Issue - meetings

To seek approval of the 2022/23 general fund revenue budget.

The following amendments, as previously circulated to members, should replace those paragraphs of the report highlighted:

Page 45 (note at foot of table 1)

**         The main changes to the 2022/23 budget as reported to Scrutiny Commission are that due to business rates growth on the NNDR1 this has changed deficit on the general fund to a transfer to the general fund of £464,625 as opposed to a transfer from the general fund of £174,115. This has meant the 12.9% general fund target has been achieved, with a transfer from reserves of £325,000 to support the general fund’s position, as opposed to £580,000 in the report presented to the Scrutiny Commission on 10 February 2022. The medium term outlook is still indicating a risk of a significant budget gap developing post 2022/23 if there is a business rates reset as part of the fair funding review expected for 2023/24.

3.41    The budget proposed for 2022/23 is achieving 12.9& general fund balance in relation to net expenditure against a target of 15% (£1.67m). This target is in place to leave a buffer for unexpected or unplanned pressures. Savings of £228,000 would be needed to be made in 2022/23 to achieve 15%. To achieve the 12.9% forecast, £325,000 of earmarked reserves are being released to the general fund to support cost pressures. Without the use of the earmarked reserve, the target would have fallen to 10%, which is considered too low a safety margin.

3.42    This should have been deleted as it repeats 3.41.

In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, voting on this motion was recorded.

Councillors Bill, Bray, Cartwright, J Crooks, W Crooks, Findlay, Flemming, Gibbens, Glenville, Hodgkins, Hollick, Lynch, L Mullaney, M Mullaney, Nichols, Pendlebury, Sheppard-Bools, Walker, Webber-Jones and P Williams voted FOR the motion (20);

Councillors R Allen, Collett, Cook, Ladkin, Morrell, Roberts and Smith voted AGAINST the motion (7);

Councillors Furlong and Lay abstained from voting.

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            The general fund budget for 2021/22 and 2022/23 be approved;

(ii)          The special expenses area budget for 2021/22 and 2022/23 be approved;

(iii)         The proposed one-off movement in the 2021/22 budget be approved;

(iv)         The proposed movement in general fund reserves and balances for 2021/22 and 2022/23 be approved;

(v)          The 2022/23 garden waste charge of £35 be approved;

(vi)         An investment of up to £100,000 in the council’s wholly owned company to assess new opportunities for income growth be approved.

The 2022/23 general fund revenue budget was presented to the Scrutiny Commission. During presentation and discussion, the following points were raised:

·         The budget for Corporate Services was distorted because it included the covid funding received and paid out to businesses

·         Transfers from balances was higher than anticipated and earmarked reserves were being used to support the general fund position

·         The NNDR1 setting out the final budgeted position for the council had been finalised and had changed from the predicted position due to significant growth in-year, tempered by some large write-offs. Overall the position had improved and would be reported in a revised report for Council

·         It was anticipated that the Medium Term Financial Strategy would be finalised in July

·         The modelling anticipated an increase in income for Block C of the Crescent

·         No expenditure was currently committed in respect of the Hinckley Community Development Fund

·         No increase of the special expenses area precept was recommended as there were reserves available within the budget so an increase was not required.

It was noted that officers had recommended an increase in the garden waste charge to between £35 to £45 for the year which was still one of the lowest in Leicestershire. The garden waste service currently cost almost £1.5m with only £1m of that funded by subscriptions to the service and an increase to £45 would help bridge that gap, although it would still not cover all costs.

Councillor Webber-Jones left the meeting at 7.03pm.

In relation to homelessness, it was noted that financial pressure had increased over the previous two years due to a number of reasons, including the government directive to accommodate people to whom the authority would not usually have a duty. The costs and the number of people in temporary accommodation were being monitored closely but it was anticipated that people would continue to struggle with affordability over the coming months which would add further budget pressures. It was noted that a report on homelessness would be presented to a future meeting of the Scrutiny Commission.