Agenda item

(A report by Paul Julian, Chief Finance Officer)

The Chief Finance Officer advised committee that Cabinet had received the Draft Budget Setting Report and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2020/21 – 2024/25 and had approved it for consultation.  As a part of the committee’s governance responsibilities the Chief Finance Officer invited members to consider and comment on the Draft Budget Setting Report and the Medium Term Financial Strategy. 

To ensure robust scrutiny and full debate of the report, it would be tabled at the next scheduled meeting of the Corporate and Community committee on 6 February 2020. Comments made by scrutiny would be fed back to Cabinet as part of the consultation process prior to seeking approval at Full Council on 2 March 2020.

Members were reminded that their focus was to be on the preparation of the budget and the assumptions underpinning the figures within the draft budget and their focus was directed to the following:

·         A proposed rise in Boston Borough Council’s part of the Council Tax of 2.05% in 2020/21 with Band D council tax being £192.96;

·         A balanced budget for 2020/21 after the one year provisional settlement from Government, incorporating on-going savings from the Transformation Programme of £466,000 and increased fees received from planning applications;

·         Projected budget gap of £1.3m by 2024/25 representing a significant challenge for the Council in maintaining service provision to the most vulnerable;

·         Government’s plan to further localise business rates from 2021 would mean the Council’s resources being likely to come solely from council tax, business rates and fees and charges. 

·         In 2020/21 the Council would continue to be part of a business rates pool across Lincolnshire;

·         Savings target of over £850,000 for 2021/22, which would require considerable focus during the year in terms of bringing forward projects in the Transformation Programme and assessing the impact of future funding proposals as they became available;

·         Rural Services Delivery Grant had been extended for one year so for 2020/21 the Council would continue to receive support;

·         New Homes Bonus tapering down from 2020 to nil in 2023/24;

·         A sustainable and affordable capital programme had been formulated and the revenue consequences built into the revenue budget;

·         The capital programme showed a diminishing programme in future years as resources became scarcer. The programme included spending to renew the refuse fleet in 2020/21.

·         A 1% staffing vacancy had been built into the budget

The Chief Finance Officer further advised Members that the future position in respect of funding nationally was uncertain and dependant on, amongst other factors, the outcome of Brexit.

Member comments followed along with a number of questions included those noted and answered as follows:

Concern was noted at the proposed 2.05% rise in Council Tax.  Areas of concern included the estimated increase that had been indicated by the IDB’s whom it was acknowledged had been subject to a very busy year with substantially increased pumping.  Caution was urged that unless the base precept was maintained the gap would get larger and members noted this.  Some Members hoped Cabinet would re-visit their initial decision of 2% and increase it.  Members agreed the importance of supporting the IDB’s.

On questioning the diminishing reserves for ICT a member was advised that whilst going forward the reserves were projected to be depleted by 2025 a review of future ICT spending needs would be undertaken over the next 4 – 5 years.

Referencing business rates a member queried the 75% proposed localisation figure, stating they had thought it was 100% retention by Councils, they further questioned the level for exemption of business rates along with the significant drop predicted in income moving forward.  The Chief Finance Officer advised that the Government’s original proposal was for 100% localisation but this had been amended to 75%. The drop in income was attributable to the 2018/19 100% pilot scheme which had enabled a reassessment of the amount to be held as provision for appeals.  Further questioning sought clarification on empty shops being liable to pay rates:  the Chief Finance Officer confirmed they were entitled to a free period (up to 6 months in some cases) and then they were liable to pay.

Querying the net revenue expenditure summary for portfolio holders a member asked why expenditure for Regulatory Services reduced moving forward and was advised it was subject to time limited grants.

Concern was tabled by a number of members at the lack of attendance by the Portfolio Holder.  The Chief Finance Officer reaffirmed the tabling of the report at the forthcoming Corporate and Community meeting advising that was the more appropriate arena for such political debate of the report:  members were reminded that their task at the current meeting was one of testing the figures and addressing the governance aspects of the report.

Addressing the annual charges for the EV charging points a member asked if the proposed new EV permit charges were inclusive or subject to additional charges for parking and / or other.  The Chief Finance Officer confirmed the figures had been based from a benchmarking exercise and he would seek clarification.

Responding to concerns by a member that monies identified for Homelessness was spent in other areas the Chief Finance Officer stressed that any funding received for a specific area, came with guidelines and stipulations on where the funding could be spent:  it could not be used for simply anything.

A further question tabled sought clarification in respect of Council Tax and Business Rates payable for empty residential properties and shops; the Chief Finance Officer confirmed he would provide detailed information.

Members were further advised that there was no expectation of a date for the 2020 Spending Review until after the budget in March.   Income from CCTV was identified with the ‘other small areas’ section of table 6.    Consideration had been given to possibly having electric refuse trucks for the fleet replacement, however, costings had proved unviable at this time including the size of battery required for each vehicle:  when the fleet was scheduled for a further replacement in 7 years’ time the option of having electric vehicles would once again be considered.