly around this strategic leisure review, because there are potentially a lot of different permutations of how you get to that figure. It is very different to one. The next one we're going to look at, EC3. It's a very different proposal because that's quite definite, and it's quite easy to cost if you like. I understand the nervousness. Again, I think we'll throw all of these reassuring stuff like that. We'll come and see each other explain why we're a bit nervous. OK, so we're done on EC2. Council bird's eye. Thank you. Thank you for people over there expressing things that have been running around my head, and I didn't know quite how to put them into words, to be honest. I'm just wondering what the implications are going to be for us enabling this to go forward, given that we haven't got all the information we need to make decisions based on explicit detail relating to recommendations. And I'm conscious that we've got a timeline, and some deadlines come up very quickly now. I think the specific ones I can understand about this strategic leisure review and the concerns that we've already been expressed. What we've got to remember is that as a committee, we've been set an amount to allow council to set a balanced budget, a budget council. If we don't, then we won't be able to set a balanced budget, and then obviously we're ramifications for that. So, while it's not a leap of faith, you've got to have trust in what the officers are telling us and the figures they've worked on. When the high level business case comes to corporate policy on the 13th and onto council, that's when the detail is in the business case. So at the moment, we're just exploring those proposals that we've gone out to consultation, and then we're going to vote and see whether that's what we still want to go up to corporate policy on the 13th. So, the next proposal is EC3, which relates to reducing the cost of why to suppose on a number of household waste recycling centres across the borough. So this is, as you can see on that slide, if you move that, you split into two sections and I invite Ralph Kemp to sort of quickly talk through those in the comment. So, with this, don't try and make it clear, I think there's one number in the consultation, just so you're aware. The top number is to do with relating one of our recycling processing contacts to answer. This was a contract that was left a year ago, we felt at a affordable price. So, in the return of the contract, it was allowed to be ended up a year up and was to go back to the market, to go back to that year. So that is the estimated saving to that contract still to be awarded. So we're still in the pure and I can't be saying more than that associated with that. A 90,000 reduction on the commissioner's side of willing waste, which basically means I'll reserve pot for four things, you know, that are fluctuating in price on our waste contact. We're giving that a $200,000 worth of that. The second one is a person to emergency, the reduced number of household waste centers ahead of then formal long-term decision on household waste provision. So the existing household waste center contract has within it the ability to morph all sites within the contract and it has specific reductions within that contract that we would receive. And so that for that number is it's part of the existing contract ability for us to sort of morph and to focus on both sites from the first of April in advance of any formal decision being made. So it's not only going to be a community in the future, but it's just recognizing the financial position, the committee, and the councils in which we have a good option. Can I just confirm then rather that figure around the emergency reduction would include any money to pay to the contractor for implementing that break. So there's a specific table in the contract, and that's where that number is conformed for each of those sites. So that is a contracting member that we will receive as a reduction in our contract. Okay. John. Yes. Thank you for the clarification. I think it's really important because the way it comes forward on PC three. There were a variety of ways of interpreting that. So I wasn't sure it was the reducing the costs of waste disposal of material that comes to household waste and recycling sites. Or whether it was, you know, generic reduced the cost of waste disposal, you have made that very clear in terms of the recycling contractor and so on, which obviously has come forward as part of another committee as well. I, because of that confusion. I wonder, would this not be better as two budget lines and you see for three, they are an easy free be so they are identified as separate and not connected to each other directly, because otherwise I think that there is room for confusion there. And similarly, in terms of household waste, recycling centers, I read the consultation. When you say that they will be mothballed, is that time limited, or is that they will be mothballed for a year and we'll review next year, or is it just an ongoing into the distant future potential. So there's a piece of work on going, and with the curement on going for replacement of the existing household waste and recycling center contract. And this committee will have proposals in September, which will be a review of previous documentation costumes associated with household waste center provision. And the part two item prices for different options arising from an ongoing life procurement to allow you to make a formal decision on levels of service and household waste centers from first of April, first of July. So in a sense, this emergency, multiply, happens on the existing contracts until it ends. And then from that point, what's out of the decision this committee has made on future household waste service provision will take force, excuse me, in which case you've been reopening the form through the curement, or you've made a decision to permanently move from the service and the sites to the presenters to our assistance. Thank you very much. So bearing in mind, a decision has to be made by next April anyway. Is there value in actually identifying this as a proposal of one new duration, just the clarity and to actually separate these two budget lines. So the business cases were split, I think it was part of the consultation document that they became merged that did not be joined in the business case. We've been asked to look at all options to deliver savings for this committee. So two of them was 63,000 in years, saving is quite substantial savings as well as possible. So I just have a support, it's been split into two separate, I think that person, my preference, any case, just to make that clear. And again, happy to have that to be, my understanding is in terms of how it's accounted for, and I'm looking at trace on this basis, that those savings are only in for 24, 25 in any case that line item 263. So they are only in accounted for, for that, for the next year, the financial unit paper. So on that basis, it is that 12 months savings, because the review would then kick in from the following April. Yeah. That comes together. I'm seeking clarification that what we are being asked to do is support an identified saving and not being held responsible for saving. For the manner in which that saving is achieved, i.e. that the appropriate officer is employing their delegated powers to undertake work for which this committee doesn't have any wrong. Namely, that to choose to employ, in their called emergency powers, to multiple a waste, a household waste center is the emergency being the financial difficulties that the council currently faces, I'm assuming, as opposed to an operation emergency such as some form of spinach or contamination at a site. And that we are not going to buy association, as members of this committee, being accused of closing waste transfer, we're certainly psyching centers and something quite completely different, by agreeing to this saving. It's very easy for things to be extrapolated. Like I said, when in September we are presented with a report, we will be asked to consider whether or not the estate of house on waste at recycling centers is as it should be, not enough, too much, and make necessary decisions. And that is a decision that we are being asked to make at that time. But at this moment in time, I want clarification that we are only agreeing to an identified saving and that the mechanism employed to reach that saving is being undertaken by the officer, employing their delegated powers. Thank you. So, as you've touched on this, the decision on the future of long term future of house on waste, we just have to send a welcome before this committee cover targets in September. I think what we're doing today is recommending to corporate policy committee that these are ascertained forward. Ultimate decision will be the full council on the 27th of February, so whether this is included in the budget, and that will then give the requisite authority to officers to undertake that particular action. So it won't be an officer undertaking through some form of emergency powers, it will be as a result of any decision made up for council is my current understanding as to whether this is included in the budget or not, as the case may be, does that make sense? It does, in that case, if I was a vote for this, I would be recommending the full council is that they adopt this course of action. So the committee has been asked to, the exact wording in terms of recommendations in the paper recommend to corporate policy committee that these items, as you see in front of you, are taken forward as part of the budget setting process. Thank you. Thanks, Malcolm. In terms of the sort of diversion of waste to all the sites that we confident that the remaining council of those recycles enters and equates to cope with additional rules of waste. And I wondered, is there any kind of, is there anything you can learn from where household waste recycling centers have been quoted before in Congleton in terms of has there been any increase in flight in England? Is there any mitigation in terms of additional budget to deal with that? I'm sure that the residents want an appointment in the middle which are very responsible and what we may see an increase in flight to observe some sort of comment on that. There are a former review of the household waste centers system, probably being a first suggested recording for household waste centers with the number of residents it has. And it may involve at three times some form of viewing or whatever. But the report's currently suggested to improve the report sites. And that would actually be entirely combined with government guidance on travel times and numbers that have always set up and still have been. Other properties in our area have new household waste centers for heads of the operation etc. So I think yes, I think we're saying that in normal cooperation with the review curve with the full household waste centers. With regard to flight of being, we've learned two household waste centers since specialist began one in households and ash and one in Portland. As you refer to in general terms, we don't experience a large bike in flights associated with household waste center closure. What we tend to see is the initial protest of flight of being in the immediate facility beside the facility wall, turning up and building it in the gate. So when we have done that in the past, we have focused our flight of being crews and monitoring on trying to deal with that immediate problem. And then really theres two of the normal process. Okay, Councillor Burd. Thank you. Just thinking about the term the word emergency and the implications of that for the future. I'm just wondering if we could think of another word? Because that there's all sorts of different connotations, doesn't it? And the other thing is the term mothboarding. I think it would be an idea to clarify what that means and also give a timeline on it. Because I think for the places where the centers are going to be closed chair, this recommendation is going to be really highly unpalatable. So at least having some detail around what we mean by this, to me, would seem very sensible. Can I call myself a talk? Thank you, Chair. So thank you, Councillor Burd. So the word emergency we can take a look at that in terms of the wording. If members feel that's appropriate, as we again have already discussed, potentially splitting this particular proposal into two parts to make it clearer. In terms of the mock-balling element, the timeline. So the timeline, and again, I'll walk to Ralph to correct me where I get this wrong. There is a definitive timeline to this. We'll be looking at a report to this committee in September around the permanent long-term future of a sort of waste recycling center provision in the borough. That's the first sort of master almost that we're supported by a number of different, the feasibility study that Ralph has touched on in terms of the refresh. The procurement, the outcome from the procurement, et cetera. And then we'll have you then to the final, the new contract and final sort of solution being in place for the first of April 2025. So that'll be the timeline. So going back to, kind of closes previous comments. This is a one-year, 12-month savings proposal simply on the basis by first of April 2025. We expect to have the permanent sort of solution in place. And that's the decision that this committee will seek. It will be, will be sort of presented within September this year. Just a little bit of detail in the wording will be held for sort. Thank you. That's snowball. Thank you, Chair. Given that we've established that this closure, emergency or any other work that might be chosen for it, is pending a final decision ultimately in 2025. I wonder if we can just have a little bit more detail just to put some pressure on the bones of what will happen with staffing and the site at the time when they're mothballed on the basis that, of course, we're looking at the feasibility and we're looking at procurement and they may come out of being mothballed for these sites. Thank you, Council Snowball. So in terms of staffing, so what you'll probably see is some of the staffing will be transferred to the sites because it will be an increased demand. I think, again, that's something that the updated feasibility report will look at in terms of staffing levels. At each of the sites and whether that will be appropriate, the sites themselves will be obviously secured. So it's going into trespass, et cetera, et cetera. So gate closed, what, et cetera, and then obviously some regular inspections will be taken relating to their ongoing security. That will be happening obviously over the course of the year. As we would normally, anyway, in terms of inspection and to ensure they continue to be secure sites. Thank you. So there wouldn't be any prospect of any changes taking place, rather in staffing maintenance or in terms of site changes that will preclude them or be reopened. Should the feasibility of the procurement and the ultimate decision be that they are going to be reopened? No, so in terms of the staffing, the staffing element is obviously with the current contract provider. Obviously, there's a re procurement process ongoing. So that might look different anyway, subject to a lot of procurement process. As that moves forward, in terms of sites themselves, there's no intention to modify them and mend them in any way, et cetera, et cetera, simply because there isn't the money to do that. If that was the case, and there's no real need to do that either, I'm sorry. Thank you. Council different? Thanks, Chair. Rather, I think you've mentioned something about, I guess it's that review of Commissioner contract risk budgets. Did you say 90 grand would they live from the risk of? Can you just elaborate on that slide, to explain what level, what value of risk we should be holding, and whether we're just transferring that, or we're transferring that to the contractor, or are we just transferring it, and then we'll have to find it from somewhere else I've drawn. Yes, so a number of aspects of waste, as you are aware, have variable risk profiles, and therefore the cost to bus as a committee, me as a Commissioner, varies. So the original intention was that there was a small buffer between what I hand over, is that this is the biggest cost of our cost this year to account for that variability. So by removing that small buffer, that means that it would fall to us as overspend if the costs were greater. However, in looking at this year, the costs are very so much on these contracts, that it's actually given up the 90k, as part of the overspend, and it will be spent, if you see what it means. So I think practically given the evaluation of our contracts, and that it wouldn't make a practical difference. It just means from the accounting point of view, I've got that now in 2000 in my budget, it sits in my budget until the end of them is used to offset. And it's been, if I give it up now, it's clear what the overspend is or what the overspend is. So that I don't think it approximately means it's just a way of accounting for, if we are their perspective, it will give more visibility to the full extent of that. So it's not very okay. It's the same being in a year where our contracts were poor as per the budget, and therefore it would be surplus. This is the year where, in years where the cycling prices are low, as we are accounting in, for example, the overspend was associated with that. You know, it's mitigated on that. So it doesn't actually do what it was intended to do. It should be supplied based by student users. Okay, we're all done on that one, I think. So we'll move on to EC4, the former libraries in a different way. Thank you, Chair. I'm conscious members. EC4 relates to the fund libraries in a different way, a proposal, which I know has already been discussed as a result of the amendment brought forward by Councillor Close. I'm happy to take any sort of specific questions on that. We haven't otherwise already covered. Councillor Brooks. Yes, I mean, I suppose you just need to clarify around from libraries in a different way, because I mean, we will still move to fund libraries in some way. I presume you're kind of thinking about evolving funding to town councils. And I think that the take that they, out of all, I just think it could be messy for it. It's like, we're not going to fund libraries in that. We will need to continue to do that. I know there's various models, but they're not panacea. York is obviously mentioned as an area of good practice, but in the news is that a big route between the council and the company explorer actually had a 15-year contract with them. So, because the council's proposing to take 600,000 from that budget to New York, and there's a big route between them and the provider. So I just think that we, I don't think we could kid ourselves that, you know, this is going to be, you know, be the magic bullet that we, that we couldn't actually generate loads of money and whatever. That's all I wanted to say. Okay, good, films for seven. Yeah, I've also got a problem with the 150,000 on one of, on the page 66, to want to take feasibility work relating to the charitable trust operating model for the library service. I don't think that's good value for money, I think we have resources in house to look at that. And even if we need to bring in a project manager, I think you can get that much reduced cost. So I feel uncomfortable back. I also feel uncomfortable with the fact that if it goes to an outsourced provider, basically you, these things happen over and over again. It's not any cheaper and often, yes, the staff are trying to be transferred across and their terms and conditions stay the same. But actually, those terms and conditions then deteriorate as, as you've lost control over the staff. You will also lose control over your app. The buildings, it's quite common that these trusts come into being and then they say, well, sorry, we're going to have to close off the libraries because, you know, it's not as easy as you think. So I think the first step is to use our skills. We've got a lot to start working in the libraries. We know best their areas, what to be achieved. I think you probably do need a project manager. I don't think you need that line, that look at the 50,000 outline. Tell them to come back and work. Thank you, Councillor Seven. So I think this is an initial potential suggestion to members here. I'm probably picking up on perhaps the closest of amendments. There are obviously now sort of this proposal and the exploring a different delivery model for libraries. I think probably the library strategy that we've previously referenced is that we'll cover that to some extent. And that's probably one in the same proposal to, you know, some degree. And whether we want to sort of bring all those things together within a single MTFS line rather than having them split out. We've got a few guys to debate. In terms of the growth item that you're referring to, Councillor Seven, it's related to obviously exploring at the stage a different operating model. That is a fairly high level estimate of what that would cost. These things aren't necessarily that cheap to undertake. There will be a series of auctioneering processes. There are consultation, some procurement activity potentially and the different procurement activities involving a wide range of different council services. And all potentially in certain areas that will charge fees. So once it sounds a lot of money, when you're undertaking something of that scale, it isn't necessarily. We've, as I think we suggested, we'll be spoke on this last week in form. This is something that we've tried to put in at an upper level. So we don't have to come back nice twice considering the delivery of a library strategy and that long term sort of approach to libraries needs to be done relatively quickly. And ultimately things that are delivered quickly tend to cost a little bit more as well. Because we do not. I like your optimism in terms of we have a lot of external expertise, absolutely accepted. The internal expertise has a day job, which generally is bringing the service. So we do need to complement that with some external resources as well, which again, is part of our appropriate access. Councillors? Thank you. I share Councillor CASSIDY's concerns to a certain extent. And I think that with the amendments that we've made and you're opposed to expansion of this line, I think that gives us a little bit more room to be quite clear that this is a work in progress in terms of models that we might use. But I think the other element of this is that we need to recognize as a group's law just how different all our libraries are. We tend to be familiar with the ones that we use, or that are closest to us. But we've got all sorts of models already in terms of other assets. And I think the important thing is that the Council is not looking to lose the asset. I wouldn't want us to lose the assets. So we look at, for example, the Bollington buildings that own the land, but a private company operates a gym after it. We look at board streets school. We still own the land and the site. They have it on a proper form of rent, but hopes and themes are on an extremely successful disability gym from there, and a community centre. That was the exchange payback. We like the community payback for that asset transfer. If we look at Pressbury, they have a charity that runs their library. But my understanding is that I'm sort of fairly recently, you know, the building itself was, I don't know, but I'm saying is, let us please go from the bottom up. That's where you will probably find, if you're going to find it anywhere, the local expertise that will help design the programs. Yes, they may want to work with our external teams that will bring in for that purpose or consultants. But actually, I would want to see them actually coming from communities rather than from consultants. If we start doing a top-down approach, we will not get best results for our libraries. And I wouldn't be at all surprised that we end up with a variety of models in a variety of places, providing a wide diversity of services, and they won't be the same. And that's the same model that we use when we did the lifestyle centre. We actually, it be eased with the communities. What do you want here? The lifestyle centre is in crew. I'm not saying the lifestyle centre is in other parts of the country that I visited. And all should they need so. Thank you. Thanks for that, Janet. Thank you, Councillor Burd. So I think we'd all agree that making good use of our resources, especially if we can generate some income is sensible. I'm just wondering, it might still be a very early day, but what research has been undertaken to ID the level of interest? Understand better who are current experts are, who know how to develop this initiative, and whether or not they've got to do that development to deliver. Thank you, Councillor Burd. So we have a very experienced in-house library service team. That's obviously nice, but I address some of the neighbourhood services. They have a huge volume of experience in library services to worry off. That was seen, I think, in the recent libraries service review that we've been waiting for last year. So that is available in-house, that in-built knowledge expertise. Again, if that's how my comments previously, we just have a day job employed to run the service. So that is a finite resource at the point, so we do need to supplement that in terms of obviously bringing in some resource support to the certain tasks. That resource may not exist within the Council, simply because it's being deployed on all the change projects that the Council may choose to prioritise above this one, if that is the case. So we do have that in-house expertise, but ultimately to deliver a library strategy and that's, you know, a couple of pleasures touched on. That may result in a number of different operating models, all of which will need to go through a process to establish, or that will consume a level of resource that does not exist in the service. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Yeah, just to follow-up on Councillor CASSIDY and then Councillor PLANDS, I think officers need to recognise how this would look to the public if we went out and said we were good to spend £150,000 on the external consortiums report. It doesn't sit well with me when we're temporarily closing tips, and I don't think our residents will appreciate that. However, I do appreciate that the staff in resource within the Council is absolutely put to the vote, and that I think we should look to, you know, a modest sum, I'm not sure what that sum would be, £25,000, I have no idea what that is, because we haven't got the high-level business case in front of us that would actually identify what we need to do and how much that will cost. There are teams within the Council, the Research and Consultation Team, which have brought up a lot of information from previous life and consultation, and, you know, I just wondered whether they're a resource that could be used. I mean, they seem to be doing lots of consultations and constantly over and over again, and I just wondered whether they could be deployed to look at strategic stuff like that. I don't know if we have a policy in the Strategy Team within the Council. I know that the Council is doing what perhaps we don't have one any more cover of the course, and there are also resources from Library Connects, which I think we're probably part of, and there's also advice from the Department of Culture and Media and Sport. Is that right? A stream of benefit? I think she's mentioned us some more, but we'll be able to provide advice. Yeah, so I think we really need to be sure that we're spending our money very carefully in this, because we don't want to spend the money on a big lawsuit report that actually will not conclude anything. I have a friend who's a chairman of Manchester Central Library Trust. He's happy to talk to us. He won't charge a penny to come to talk to us. So I think we need to look at those kind of solutions rather than just spending $150 because I'm not making a statement. Okay, thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on this item? Okay, we'll move on then to ECP5. Thank you, Chair. So, if it was ECP5, we'd use the cost of street planning operations. I don't know, again, I'll just pass over to Beth Kemp, who made me wish I had a couple of words on this in terms of proposal. So, again, that's being clear that we're doing an awful lot of change and youth and repaint projects with very few people. So this is not intended to be a large review. This is intended to be a target cost, operational saving associated with answers, services, services to each family. We'll be commissioning them to tell us how they intend to do it. It would initially be achieved through agency management and with the hope that over the year through the changes that we're making, that the officials can't be a mate. They're made out of permits. So it's no big plan behind this. It's a target cost. As of a total of $3 million, this is $200,000 for a population, which did you say? That's a question. Thank you. The $3 million budget you just mentioned, that's not specifically for street planning, or is it inclusive or? So that's our street fencing, we're here so that's the people who are emptying the spins, the sweeping of streets with small scale sweepers or large speakers. Can you please? How's it doing? Going to check around for that. That's not a way of saying we're going to stop or reduce street cleaning, it's just a way of doing it more efficient there. We would look to answer to how they would do the savings. I can't guarantee to you that the ticket won't involve some deduction at this point. It's a target cost to that, it's a big axis. The only reason I mention that chair is normally getting complaints about the lack of street cleaning where I live, so I don't know if any other people on the same. So if they can possibly get their operations, without reducing the frequency of street cleaning, that would be extremely good. Okay, thanks for that. Anybody else? No, it's probably with you again here, our reduction of impact of carbon reduction capital schemes, E.C. sticks. So this is a proposal to slow down the implementation of two large capital projects associated with the council's carbon neutral target. That is the transition to electric vehicles and the council's second solar farm in terms of the carbon offset for the capital for carbon properties by 25. Neither of those projects would stop. It would just slow down that implementation. The effective results of that would mean that the council wouldn't be talking neutral in terms of 25, would reset a new target for the council to speak on neutral by the first of April 27. Anybody got any questions on that, Ralph? I think it's not really a question, it's a small statement. I understand that we'll go to full council wrapped up in the budget proposals, but I think that it's probably, that's got to be a separate item for a full council decision. Thank you, Councillor. So, what we're looking to do in terms of officers is highlight any of these particular items within the NTFS that would have otherwise then changed any specific targets on each specific decisions from council to then officers to then go away and action in effect. This would be one of those as it stands. So that the implications of this decision around deferring that spend would be one of those. So that's something that we're putting forward through to finance colleagues in terms of those recommendations to include in that report. Councillor. Thank you. I think it's really disappointing. I understand rationale, but I think it's really disappointing. And I think back to May 2019, where we had a unanimous court council decision, probably the last one, actually. To actually bring forward that 2025 carbon neutral gate and the approval of the design of the strategy. And I know that this will hurt officers as much as us who are absolutely passionate and committed to the principle and the execution of that. But I like to be optimistic, have we looked at other budget proposals coming forward for the current NTFS that might themselves deliver unanticipated carbon benefits. So, for example, do we have any incoming plans grant funding that hasn't been accounted for or your other mechanisms by which, for example, children were looking at walking routes to school and this sort of thing that might actually offset that and may bring us back online with urgent intentions. So, along with the financial side of the NTFS, there's a carbon budget pay section within the NTFS proposal, as we have last year. All that does is it does a very high-level desktop review of the proposals within the NTFS and escalates as a high-level work that we feel that we have on the field, which was also a minus budget, because of that we obviously measure very specifically those things within the council that form a concentrated product funding. So, as those are implemented, the effectiveness is on the lower level, that would become obvious within the figures. So, we're measuring the capsule's gas usage, measuring the amount of fossil fuels in the NTFS proposal, et cetera. So, as changes happen, the capsule's the same thing they are after a third time on the basis of the NTFS proposal. So, we will see we live in the NTFS proposal in the NTFS proposal as well as the carbon process of the NTFS proposal. Okay, thank you. But it was worth me asking. Okay. I saw everyone. You're coming? I just got a question. If you go to delay the capitalisation of the carbon team, have you forecasted what the costs are that are not being reduced because we're delaying the capitalisation of the carbon team? Did that make sense? So, the carbon team themselves remain capitalised, the revenue cost of salaries because they are delivering these capital projects still, which is living in those different ways in a sense. They have a lot of us who do their work as well. What we're looking at is that is it one year saving from just delaying the council's pain of the interest on capital in a sense? So, for that year, we're not going to pay that interest against it. We have to go and therefore that's a saving estimate. The income associated with these projects, such as the largest of the bottom, yes, just doing that in a particular way, that we can work for a year associated with that. We're focusing on loans on front of board and how we balance that for years. So, it says that would be a capital of years in any cases. So, on current estimates, the largest of the bottom has to go to the bank. The largest of the children's fundals operate a big big big big. We wouldn't be lying in the university board and we'd like our parents to say, What is the status quo we have to do? So, we're not. So, actually, we're delaying investing to save. Yes, it's okay. Okay. Anybody else on the, you see, six? So, move on to the last one. You see six increased garden waste challenges to recover costs. Is that the year again or not? Yes. So, again, as part of the council's increase in recent charges, it's been a lot of the inflation that just recognizes about saving for the second year of the garden waste implementation. So, in a sense, if you fall to service now, you'll pay that for the coming year. And then when we come out for the new allowance for the following year, that would be a percentage increase for the following year. Thanks. So, we've introduced the charging for green waste in the current monetary year. The public reports are that it could oppress the take-up. It's been significantly below what was advised by officers in this board. So, two questions. Are we confident, A, that with time, those figures will be met. So, the act and the act advertised saving for the regime. And secondly, that the increase in the price, although by the time of the year, will be secured going forward and won't actually increase the number of people who haven't heard about the service. We end up in the fall back. And secondly, how does this compare to the remaining terms of the charging? Thank you, Councillor. So, yeah, not got the latest updated figure into the subscription levels. I know this time last week, it was around the 63,000 mark. It's a target of 90,000 in the business fund. We've been fairly pessimistic in terms of our projections for that take-up. So, the 90,000 is based on a 60% take-up from the applicable households in the borough, which is 150,000. What we have seen from, anecdotally from conversations with colleagues in other local authorities, is the take-up has been higher than 60% and that varies sort of 70, 80 plus percent in certain certain instances. So, we are confident that, very in mind, those collections have very recently restarted something last two weeks. So, let's start and obviously clear the growing season to commence, hopefully, where the change is for us, that we will hit that permanent sort of 60% take-up to the scheme based on those different projections. And that also includes just remind members. So, the income projections also include an offset for any unintended consequences as well. So, waste migration, in effect. So, that's been built into the business fund as part of that income generation, as well as some investment into Ralph's team in relation to dealing with correspondence and also dealing with some of the weight education aspects. I'm not certain as to how it relates in terms of the current or proposed and increased charge that relates to near and off authorities, I am aware that Cheshire West have recently raised those. I'm looking at income, I'm looking at Ralph, I think he has some information on that from what was 40 or 45 pounds to 50 pounds now, I think, as part of the recent MTFE setting. So, in effect, the service, I think, stops for about 12 weeks of the year from memory, as only ceases for around three weeks, which is the Christmas of the year period. So, confident in relation to the current take-up levels on projection and burn in mind. So, this is year one and a year two onwards. In terms of your comment around the 59 pounds, Councillor Gardner, no specific concerns from officers of that will have a detrimentally backed on take-up levels. But in mind, we've been relatively pragmatic in terms of setting that 60% table target. Thank you. How's it going? Thank you. If we were overachieved the target that we've set, would there be a case for being able to not raise the charge next year? The second, I kind of made this appeal to the Councillor's officer. I think that it would be really good if we could encourage our residents to upstate this scheme, because presumably it would mean that we wouldn't be able to look up other services to make more calls. So, I think that's something that we should do. I mean, none of us really wanted to bring this forward. But no one wants to pay for something, but we've got to be in the past and our residents do express that. We've got the fact is that the local authorities already introduced a green chart, and I'd just like to make that point. Thanks. Okay, Councillor Close. Thank you. I guess it's probably too rough. In terms of, I mean, the reason why we didn't charge is because we invested in the green waste fund that most of the local authorities don't have, which requires a set tonnage of green waste with the provider or the operator of the site, and this case, bio-wise. Now, obviously, when we spoke about this before, we had to negotiate a contract in order to accommodate that potential fall to 60%. But we haven't yet to met that 60%. Is that likely to have an impact on our contractual arrangements with bio-wise? Well, because it worked out on an annual tonnage this time of year, the initial after Christmas collections, the first section, is pretty low levels of a garden waste that don't have a factory anyway. It's true that there are a number of elements of pool art, and our actual model is basically produces new needs and monitor over this year to assess how it's performing. It's not just the uptake, it's the level that's taken into that model, and we can adjust that model, and look at how it's performing as we can pull back into the pool. OK, thanks. Anybody else on that item? If you're not sending the presentation, please. And we do have to look at detailed proposals. It's a piece of ink, called the consultation proposals, but there's the same thing. OK. We can happen quickly. Yeah, OK. So, the intention members is for me just to very quickly introduce each of these line items, and then take any questions at the end of the slide. OK. So these are now moving on to the growth items that feature in this committee's budget, which is as Tracey's reference previously amount to the 8.2 million growth, the 2024-25, and they are broadly in order of magnitude to the value, and some of these, as Tracey also reflected, sort of carryovers from the current MTFS, so in other words, they were already built for machinable, or included for them. So the first one relates to MTFS line 80, as it currently stands, or February 3. It has been forecast. It relates to a cost of waste disposal, basically the contracting inflation and tonnies growth, the barrier is growing, and the tonnies that we collect from the curbs I in particular is also growing. So that in the moment is a growth item was in the order of a million pounds forecast, or 24-25 on the current MTFS is now forecasted 3.5%, 7-7 million. There are a couple of elements in there around as rough touched on previously. We've seen a decrease in income from our recycled waste, which has caused a pressure to the last budget, and there's also been a legislation change from government that relates to our ability to charge a total waste of recycling centres or rubble waste, and that's been removed, which has a forecast loss of income pressure of around about 110,000 from memory. So all those things are in built into that value. The second item relates to the pay inflation, which is just 2 million, 1.944 million. So obviously these are related to the nationally negotiated pay awards, but just a member's reference. This committee not only is it responsible for the pay awards to the directly employed staff or the council. So with the likes of obviously Ralph, Chris, David, and Tracey's teams, but also those of the ASDVs who principally answer and orbit us are included in that number. So that's 2 million pounds for 24-25. Third item on the list again relates back to the MTFS line 90 item, which is strategic leisure review. So this was an original growth item, which replaced the savings that we've achieved in year, the 23-24, nearly 1.3 million against that particular review process. That was obviously presented to the committee back in November, in terms of how that saving had been achieved as a one-off basis. So this in effect is a 1.25 million growth item to be substantial, and replenish that budget to replace it from the savings, the one-off savings that we made this year, the breakdown of how that was achieved is included back in that paperback from the 9th of November. Next item is planning income. So that relates to a budget. It is basically a budget realignment for planning income due to the downturn in the number of applications, or particular large applications that have been being received, obviously planning fees, nationally, by the government, so we can, as we can with other fees and charges, adjust those to recompense for a reduction in income. So that is 400,000 forecast for this year as a growth item. The final item on this particular slide relates to review closed landfill sites, so the council holds a responsibility for a number of closed landfill sites, which it holds a budget provision, which is in the art of 600,000 pounds. In effect is a risk box to continue inspection and maintenance activities of those sites over a period, I think, of liability for around about the 40 years. Last year there was a draw down from that reserve, in effect of 300,000 pounds, and this 300,000 pounds that you see here as a growth item is simpler to replace that, so we back up at the 600,000 risk allocation again for those closed landfill sites. Happy to take any questions, not any of those items? Councilor Brooks? Just on the planning game, I thought planning fees were going up, is that the case, or is that not happening now? Is that just reflected in the fact that the number of applications are going down? Through you, Chair. So the planning fees did go up in December by 25 and 35% respectively, so that number that you see up there would be a lot higher than they haven't gone up, so it is still reflects. The last couple of years forecasted, if you like, so it's awfully quite uncertain in terms of it's an income stream, if you like, that we're not in control of, but based on forecasting, that's why we've gotten 0.4 in that, but that will include the recent increases going forward. There was a year-on-year cost of living increases, those fees, which may offset. From there on, so we'll be able to work with that, if that sets up. Backing? Thank you, Chair. Yes, you mentioned large-scale developments. How much land do we still have that has been allocated to accommodate those large-scale developments at the moment? Sorry, I know, I can see. I can see you try to pluck that figure out the air. Not out the air, considered response. (Laughter) As opposed in terms of the perspective of there are very few allocated sites left that are even not in the process of live applications or our discussions on the way. So I haven't got any numbers to hand but the majority of the sites have even got a live mission or I've been developed out, which is one of those larger applications, the peaks and troughs and cycles that we have now followed up with us. We are on that downward curve in numbers. Sorry, can I just ask a second question? When do we replenish that stock? So we are reviewing our local plan. We were in the very early stages as you know, with an issues paper on its way or March 15th. That is setting a long course to deliver a new local plan potentially by 20, 27, 20, 28. So it's a long way up before new sites will be formally allocated. There are obviously other sites that may come forward before then, which are not either allocated or from fully brownfield sites, or again, market changes or redevelopment that are specifically allocated. So the maybe some larger site to do before them, as they would normally would outside of that process. Okay, thank you. Councillor CUM, Councillor CUM. So I'm aware that you're looking at that slide, but I was actually looking at it. Looking at the role there. In terms of, some of these are clearly carried over from last year's MPFS. But there is an element there, growth included in narrative section, regarding exploring the trust delivery model for libraries. I'm assuming that that will not be simply transferred over to the current MPFS, or if it is, it will be regulated in the light of our sessions today. So that's the first question. The second question was in relation to planning and planning income. So far, some of the budget committees that I've attended are local committees. That can be accepted. Some of the budget meetings that I have attended for other committees have very much focused on some of their capital projects. But they're being reliant on a speedy planning process, if they are to deliver within their timeframes. I just wondered if there had been any work done on that across committees to actually ensure that we don't lose budget benefit by not having coordinated planning elements in there as well. So it's already in hand, or you're waiting to hear from them. I just picked up on that last one. So any of the capital projects are exposed that are funded elsewhere. I mean, they are normally linked to larger and major schemes or community-based schemes, and we've always sought to try and prioritize those applications in any event because they have a wider benefit for local communities and funding mechanisms. We've always worked well possible with any of the stakeholders and our sort of statutory partners, supposed to deliver where we can on time. Within that funding regimes, it does depend upon the quality of the submission to us but alongside those capital funded schemes. So we will do what we can, and our resource challenges are not normally a barrier to meeting those targets. It's good to hear. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And I've got a gardener. My question is not that funny. It relates to the fact that we have here a growth item regarding pain inflation, and while this might be a corporate, that happens all the time. While it may not be within this committee's control because it might be an HR issue that falls within the corporate policy, do we know what savings this committee is making in terms of the number of unfilled or frozen posts that we are carrying? Because surely that should be a saving that is attributed to this hour budget and not to the corporate budget because actually it's us that delivers the service, it's us that needs to start and deliver those services and therefore any savings that are made in us with not having a complete and formal cohort of staff because we are under instruction not to fill those posts should be seen as a saving an hour budget and I wonder why it's not there. Unless you're telling me you don't have any broken posts in this area of control, which I'm looking at this now, and I suspect is not true. And secondly, I am aware that at least one of the office rooms room attends committees in his capacity as a senior member of staff, but I'm taking work that does not align to the work we take as a committee. I'm wondering how that time is recharged back into our budget and whether or not it can also be referred up to the corporate policy and why the police say I'm not expecting it to be heard. But I believe that as a committee we should be ensuring that actually corporate costs of our offices that are employed as a part of our team should not be met out of our Facebook. And I don't mean the overall corporate costs of this building and actually that or that. I am talking about one specific time that is taken out of the offices that day-based it were, and that is then that should be difficult to be appropriate and cross-headed and accountable. And I think actually that is otherwise we as a committee and other committees in the Council are basically subsidising the courtroom. Thank you, Councillor, just to take the point on vacancies first. So yes, we do have, as you'll be aware, and there's a number of vacancies across different service areas. More vacancies in some areas than others. Those generally, so how that forecasting works is all the staffing structure is budgeted for, in fact. The vacancies that are accounted for in a year and they will be reported through, so if there is a financial benefit of holding vacancies or vacancy recruitment free sort of thing, they are captured and reported through a year as part of the financial reporting process. So that benefit does come back to this committee as an offset to any costs, etc, so we can highlight that moving forward if that will be beneficial for members' awareness in terms of what that looks like as a sort of a cost moving forward from a financial perspective. Correct, Councillor back on that point. Clearly, I understand that a post is vacated in the year. We can't assume that a particular officer is going to leave the Council involved with that, but if we are under instruction, not to fill a post and that post is currently frozen, then we can make, we can legitimately say that there is a saving for the next financial year, 24/25, of those posts that we are holding and I think that should be listed here. Okay, thank you, Councillor. Yes, so if we've made a conscious decision based on service need, in fact, that that post is not required for the next 12 months, because a particular project isn't going to be happening or whatever the reason might be, that will be forecast into this. This is a set, obviously, that's in the core budgets, depending on each of the areas. This specific item relates to the pay inflation across all of the different members of staff. I appreciate that. I'm not querying the line in the budget. I'm really saying, I believe there should be an additional line, which should be a saving, and I understand where you're coming from, but a decision will be made as to whether or not a particular post is required for the next 12 months. That's one issue. If there is a corporate instruction that you do not fill vacated posts, then we can reasonably say, well, most X, Y, and Z are currently banking, we know we are not allowed to fill base posts in the next 12 months. Therefore, the cost of those three, or however many of these posts, can be seen as a saving within our budget. And if the answer to that, we know it can't be, because that comes out the corporate budget, well, then I refer back to my own request, early appointment. Yeah, it does quite the committees budget, so we'll take that away, so we can have a look at how the best to present that in the future. And we can tell you the second point, which was related to remembering. It's where officers do work for other departments. Yeah. So, where we, as you can appreciate Council, a number of senior officers around this table will have a variety of roles on different committees, in different forums, and that's generally how most organisations work, again, I'm sure you're aware, trying to divvy that up, so to speak, and recharge that to different service committees. It's probably going to be quite difficult. And hopefully, I appreciate in what you're saying in relation to ensuring that we are otherwise subsidising corporate functions, and I suppose the corporate function is there to assist us as well, so we get a lot of that cost fertilisation, if you know what I mean. But ultimately, we'll come down to how much it costs for the council, internally to process those recharges of staff time, whether that becomes a worthwhile proposition to do that, or it actually becomes admin-birding these costs for council money. The only, the two processes that are undertaken, as you're aware, are capitalisation, and so what officers work on, capital projects, so we can capitalise the time, rather than that being fully revenue-based, and a similar process where they work on transformation-type projects, so whether transforming services, changing services, will be greater than good. Ultimately, again, we can potentially use subject to availability, flexible capital receipts. Again, there's a one-off benefit to the council, where we can reach our staff time against those possible money. So, okay. Yeah, I understand the way you come from. I think this is probably a conversation at least we had at a different, different forum. Thank you. Okay. Sure. Next time I have a room. Yes, just to follow on one from the council of hardness and comments. I appreciate Ralph's team who's already capitalised, but I think the carbon target is a corporate target that was for council, so I think this sort of general principle, but like, you know, the committee, our committee shouldn't actually have to take the full pain of anything around that issue. It's a kind of council commitment. Corporate commitment. Thank you. So, the capitalisation of specifically one element of the Ralph's team, which is the carbon team. So, this committee does not pick up the revenue possible borrowing, so that's picked up properly. So, whether it's potential borrowing to deliver council-funded capital schemes, that's picked up corporately. I think it's too fine. So, committee is only going to be worse. So, we're going to almost look at it. So, that's on that basis. So, that capitalisation would, in effect, be a benefit to this committee. Could we get that back up? Yeah. And then the capital gossip, it's all else work. Okay. Here comes another one. Thank you. A difficult question, I suppose. But, how close are we to coming to a balanced budget for the end of the 23-24 year at this stage? We're another month ago. But, will it all work out so that we're not in a difficult position for the left of you when adding some on from the year we're in? If you'd say that choice, please. So, in the F-1-3 report, we identified that the court position was a 13 million understanding at this point, but obviously this work continuing with further mitigations in the hope of bringing that position down further. And also, as noted in the report, there is ongoing discussions with government departments as well, in terms of the financial pressures that the council's facing on a number of fronts and hope is working towards the year end position, but there will be further mitigations to bring that position down. If it doesn't come down, then in terms of the court 13, 14 out to the position, then there wouldn't need to be a call on the reserves to meet that pressure, but obviously the emphasis is on reducing that pressure by the year end. Okay, nobody else got any questions for Tom? Why do you laugh at that? Okay, so now it's the end of that, that's your answer. Did I see you out? So, you go slightly? Oh, is it? Sorry, okay. That's so cool. Again, I will just, again, members, I will very quickly run through these five items. These are further growth items which are included in the then the 8.2 million. The first one as David Malcolm has already touched on. There will be a report coming to March Committee relating to local plan issues of date. This growth item of 255,000 relates to the need to refresh the local plan and its earliest evidence basis. Obviously, very complex piece of work will require significant for the consultation and various stages of fall examination by government inspectors. This growth item is simply a recognition of the fact that the money is held currently to undertake that process, probably on the light side and require, there are some further money required in essence to undertake that process robustly. The second item is a further income budget alignment adjustment. So, in effect, the Building Control Service has the current income target associated historically. That's been in situ, but the have been due to reasons for outside the council's control. That budget is unlikely to be met. I don't think has been met for the last couple of years and has been offset again using the lights and vacancies to pick up on the previous comment, so that's a growth item of £200,000, £203,000 to be precise to balance that budget, to balance that income target to a more achievable level. And the third item, which I won't go through in detail, but is exploring a trust delivery model for libraries and potentially other services that, again, that's a growth item. As already been referenced, the 150,000, the potential option here, as previously described, is to wrap this into the wider proposal for the EC4 around the library strategy and include that within that particular narrative. The problem obviously has been noted that members are concerned about the level of this particular growth item, which will be reviewed as we look forward in terms of whether we can trim that down slightly, but again, just reflecting that piece of work will lead to an external, internal resource that will, in reality, cost us money to deliver. Have to take any questions? Thank you. I'm sorry. I don't fully understand building control income alignment. Five minutes. So there's been a long story short. There's been a historic management being based upon when building control parts of an armed length company came back in house about five years ago, four or five years ago. Building control fees can only cover a certain percentage of, it was about twenty cents. It's actually a statutory role of building control, which we can't charge for. The reason why the 75% is up there is exactly which reflect building control charges and costs. Historically, there has been a £200,000 or roughly £200,000 short or against the overall cost of providing that service, which are built in a statutory function, which we can't charge for. So effectively, this is a realignment on that historic £200,000. So even with the best will, additional £200,000 have been managed through gently through vacancy management, which is why we've run out of vacancies to manage. So therefore, that is why there is a budget alignment adjustment. So it's way of perhaps raising it towards you. I'm not as ill. It does. I understand why it's there because of how you explained it. Anyway, I'll think about it further. Thank you. I don't know the hands. You go to the next slide, please. I could show, again, I'll quickly run through these environmental hub maintenance. My brother's hand in this is £23,000 growth item. This relates to ongoing maintenance of the environmental hub and middleage. Specifically around the need to operate an older control system at the waste transfer station. This is, in fact, a further inflationary uplift from monies that were built into the MTFS for this financial year. 23, 24, around the additional need to maintain the older control system. So this is an inflationary impact on that budget, and it sits currently in the Ralph's area. Closed cemeteries, members may be aware that when a cemetery, a church cemetery becomes closed, classified as closed, the church can then pass that on to the next tier of authority, which is an irrelevant parish or term council. They can then pass that through almost immediately through to the highest tier of authority, which is Jesteries council. And Jesteries council then needs to take that on board in terms of future maintenance. Again, this was included as a growth item in the current MTFS to the tune of about 93,000 for the memory. On the anticipation that all closed cemeteries would be coming over to Jesteries council over the coming years. The 5,000 pounds growth item here, again, is an inflationary uplift to those maintenance costs across those four sites. I believe one of those sites has transferred, and another one is in progress. The other two may make one of the course of the next couple of years. And the last line on this slide relates to, again, an income adjustment line with David Malcolm's area. So this is for our land charges. So due to some national legislative changes, some of the land charges services will be delivered by his Majesty's Land Registry. So this, there's going to be a reduction of projected reduction in income back to the council. Of our own fifty thousand dollars, which is a forecast at the present time around the potential impact of those legislation changes. So it isn't a definitive number. It's just a sort of educated position. The value of that loss of income to the council could be. How do you see any questions? Tony? Yeah, a couple of questions. The one charge income adjustment is not balanced by you don't need to do it anymore because somebody else is doing it. If any of you get rid of a person who's doing it, that would give you a 50 grand battle. That's the first question. Second question. Or you could transfer them to doing farming applications, which would be good. Environmental health maintenance. Can I ask you a question about that, Ralph? Well, we have a hydrogen producing facility. Well, I also, when it happens, it's going to be almost certainly because it's at the front end of hydrogen producing facilities. It's going to be expensive to maintain. So when I saw the extra money that held maintenance, I thought it might be that, but obviously it's not. My question is, is the hydrogen facility expensive to maintain? Are we still running it? Is it still valuable? Well, you can never mind the environmental that if I do understand that. But is it costing as a property? No, you just can't. Right. So that, basically the environmental health maintenance covers the service critical operational maintenance of permitted systems. So, past those doors over control, the things that we have to hold on the environment for. It's important that we have a medium reaction to an effect. And take by the permit holder, which is a passive product. So, the hydrogen compound has been done at virtually no cost to the authority, thanks to let grants and partners store energy who have the life in property for us. It has been a bumpy ride. We're supposed to do really, it was to help with learning and to help us understand how we could once hydrogen becomes economically available. So, hydrogen, it's probably got one son of a left in it. Before we, we left and take our equipment back and then write it, but then we will put it. So, no, it's because we have to. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry, David. In terms of land charges point, it was a very basic term to potentially yes, but I think in terms of the current staff, we've already got them in vacancies within that team. And it won't go straight forward. We've got a significant income stream that we always have through land charges and different types of inquiries that we get for conveying, et cetera. So, it is an estimated forecast. We don't have to next set foot. So, clearly we've got a restructure in the planning service, if you're aware. So, we're already with an eye to that as well. So, any sort of savings that we might make on that, maybe run across the services whole book. It's a forecasted figure, we don't quite know the impact of the moment. So, I want to ask. Hannah? Thank you. Thank you probably answered my question in terms of land charge income adjustment. I was on the, when I read that, I did think that if that is something that we no longer have to do. And I'm losing, yes, it's a lost income. And we're no longer having to do it. And that is a saving by default. So, I couldn't quite work out. Well, I was actually going to cost us to do nothing in relation to that particular item. And I just really wanted to put on my book here today in relation to closed services. I would like to say a big thank you to Ralph and his team, because we were the first. Actually, it was two, two for the price of one, wouldn't we? First time, Tisha Reese, we actually had to do it. So, it was a immense learning curve. But we are there and we'll now have those arrangements with us. And with the council, Tisha Reese, I said service. We're maintaining what is a very important board service or resource within the village. And which is actually an ancient monument in its own life. So, I think that it seems to be that as you're going forward, it seems to be getting a bit quicker. Yes, that's very kind of an opportunity. It was a process that was very extended as a learning curve. So, thank you for your questions. We'll have some. Are we going any more slides, Tisha? Okay. I will very quickly again, with these members. So, these now are the over-chained proposal savings. These are the ones that are already baked into the MTFS. I shall see. So, the MTFS reference numbers and the item description. So, they relate to obviously the collection of garden waste. Those two items. Those are obviously income in the lines. The third item is the year two saving associated with the convene spaces maintenance review. So, total savings, five hundred and ninety eight thousand. Year two saving is two hundred thousand. And so, that final recommendations paper is coming to this committee on Thursday morning. MTFS 93 sort of four line item relates to the library service review, which is now implemented. So, again, that was spread over two years. Those savings as an original protection. So, that is two hundred and thirty simple. Those two, the second year savings as that service review only. The value's up now was sort of bed-in. And the last line item is simply some adjustments to pension costs or relating to staffing within this. If it is remets. Okay. That was it. So, there's 151 K. Okay. And then if we just flick onto the last slide, there was two items on there as well again. So, these again are the change proposals. The first one relates to a change to the agreement that we currently operate via environmental services of RAS team related to the common term council collaboration agreement. So, this is the green spaces, maintenance, et cetera. So, in line with the broad of the 20 percent reduction in budget, we've applied against our own green spaces funding, the green spaces maintenance review. That has also been applied happening for RANTS. It's been provided to problems and term councils provide maintenance in their own area of jurisdiction. So, that's a 62 K saving moving forward. And lastly, the very last item. Again, this is already in built into the MTFS for 24.25. It's a 30,000 pounds increase in opportunities relating to income generation from the CCTV service, which in effect is building on the client base for CCTV and looking at additional on the offer of additional services, et cetera. I have to take any questions on those. Hopefully, none of them are in a particular surprise. Council Jeffrey? And this is on CCTV. What's the cost of running it? So, yes, we're putting it in the middle of a wireless upgrade project. We have capital funding for that, which we will have spent by the end of this year. The program rolls out on a town-by-town basis for the moment. In terms of income, the great majority of income from the services from town and parish councils. The equivalent of about 196,000 pounds. And then there's an additional £8,000 on ad hoc services. So, we do low worker alarms, loan worker alarms and other small projects. We've got some redeployable cameras or deployable cameras, should I say. Last year as well, this year, we took a new contract for the maintenance and maintenance contract. So, we've had a restructure of the service and removed our internal staff members who were responsible for a maintenance service, we've got into a contract that will ultimately save us, consider that money going forward into subsequent years. Do they break even? No, not anywhere near. This year, what we're doing is, I can fig up a figure, which I'll fig up before the end of this and ask you that over. But what we're doing this year is some fundamental work. It looks like good income, but it's one off income. We're setting up projects with, we've done something with all stage of town council, we've just had a quite substantial amount of money come to us from the Clean Crew Project and the police service there. What that money will be spent putting those projects in, it's a sustainability and longevity of the subsequent charging year on year for our oversight of those cameras and for maintenance, etc. There's quite a lot of work over the moment in conjunction with the wireless project. It's a little bit extra income out this year in general, but it will be rolling forward so these larger projects will then obviously create long-term income. Okay, so it doesn't even break even, so that's 166K that we're spending this year. It'll come with some money. Yeah, we'll never go about that. Not in the short term, it'll be over significant years because what we've done is the CCDB cameras that we've put in are much greater quality. We've got, we had a very old stock and we were literally piecemeal buying cameras as one road, we were buying another one, so we revamped all of that. And the wireless means that we will ultimately come out of a contract with BT going forward, so just to give you an idea that the current BT contract is £23,000 a year, so that's for the 5s, etc. When we get to the end of the project and we get out of the BT contract, which we're coming out of town by town at the moment, that will be down to circa £35,000 a year. So there's a huge drop, so we'll get there eventually, but it's not going to be next year. Okay, just wondering why we did it. CCDB? It's not statutory services. It's not a statutory function then. I and Howard did CCDB, so yeah, but I'll get you that off in the figure. Thank you. Okay, anybody going to ask any questions on those last few slides? Okay, let's then then trace it here. So this item on the agenda is the recommendations were set out on the page 54. Do you recommend to call for policy for their meeting on 13th of February? All proposals have been the board consultation, which is EC1 to 7, including EC3, which we're now splitting to an A and a B. As related to committee responsibilities for inclusion in the council's budget for 20-24-25. And then recommendation 2 is now the amendment as proposed and seconded by the council of clouds and D. Is that correct? That wasn't on yet. Could we clear on that? No. No. Are we voting on everything? Can I just be seeing them but all those extras as well? No. Oh no. No. They're all, that's really amazing. All sorts of sorts are already in baked into the FPS. I'm sorry, it's all the items in Appendix R, yes. Corrected. Could we vote at least chat vote on EC1 to 7 in turn, and then the rest are altogether there? Yeah. People have strong views also of their lives. Okay. So if you want, so we're going to vote on EC1 to 7. Is that what you suggested? No. All right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So we're going to take the vote on each of the individual EC1 to 7. I'm quite happy to propose each of them. Do I have a second of each of the proposals or is that posted? Councillor Jeffery. Okay. So that was in favour of EC1, those are hands. Unanimous. Thank you. EC2, the strategic letter of view. It was in favour. Can I vote? No. Can I vote? No. Against, if any. Okay. Four. Okay. Four against and absentions. One. Thank you. That's carried by a majority. Next slide, please, Tracy. EC3 has reduced cost to waste time disposal. All those in favour? Sorry. Sorry. Yeah. That's what it's up. So EC3A, those in favour. Unanimous. And EC3B. Those in favour? Six. Those against? That's five. That's five. So that's carried by a majority. EC4, the fun life is in a different way. Those in favour? Adoriting. That's right. Unanimous. EC5 reduced cost of street cleansing. Those in favour? Eight is not? Yeah. I'll get my hand. Those against? That's two, three. Sorry. That's carried by a majority. EC6 reduced revenue impact of carbon capitalisation scheme. Those in favour? Those against? One against? Some abstentions? One abstention? Thank you, carried by a majority. EC7 is increased green waste charges to recover costs. Those in favour? Six. Those against? That's five. That's carried by a majority. Thank you. Thank you. That's okay. That's fine. So we're now going to look together all those growth items and savings that were covered after the PC. Is that correct? I'm happy to take these in one lump. Yeah. Yeah. So they have a question on the cost of a minority. Yeah. Yeah. I think I have to trust that you'll keep the costs down for a minority. I think that's going to get covered by the wealth, the looks of the livelihood strategy anyway. So that can be monitored. It might be something you want to get involved in. Obviously you've got knowledge in a passion. It's not going to be a shock, it's going to be a shock. Okay. So that side, we're going to take these on mass. So I'll have to propose. Secondly. Thank you very much. All those in favour? Nine in favour. Those against? Section. One. Thank you very much. That's fine. Okay. So that's item six. That just leads on to the work program. We'll call it on page 6972. [inaudible] So as has been pointed out, I've missed out all the recommendations. I've mentioned that we accepted from Council Flowers and Council Dean. I was laid out in the documents that you've seen in your email. Already accepted. So we've got straight to the vote. Those in favour? Sorry? I thought maybe I know what it's like. Very quick. I thought it was a good idea. Or you could put forward further ideas to say that we only have one, which I think well-forward knows about, but we've succeeded with the disposal contract. So the recycle waste contract, I don't know if there's money out there. If it has a leg, then it's possible. And we can find a vital alternative. You could try to really go in. Actually, I don't know if you can waste contract with very often. [inaudible] Obviously we can't vote any today. I think you have to, I don't obviously spoke to officers and put the proposals before. [inaudible] Right, okay. So it would be unfair to vote on something that we're not aware of at this stage. I think it is. I'm sorry if you pick up with Ralph after this meeting. Meet on the phone. Yeah. I'm going to go back from having meetings. Okay. [inaudible] Just wanted to have the opportunity in writing and alerting the answer to the survey. As far as I've said, that's an operational process. So yes, we take the suggestion and we are continuing to try and get the best advice for more contracts. Okay. [inaudible] I've lost where we're all to now. We're just going to vote where we think. Okay. We're voting on the amendment that we've accepted. So I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is. I'm going to be with all those in favor. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. So after that short hiatus, we're going back to the work program. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Joe. So there is members a published work program at the end of the agenda part that you've all received for today. Not intended to go through that in any great detail. There's not been any substantive change since the last published agenda of this work program. So that is a list. I know that we've discussed as a group, obviously a starting to think about a draft work program for items coming up over the course of the next. Year. And what you should have in front of you is having to take any comments is an outline of items that officers intend to place on the work program. For the coming five meetings and taking us through to the meeting on the 27th of March 2025. This is very much a work in progress. Some of these items I've been asked to stress could be fluid in terms of when they will come in front of you. Or just to give you a clear flavor of what's coming up over the next 12 months. You will note in here specifically noted comments earlier today around the library's strategy. There are a couple of line entries in this work program to that effect. In terms of when we are targeting to bring something back in front of this committee and the waiting back to that particular item we discussed today. So I have to take any specific comments that members may have on this. And then once we've got that feedback, we can want to put that into the formal system and present that back to the next committee meeting as part of the agenda back. Thank you. Obviously you've got a very busy portfolio hope, portfolio of things that you need to look at and also already a number of things on the work program. But I think what's really important is that committees as we move forward for the MTFS and the various committee submissions that they are looked at as part of those quarterly reviews of the MTFS in a very explicit way. So that committee members know exactly where the Council and the teams are up to delivering those projects so that we can identify at an early stage of their subject, or if indeed we're moving on faster than we thought. Because I think sometimes we have a lot of cited projects, including for example, one friendly amendment from the last year's MTFS, it's appropriate for Council that disappeared off the work program, it actually finally, because they've got a bit crossed, it's coming up in April. So we don't want that happening, particularly when they are so tight formally and it's incumbent on us to time bringing this forward on schedule. Thank you. Okay, anybody else comments on the chair? Just seeking clarification, now I'm not expecting that I might have anything that might want to go on the June meeting, but I might when the fuzziness in my head is in consultation with my colleagues come forward with other proposals that we might want to look at in terms of work. There are areas to look at, and I'm not suggesting that this is a conservative part of Black Waving Bureau, there are areas where we can find commonality amongst members and where there will be people from different political groups agree and people from the same political groups that don't agree. But I hope that there is a provision in this of how we bring things and committee forward for discussion, and I'd also like to seek clarification, and this is the work program for schedule meetings, and that we might be holding further informally in meetings of this committee to have round table discussions We can all bring and discuss those things that we feel this committee ought to be looking at in terms of our wider role from the committee, so I think you are the main officers that are assured that it's on their last point. Yeah, we're only talking about this this morning about the fact that we've had some meetings or the committees have not had, where we've just discussed what you're particularly meeting the service heads and talking with them about that service, et cetera. Getting a better understanding and by that better understanding you can look at your budgets a bit more close and understand them rather than, probably last year was quite cold when we did the budget setting, we didn't have the input that perhaps we would have wanted. So I'm quite happy to put some important meetings in the book and probably look at some informal non-public MCFS update meetings, maybe on teams rather than in person, where we can get those updates on progress on certain or personal, that go through a council. Yeah, I hope I have members have seen quite keen, you know, to have those informal dialogue and formal workshop typesetting feedback into the into the various review process from from the committee. We do have obviously informal and the next informal briefing, I think, established for the end of February, there is a little bit of an agenda to that in terms of some of those things are starting to think about some of the briefings on future items on the committee's work program. So, I'm just going to add a little bit of a little bit of time to also build up the knowledge base and that respect, but more than how to support that move forward. I'm really excited to be here. I'm going to defer to my colleague, who was organised a date, I think it's potentially for the Thursday, the 29th, so this year we have a special day obviously in February, we'll get one. So, we made the most use of this to be notified about JST, I knew I had something, you know. Tony? Yeah, very quickly, Chair. The comments you just made about the budget process is much better this year, and I'd like to thank you and Tom, because I know you've put effort into making it there, it's not perfect because we've got a bit of timing issues with getting the detail, things we have to vote on, but never mind, it's still a lot better than last year. Thank you so much for that, and that's also about Tracy, who is absolutely running to doing formal things and explaining things, because it can't be easy with it changing, and when it's month by month, thank you very much for that. Okay, on that note, I'll close the meeting and call the officers for turning today, the presentations, and the questions and also members, again, two and a half hours, anticipated being able to answer, but there you go, it never is what you want, is it? So, at time at 4.38, I'll be kind of meeting close, okay. As soon as you know what to matter, you're going to be over on that.