361 Medium Term Financial Strategy PDF 364 KB
Replacement table under paragraph 7 (page 57 of the agenda pack) to include a line to show 100% retention:
Table 17 |
2017/18 |
2018/19 |
2019/20 |
2020/21 |
2021/22 |
2022/23 |
HBBC retain: |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
HBBC share 100% |
916,625 |
1,327,673 |
1,817,917 |
2,077,693 |
2,169,273 |
2,465,447 |
HBBC share 60% |
549,975 |
796,604 |
1,090,750 |
1,246,616 |
1,301,564 |
1,479,268 |
HBBC share 40% |
366,650 |
531,069 |
727,166 |
831,078 |
867,710 |
986,179 |
HBBC share 20% |
183,325 |
265,535 |
363,583 |
415,539 |
433,855 |
493,089 |
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Further to the discussion on the budget reports, it was moved by Councillor Hall and seconded by Councillor Allen that the recommendations within the Medium Term Financial Strategy report be approved. In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, voting on this item was recorded and the vote was taken as follows:
Councillors Allen, Bessant, Boothby, Camamile, Hall, Kirby, Ladkin, MacDonald, Morrell, Nickerson, Roberts, Smith, Surtees, Sutton, Wallace, Ward and Williams voted FOR the motion (17);
Councillors Bill, Bray, Cartwright, Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick, Lynch, Nichols, Taylor and Witherford voted AGAINST the motion (10);
Councillors Lay and O’Shea abstained from voting.
The motion was declared CARRIED and it was
RESOLVED – the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy for 2018/19 to 2022/23 be approved.
308 Medium Term Financial Strategy PDF 363 KB
Minutes:
The Scrutiny Commission received the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for 2018/19 to 2022/23. In response to a member’s questions, the following points were noted:
· Increased housing in the borough (resulting in an additional 11.3% collections since the last review) had put pressure on existing waste rounds to the point where an extra round was required. This not only necessitated an additional vehicle, but staffing and other associated costs
· Figures were included for both lease and purchase of a new refuse fleet, and due to the maintenance costs on a purchased fleet, the lease hire was the better option. It was noted that an update report on this decision would be brought to the next meeting
· The reserves would be kept at 15% but, at present, were projected to be lower in the final year of the MTFS, which was an additional year
· The Parish and Community Initiative Fund was recommended to be increased to £150,000, with an additional reserve to fund more projects if necessary
· In light of Unison objecting to the employer’s pay offer of 2%, there were some reserves to meet any pressures arising from the final decision
· Income from the New Homes Bonus had dropped due to the slowing down of new home completions
· A cautious view had been taken in relation to non-domestic rates as the outcome was unknown at this stage. Whilst different figures in relation to retention of business rates had been mentioned, the method of distribution had not been outlined so there was no further clarity, but more time had been spent improving business rates forecasting in the MTFS
· Service pressures had been factored into the MTFS to ensure budgets were available where required
· Block C of the Crescent was realising a return of around £300k but it was hoped that the remaining units would be let within the next year which would increase the return in line with that originally forecast
· Some pressures in the MTFS were included last year but were due to arise in 2018/19, such as loss of dry recycling credits
· There was an increase in parking fees proposed for 2018/2019 but not for future years (subject to a separate report).
The finance team was thanked for its hard work in preparing the budgets.