Agenda item

To approve:  The General Fund and HRA budgets for 2024/25 including the use of reserves, Medium Term Financial Strategy, Capital Programme and Strategy, Treasury Management Policy/Strategy, and the Annual Delivery Plan (report of the Deputy Chief Executive – Corporate Development (S151) enclosed).

(Please note that in accordance with The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote will be taken on Budget recommendations).

(Members are reminded that if they are two months or more in arrears, they must disclose the fact and not vote on any item to set tax or any decision which may affect its calculation).

Consideration was given to the report of the Deputy Chief Executive – Corporate Development (S151) which sought to approve: the General Fund and HRA budgets for 2024/25 including the use of reserves, Medium Term Financial Strategy, Capital Programme and Strategy, Treasury Management Policy/Strategy, and the Annual Delivery Plan.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Commercialisation, UKSPF and Levelling Up presented the report.

The following issues were raised:

·       The Leader thanked the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Commercialisation, UKSPF and Levelling Up, and the Finance Team for undertaking an excellent job in another difficult year.  Not knowing how much money was to be received from central Government made the task of producing the Budget very difficult.  Many Councils across the country were struggling financially and it was pleasing that SHDC was not, due to finances being extremely well managed.  Many Councils were having to dip into their reserves, but this was not the position at SHDC.

·       In her capacity as District Ward Councillor for Holbeach, the Portfolio Holder for Communities and Operational Housing raised her concerns regarding charges for car parking in Holbeach.  The original proposals had suggested Sunday charging and a £2 charge for parking all day however, her comments and feedback had been taken on board and the proposals were now less extreme.  Councillor Carter still felt that Holbeach was being treated unfairly, and she would continue to fight for 1 hour of free parking in Holbeach.  She asked that this be kept under review, and perhaps next year consider removing the 1-hour parking charge.

·       Members commented that the public in Holbeach had raised concerns regarding the proposed car parking charges in the town, including the loss of 2 hours of free parking in the Boston Road car park.  There were concerns that it would reduce footfall in the High Street, users of the doctors’ surgery would have to park on the road, parents picking up children from school would be inconvenienced.  Had alternatives been considered and costed, and what was the difference if charges were increased but the two-hour free parking was kept?

o   The Portfolio Holder for Assets and Strategic Planning advised that he did not have the information immediately available and would provide it after the meeting. He stated that careful consideration had been given to all car parking charges, with the aim of increasing them as little as possible.  Holbeach had an abundance of free car parking around the Boston Road car park, and there was also a car park under Council ownership which was still free. The Authority was looking to invest in car parks in Holbeach, to continue to provide this service however, they could not be subsidised by other assets. The issues raised by Councillor Carter would be kept under review.

·       Members thanked the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Commercialisation, UKSPF and Levelling up for the interesting presentation, and for the progress being made on the IDB funding issue. 

·       The management of efficiency savings of £1 million were queried.  One of the biggest costs for the Authority was staff. Was there an up to date Pay Policy for senior officers?

o   Members were advised that work on this was under way and that the Policy would be coming forward to a Special Council meeting before the end of March. In response to whether this would affect figures in the budget, members were advised that it should not have a detrimental effect on the budget.

·       Members commented that the increase in remuneration for employees was substantial – was the Authority satisfied that it was fully justified and necessary?

o   The Deputy Chief Executive – Corporate Development confirmed that the pay increase was set nationally through the NJC.  Each year, the Authority made an assumption as to the increase that the NJC might set for the pay increase (for the forthcoming year, this was 3.5%).  Last year’s generous assumption of 5% had been exceeded.  Pay pressure within local government was a challenge, and the Government had already indicated to the NJC that it needed to be careful with the 2024/25 increases.

·       Members commented that there had recently been more funding provided to offset the issue of IDBs.  What was SHDC’s share?  Also, there was a gap to fill and there was a plan of activity to achieve this, both short and long term which worked on the assumption that the Drainage Board levy would be altered at some point this year.  If this did not happen, had we done all we could at this stage to mitigate what could be a very difficult situation next year.  

o   The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Commercialisation, UKSPF and Levelling Up commented that it was hoped that something could be achieved. With regard to figures, the assumption had been made that the funding received was a one-off and that the Authority would have to fund going forward. The amounts for future years had been factored in. 

o   The Deputy Chief Executive – Corporate Development advised that with regard to the saving targets that had been set, there were two elements to this – a smaller more general element, and a larger one specifically targeted against the IDBs.  £300,000 had been received last year from Government as one-off funding, and a further £3million had recently been announced however the allocation on this was not yet known.  In the officer’s view, this should be £6 million as there were two years to deal with however, the Government had indicated that they were seeking to try and resolve this in time for the 2025/26 settlement.   A lot of work with Government was required going forward to ensure that this was a suitable figure to support SHDC’s budget.

·       Members commented that Councils generally were having difficulties in balancing their budgets.  Underfunding by central Government was an issue. With regard to efficiency savings, could members be reassured that SHDC would not themselves become the recipient of a S114 notice, and was it his belief that local government was being underfunded by central government?

o   The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Commercialisation, UKSPF and Levelling Up responded that the whole of local government was hugely underfunded by central government, and Lincolnshire as a whole was underfunded.  Local MP worked hard to fight for our interests.  With regard to efficiencies, the Working Party had been set up to continually monitor these efficiency savings.  Transparency was important and Scrutiny were welcome to review these as well. Some hard decisions had to be made but these were necessary to avoid the risk of bankruptcy.  In particular, the S151 Officer would keep a tight control to ensure that all remained on course.  As a rural authority, SHDC did make good pragmatic decisions for its residents.

DECISION:

1)    That the Revenue Estimates for the General Fund, HRA and Spalding Special for 2024/25 (Appendices 1, 1a, 1b and 1c) be approved.

2)    That the Council Tax for a Band D property in 2024/25 be set at £201.42 (£6.03 per annum increase on 2023/24 levels).

3)    That the Spalding Special Expenses for a Band D property be set at £25.83 for 2024/25 (previously £25.47 in 2023/24).

4)    That the additions to and use of reserves (As detailed at Appendix 1) be approved).

5)    That the uplift to the Real Living Wage (Appendix 1, paragraph 4.22) be approved.

6)    Council re-affirms its previous decision in respect of long-term empty properties, as set out in paragraph 4.11 of Appendix 1, and makes a determination for the introduction of the premium for substantially furnished with no resident (Second homes), to be introduced at the earliest point, 1 April 2025.

7)    That the Medium Term Financial Strategy (at Appendix 1) be approved.

8)    That the Capital Programme and Capital Strategy (Appendices 1, 1d and 2) be approved.

9)    That the Treasury Management Policy 2024/25 (Appendix 3a) and Treasury Management Strategy, including the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy and Annual Investment Strategy 2024/25 (Appendix 3b) be approved.

10)That the Fees and Charges Schedule 2024/25 (Appendix 4) be approved, along with the application of annual RPI uplifts for all fees and charges where applicable.

11)That the Annual Delivery Plan for 2024/25 (Appendix 5) be approved.

12)That the results of the Budget Consultation process in Appendix 6 be noted.

13)That the alignment of constitutional financial limits across the partnership in Appendix 7 be approved.

In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote was taken on the recommendations (Annual Budget Report 2024/25, Medium Term Financial Strategy, Capital Programme and Capital Strategy, Treasury Management Policy/Strategy and Annual Delivery Plan). The vote was as follows: