Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision status: Recommendations approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: No
To agree the budget strategy and timetable for 2018/19, the net savings requirements, by year for the next 5 years, and revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections.
Matter for Decision
The report
presented and recommended the budget strategy for the 2018/19 budget cycle and
specific implications, as outlined in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS)
October 2017 document.
The report also
recommended the approval of new capital items and funding proposals for the
Council’s Capital Plan, the results of which are shown in the MTFS.
The recommended
budget strategy was based on the outcome of the review undertaken together with
financial modelling and projections of the Council’s expenditure and resources,
in the light of local policies and priorities, national policy and economic
context. Service managers identified financial and budget issues and pressures
and this information had been used to inform the MTFS.
The Committee were
advised of an update to page 94:
2017/18 pre-planning development costs for Silver Street toilets: £70,000
£48,000.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources recommended to Council:
General Fund Revenue
i.
Agreed
the budget strategy and timetable as outlined in Section 1 [pages 1 to 2 refer]
of the MTFS document.
ii.
Agreed the incorporation of the budget savings and
pressures identified in Section 4 [pages 13 to 16 refer] including an
additional £100k contribution to Sharing Prosperity Fund. This provided an
indication of the net savings requirements, by year for the next 5 years, and
revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections as shown in
Section 5 [page 17 refers] of the MTFS document.
Capital
i.
Noted the changes to the Capital Plan as set out in
Section 6 [pages18 to 23 refer] and Appendix A [pages 32 to 40 refer] of the
MTFS document and agreed the new proposals:
Reserves
i.
Agreed changes to General Fund Reserve levels, with
the Prudent Minimum Balance being set at £5.35m and the target level at £6.42m
as detailed in Section 7 [pages 24 to 27 refer] and Appendix B [pages 41 to 42
refer].
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the
Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and
Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.
Opposition Councillors made the following
comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked what guidance had been received on the 1% cap on pay inflation?
ii.
Queried the savings
recorded as related to employee turnover, this had not been explained in the
report but there had been a £400,000 saving recorded?
iii.
Sought clarification
on investment interest rate of 1%?
iv.
Referred to the additional spending, projection and contribution to the
Sharing Prosperity Fund. Queried the effectiveness of this fund and the lack of
supporting evidence available. Asked if the level of delegation could be
changed to allow more scrutiny of its spending.
v.
Queried the use of resources during a time of significant change from
factors such as Universal Credit. Asked why long term funding had been moved
into a short term pot and to what extent was this amount was incremental?
vi.
Referenced the £4.8million material increase put into reserves, asked
why this was so large and whether the Council had missed capital expenditure in
previous years?
vii.
Referred to the £8
million Invest for Income reserve, asked how it had been built up and whether a
project was in place for this to be spent on?
viii.
Asked whether the
Council would consider changing the percentage of return from 5% of the
£8million?
The Head of
Finance said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
There was no guidance for the rate of inflation being capped at 1% just
an awareness of the trend. The Council thought it prudent to increase the
allowance but this was still an assumption.
ii.
Referred to employee turnover, over the last 2 to 3 years there had been
considerable underspending on staffing costs and the budget assumptions had
been changed to bring them closer to the expected outturn. Many staff had
undergone incremental progression which impacted the underlying data; more
staff were now at the top end which made less
allowance for progression. The other assumption of underspending was due to
posts being vacant between appointments of staff had not been applied
consistently across departments but this was now being done.
iii.
Outlined that a substantial amount of the £4.8million figure came from
the capital carry forward and re-phasing, it balanced the capital from previous
years and reflected the contribution of reserves.
iv.
The Invest for Income fund had built up to £8 million over 5 years;
nothing had come forward for appraisal yet.
Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources responded:
i.
Agreed that some of
the Sharing Prosperity Fund initiatives had not been effective but most had.
Community Service Scrutiny Committee had reviewed it in full and felt content with
the current process.
ii.
Referred to the
Invest for Income fund and highlighted that one option for its use was to use
it so that the General Fund could invest in housing.
iii.
Highlighted that the
Council had a target of a 5% return on investment which ensured a surplus,
there were no plans to change this policy presently.
Councillor Sinnott highlighted the value of
the work being undertaken by the Sharing
Prosperity Fund, asserting that the success and subjective outcomes of many of
initiatives were not quantifiable.
The Committee
resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the
Executive Councillor.
Publication date: 21/12/2017
Date of decision: 09/10/2017