PETERSFIELD town councillors remain on collision course after clashing on Monday, with two distinct factions failing to agree a financial strategy for the town. Torn between prudence for the taxpayer and setting aside reserve funds for future costs, councillors were unable to finalise the budget for 2008/09. They face another lengthy debate next week. On the one hand, representatives argued that a 17.1 per cent precept increase (approximately £14 per year) was too high a financial burden for residents to pay, pushing instead for a single figure rise. On the other, forward-looking members cited the unexpected rise in the cost of replacing windows in the Festival Hall as a bona fide reason for setting reserves aside. Questions were also asked as to the validity of supporting "unspecified" projects, with the town council "undercharging" for its facilities, while others argued that £14 per year was "good value" to maintain a town such as Petersfield. Town mayor Paul Molloy began by calling for a pragmatic approach, remarking: "We really shouldn't get too hooked on this 17.1 per cent. "For the price of half a pint of beer or a loaf of bread a month, I believe the Petersfield taxpayer will be happy to improve the lives of those in the town," he said. Vaughn Clarke, chairman of finance and general purposes, asked for prescience, saying: "It's about time we started putting funds across so we do at last have some money in reserve. "We can reduce the precept no problem and move capital sums from, say, the skatepark, but what happens a few years down the line when we run out of capital sums? If something big comes along, we are flummoxed." Meanwhile, Bob Ayer spoke bluntly, remarking: "I don't support the budget in front of us. "I agree with those members who increasingly hold the view that elements of our estates – especially the town hall buildings complex – are being neglected over time. "In this context I look at the capital projects before us for measures to address this concern. "I see that the members' top equal priority, to replace the Town Hall windows, is allocated in full. I will continue to support this brave use of capital. "But do I see much more attention being given to the fabric of our buildings? The answer is a resounding 'no'. What I do see are projects such as a sound desk, a lighting desk, the town hall computer system, and tables and& chairs for the council chamber. "I see projects that are not yet specified and for which a case has yet to be made." Chris Jenner added: "I can't countenance an increase of 17.1 per cent – it doesn't matter whether it's by 17 per cent or £14 a year. Most of us are comfortably off, but some people in our wards will be saying 'do I put the heating on or do I eat'. When we talk about this £14, we should be thinking about these people. "I think it's time to look at our price increases; there is no other way to salvage some of these projects. And there is still slack in the budget and at least £40,000 needs to be trimmed. Clive Shore concurred, saying: "Personally, I am uncomfortable with budget increase of 17.1 per cent. It's a high figure and also when you look at the budget on a line item basis, I believe there is slack. When you are paying £8,000 for a newsletter, there are things that could be taken out of this budget. "I do find it odd that we are being asked to look at a budget from a cost and capital perspective when for the last three months we've been looking at income separately. "We were making increases unknown that there was to be a precept increase of 17 per cent," he added. Dave Bowers summarised the mood, saying: "We live in Petersfield because it's a nice area. To do that we have to maintain face and that comes at a cost. "But this budget certainly contains elements that don't appear to stand up commercially. We are undercharging for our facilities, and I am concerned that we will be digging a hole we may not be able to get out of if we don't go with a 17.1 per cent rise." Members resolved that there can be no additional transfer from revenue to capital in the budget year, and to bring a revised budget to the next council meeting, due to be held next Thursday, December 13.
