Agenda item

Recommendations from the Cabinet

To consider the recommendations from the meeting(s) of the Cabinet held on 6th December 2017 and 7th February 2018.

Minutes:

Fees and Charges

The recommendations from the Cabinet in relation to the Fees and Charges report were proposed by Councillor B. T. Cooper and seconded by Councillor G. N. Denaro.

In proposing the recommendations Councillor Cooper, as Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources, advised Members that the Medium Term Financial Plan had been prepared on the basis that additional income would be generated from fees and charges. He also reminded Members that the report had been deferred at the previous meeting to allow for answers to the questions raised to be given. Members were also given the opportunity to submit further questions and invited to attend the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting on 12^th February, at which all Heads of Services were present, to ask further questions. The fees and charges were unchanged from those previously presented.

Following presentation of the report Members discussed the following areas in more detail:

· The increase in charges for the Parkside Suite despite the level of hire being less than at the previous site, despite the Council’s aim to be more commercial. Councillor P. Whittaker, Portfolio Holder Leisure and Cultural Services reminded Members that the reason for this had been well documented and reminded them that at the previous site the Spadesbourne Suite had been independent to the Council Chamber and was therefore more readily available for hire. It was hoped, that following changes to the rooms available this would free up the suite in future.

· The formulation of some sort of strategy which would allow for an operational review of each area rather than looking at the fees and charges as a whole, particularly as in some areas there was the opportunity to be competitive. It was difficult to look at the fees and charges as a whole without having a view of the wider picture.

· The increase in charges for Lifeline and the impact of this on the most vulnerable residents. Councillor Sherrey, Portfolio Holder for Health and Well Being responded advised that this charge had been benched marked and was lower than most. It was appreciated that it impacted on the most vulnerable and each application was considered on its merits and where necessary concessions were granted.

· Cemetery charges for children – concerns were raised in respect of a charge being made for exclusive rights of burial for a child grave space. It was understood that there may need to be a charge for this, but it was suggested that a nominal charge of perhaps £1 would be more appropriate. Councillor Cooper agreed to look into this outside of the meeting.

· Whether an appropriate mechanism could be put in place to ensure that charges were considered individually and that in some cases the Council had the monopoly on the service and therefore residents had no option but to pay.

Councillor Cooper thanked Members for their input.

RESOLVED that all fees and charges that are included within Appendix 1 of the report and which have a proposed increase/decrease for 2018/19 of over/under the current agreed budget assumption of 2.8% be approved.

Treasury Management Strategy 2018/19 – 2021/22

The recommendation from the Cabinet in relation to the Treasury Management Strategy 2018/19 – 2021/22 were proposed by Councillor B. T. Cooper and seconded by Councillor G. N. Denaro.

In proposing the recommendations Councillor Cooper, as Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources advised Members that the Council was required to approve a Treasury Management Strategy each year. It had adopted the Treasury Management Framework and Policy recommended by the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accounting (CIPFA) and it incorporated the investment strategy required under the Department of Communities and Local Government Investment Guidance.

Following presentation of the report Members discussed a number of areas in more detail, this included:

· The amount of borrowing the Council will have committed to by 2020 in comparison to the Council’s financial position a number of years ago.

· The impact on residents, often the most vulnerable, of increased charges and the provision of few services. The outsourcing of the Leisure Centre was given as an example.

· The interest rate forecast and the potential for the Council to have to pay financing chargges of in excess of £1m by 21/22 if the borrowing was at the level suggested.

Councillor Cooper acknowledged the comments made by Members and would respond, where necessary, outside of the meeting.

RESOLVED:

(1) that the Strategy and Prudential Indicators at Appendix 1 to the report be approved; and

(2) that the Treasury Management Policy at Appendix 2 to the report be approved.

Pay Policy Statement

The recommendation from the Cabinet in relation to the Pay Policy Statement was proposed by Councillor B. T. Cooper and seconded by Councillor G. N. Denaro.

In proposing the recommendations Councillor Cooper reminded Members that this was a statutory document which the Council was required to produce each year. Councillor Cooper confirmed that the levels of remuneration were nationally determined by the National Joint Council (NJC). Salary points above grade 11 were determined locally using an external assessor, West Midlands Employers, which was an organisation co-owned by 32 West Midlands Councils. It was noted that no employee in a substantive post had a salary below the living wage and the ratio of lowest paid employee’s pay to the Chief Executive was 1:8.3 which was well below the recommended maximum ration of 1:20. It was highlighted that the report could not address concerns in respect of the management structure, which would be addressed starting with the Corporate Peer Review whose interim report was being discussed later in the week.

Following presentation of the report Members discussed a number of areas in more detail, including:

· That the amount paid to chief officers was a matter of public interest and that between Redditch Borough and Bromsgrove District Councils the cost of the senior management team (11 people) was almost £1m.

· Concerns as to whether there was a need for such a large senior management team and the need for a formal management review.

· The need to review the proportion of officer time split to establish whether the current level of 50/50 was still valid.

· The size of the payroll in comparison to the budget and whether this was sustainable in light of the budget constraints that had and would continue to be imposed on the Council by Central Government.

Councillor Cooper noted the points made by Members and confirmed that both the structure and split would be addressed in the coming year and reaffirmed that this was not directed at particular officers, who continued to be a good job in difficult circumstances.

RESOLVED that the Pay Policy as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report be approved.

Medium Term Financial Plan

The recommendation from the Cabinet in relation to the Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22 and Council Tax setting were proposed by Councillor B. T. Cooper and seconded by Councillor G. N. Denaro.

In proposing the recommendations Councillor Cooper, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources reminded Members that they were considering the Council’s revenue positon and its capital programme for the years 2018/19 to 2021/22 and that the Council was required to produce a four year financial plan. He went on to highlight that the financial environment in which the plan had been drawn up was extremely challenging and difficult, with a number of pressures, including the loss of revenue support grant for 2018/19 – it was noted that the Council had received a transitional grant of £114k in the current year. However, it was noted that in 2019/20 a tariff adjustment (negative grant) of £740k per annum would be payable to the Government and this was projected to be payable for the following three years. It was understood that the issue of the tariff adjustment was to be reviewed in the spring and it was hoped that this would lead to a reduction in the payment to Central Government.

Other areas of uncertainty and potential further reductions were New Homes Bonus Grant and the impact of the Localisation of Business Rates which had now been deferred until 2020/21. The impact of the fair funding review was also due to be implemented in 2020/21. There had also been a number of unexpected pressures including the withdrawal of £25k by Worcestershire County Council in respect of customer access services.

The Local Government settlement allowed District Councils to raise Council Tax by up to 3% without referendum and the Cabinet had agreed, with reluctance, to suggest raising it by 2.99% subject to approval at this meeting. This would allow for the need for only £9k to be drawn down from balances and would allow for services to be maintained.

Due to so many unknowns and variables Councillor Cooper reiterated to Members that it was difficult to plan for the three years following 2019/20 to 2021/22. Cllr Cooper explained that the increase in Council Tax was regrettable however, it was important to note that the Council’s services would be maintained. Members were reminded that they had all had the opportunity to ask questions of officers around the detail of the Medium Term Financial Plan at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board on 12^th February and again at the Cabinet meetings on 8^th and 21^st February.

Councillor Cooper took the opportunity, on behalf of all Members, to thank officers of the Council for their input to the Medium Term Financial Plan and paid particular tribute to the Executive Director, Finance and Resources and her team for their efforts in producing the plan and supporting him in his role as Portfolio Holder.

Councillor L. C. R. Mallett reiterated the comments made by Councillor Peter McDonald earlier in the meeting and raised concerns around the sustainability of the Plan after the first year and the inability to provide accurate figures for a number of reasons, which had been highlighted, in particular:

· The shortfall over the 4 year period.

· The borrowing of £40m and the interest that this would mean the Council had to repay.

· The long term impact of the negative grant – £750k being given back to Central Government. It was understood that Bromsgrove was one of the top 15 authorities which was in this position.

· The potential to put pressure on the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to address this.

· Pressures – the funding needed to cover the work which was being carried out by Mott McDonald and whether this could be claimed back from Worcestershire County Council.

· It was also highlighted that even more work would be needed to be carried out by Mott McDonald and the potential for legal proceedings to be instigated.

· The use of an outside provider to run the new Leisure Centre, whilst it was likely at its most profitable.

· The additional cost of a Sports Hall facility, which had not been included within the Plan and the cost of this would be covered.

· The potential to withdraw from/re-negotiate the Shared Service agreement with Redditch Borough Council.

Councillor S. J Baxter responded that her Group were not putting forward an alternative budget but raised a number of concerns, which had previously been highlighted. Financial and Budget Working Group had carried out detailed investigations into the finances of the Council and had received some useful information particularly in respect of cost recovery for particular areas of the Council. From the papers provided at this evening’s meeting it was clear that whilst the 2018/19 figures were attainable, as had previously been stated; the following years were simply “guestimates”. The following points were made:

· Savings and pressures – a review of budget efficiencies in respect of what was important to residents.

· Avoidable pressures – Business rates at Parkside for example, was the result of a decision made by the Council, which could have been handled better, similarly the potential now for a Sports Hall to be built and the cost in comparison to what it would have been had it been included in the original plans.

· The way in which the percentages in respect of the precepts was highlighted within the report. The way in which that from parish councils was shown, gave the impression that this was much larger than it actually was.

Members went on to debate the report further covering a number of areas in more detail, including:

· Where the funds would come from to cover the cost of a sports hall.

· That it appeared Members were being “drip fed” with information in respect of the budget and the changes which had been made over a number of weeks.

· The £20m borrowing in respect of the Investments and Acquisitions Strategy and the limited income anticipated from any investments.

· The Council having to pay back £750k under the tariff adjustment.

· New Homes Bonus (NHB) – this had been put in place to support those communities which had been affected by growth, yet the Council had only recently chosen to give any of these funds back to those communities.

· Those residents who would suffer most from the impact of the increase in Council Tax.

· The loss of funds from Worcestershire County Council in a number of areas and the NHB grant which they received in comparison to that at District level.

· How in previous years savings had been found above those expected which, potentially could have been reflected in any Council Tax increase.

· The potential to use S106 monies for a sports hall to be built, not necessarily on the current site.

The Leader responded to comments from Members and made particular reference to the tariff adjustment (negative grant). It was hoped that following a review which would take place in due course that this would be reduced, if not removed. It was important that the frontline services continued to be protected, without draining balances. It was acknowledged that there were a number of serious challenges ahead for the Council. The Finance and Budget Working Group had continued to play an active role in scrutinising the finances of the Council and the budget and it was further hoped that its role would be expanded as the commercialisation agenda progressed.

Councillor Cooper briefly summed up and thanked Members for their comments and acknowledged the challenges that the Council faced.

As required under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 a named vote was taken on the Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22.

For the recommendations: Councillors Allen-Jones, Cooper, Deeming, Denaro, Dent, Glass, Laight, May, Sherrey, Taylor, Thomas, S. Webb and Whittaker (13).

Against the recommendations: Councillors Baxter, Bloore, Buxton, Hotham, Mallett, P. McDonald, C McDonald, Peters, Shannon, Thompson and Turner (11).

Abstentions: Councillor Colella (1)

RESOLVED:

(1) that the additional income / efficiencies as attached at Appendix 1 be approved:

2018/19 £ 580k

2020/21 £ 53k

2021/22 £272k

(2) that the unavoidable pressures as attached at Appendix 3 be approved:

2018/19 £ 540k

2019/20 £ 346k

2020/21 £200k

2021/22 £200k

(3) that the Revenue bids as attached at Appendix 2 be approved:

2018/19 £165k

2019/20 £15k

2020/21 £15k

2021/22 £15k

(4) that the Capital Programme bids (to exclude the energy efficiency programme) as attached at Appendix 4 be approved:

2018/19 £1.293m

2019/20 £999k

2020/21 £1.940m

2021/22 £1.245m

(5) that the unavoidable Capital Bids in relation to the energy efficiency programme be approved:

2018/19 £110k

2019/20 £110k

(6) that the funding from balances be approved :

2018/19 £ 9k

(7) that the Increase of Council Tax by 2.99% (£6.29 pa) per Band D equivalent for 2018/19 be approved.

(8) that the budget savings and pressures for 2018/19-2021/22 are subject to change due to the potential impact of changes to service delivery and the localisation of Business Rates together with any future changes to New Homes Bonus be approved.

(9) that following the decision at Council on 24^th January 2018, the sum of £80k is made available from balances to fund potential Hardship cases in relation to Council Tax Support in 2018/19 be approved.

(10) that the Council Tax resolutions for 2018/19 as attached at Appendix 5 to the report be approved.

Supporting documents:

Recommendations from Cabinet 20180207, item 89\17 PDF 123 KB