Assembly Hall and staffing costs at centre of council tax debate

THE running costs of the Assembly Hall and staffing costs dominated debate about the town council’s 2021/22 budget last week. 

A radical re-think about the running of the Assembly Hall was vital to save money, according to town councillor Jon Hubbard. Without savings, the future of the hall itself could be in doubt, he said, during a debate about the town council budget for the year ahead.

Using figures from the 2019/20 financial year,  cllr Hubbard explained that the town council paid £91,537 to subsidise the cost of running the Assembly Hall.

The Assembly Hall he said – which  currently has four members of staff, including a facilities manager, one part-time employee on 22 hours per week and one apprentice whose apprenticeship ends next month – would need to “almost triple” its income to “break even” and remove the need for the council’s subsidy – and he warned that the Assembly Hall’s income was decreasing.

The councillor  proposed that the council cut back on events at the Assembly Hall, and instead make it available as a community hall for community groups to use for events.

He proposed cutting £100,000 from the council’s staffing budget by merging its amenities and Assembly Hall teams, potentially making redundancies as a result.

According to the councillor, for every £10 in the proposed 2021/22 budget, £6 would be spent on staffing costs – and he called for the council to make a “brave” decision to cut jobs in an effort to reduce the council’s predicted spend to help reduce the impact on residents financially affected by the pandemic,

He described the council’s amenities team – which currently has eight members of staff, including an amenities manager and an apprentice – as “inflated”, explaining that additional staff had been hired to carry out “large scale” grass cutting – work that is currently being outsourced to contractors.

“We’ve got to do something to make that change, “ said cllr Hubbard, “we’ve got to do something to make the Assembly Hall a viable community resource – because if we don’t, what we stand the risk of doing, is ending up without an Assembly Hall at all.”

According to cllr Hubbard the saving of £100,000 would “significantly” reduce the pressures on the precept and could help the council avoid “stripping” £125,000 from its “rainy day fund” – money that has been saved by the council to make improvements to facilities across the town, including play areas – to top up the 2021/22 budget, which he warned was “exceedingly dangerous” and could lead to “great problems” for the town council.

“We’ll be entering a year where we have already spent the rainy day fund before we have started,” said cllr Hubbard.

However, whilst some councillors could see some merit in merging the amenities and Assembly Hall teams, the majority of councillors voted against cllr Hubbard’s proposed amendment to the 2021/22 budget.

At the meeting, a majority of councillors voted in favour of a 2.26% increase of its precept – which for a Band D property is a rise of tax £3.63, from £160.45 to £164.08 per annum.

The agreed 2.26% rise was in contrast to the initial 6% rise that was proposed to councillors at the beginning of the meeting.

However after much discussion, councillors made a “saving” of £32,200, by making a small number of  cuts and agreeing to use the projected underspend of £21,000 in the current financial year to help mitigate the 2021/22 budget.

 Not all councillors were in agreement with the rise, with some calling for a “stand-still” budget. Cllr Richard Wiltshire explained that he felt that it was a “stressful” time for residents and that the council should be doing all it can to keep spending low and cut costs.

A statement from Melksham Town Council about its precept increase said, “At their full council meeting on 25th January, the majority of councillors voted in favour of a 2.26% increase of its precept, the proportion of council tax which is paid to the town council, to £918,750. 

“This will result in an increase in the council tax payable by a Band D property of £3.63, from £160.45 to £164.08 per annum.  

“That is equivalent to just under 7p per week.  Part of the precept will be funded by savings made in the current financial year.  

“Councillors and officers are keenly aware of the need to deliver value-for-money to Melksham’s residents – especially now.  

“Given the many difficulties that our residents have faced over the past 10 months and may well continue to face in the year ahead, there was a shared desire among councillors to ensure that any burden on taxpayers should be kept at an absolute minimum.  The rigorous discussions that informed the eventual vote should not distract from that broad consensus.