Agenda item

2024/25 Revenue Budget, Capital Programme And Medium-Term Financial Strategy

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to present the budget for 2024/25.

Recommendations

That Council resolves to approve:

1. the Medium-Term Financial Strategy set out in Annex B

2. the Savings and Transformation items for inclusion in the budget, set out in Annex C

3. the Council Tax Requirement of £6,596,721 for this Council

4. the Council Tax level for Cotswold District Council purposes of £153.93 for a Band D property in 2024/25 (an increase of £5)

5. the Capital Programme, set out in Annex D

6. the Annual Capital Strategy 2024/25, as set out in Annex E

7. the Annual Treasury Management Strategy and Non-Treasury Management Investment Strategy 2024/25, as set out in Annex F

8. the Strategy for the Flexible use of Capital Receipts, as set out in Annex H

9. the balances and reserves forecast for 2024/25 to 2027/28 as set out in Section 6 of the report.

10. the Council Tax Support scheme recommended by Cabinet summarised in paragraphs 7.29 and 7.30 of this report

Minutes:

The purpose of the report was to present the budget for 2024/25

The Chair introduced this item by reminding Members and the public watching that the Budget Council Protocol was attached to the document pack and would be followed in setting the Council’s budget.

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Evemy, was then invited to propose the administration’s budget. In doing so, he outlined the following points:

In this first budget of the second term of the Liberal Democrat administration, the Council would seek to build upon the previous work of investing in the District and rebuilding the Council’s finances.
A number of councils across the country of all political colours such as Birmingham City and Thurrock, had had to declare S.114 notices due to the financial pressures faced. Whilst it was affirmed that Cotswold District Council was not close to a S.114 notice declaration, there was a budget gap over the medium term that needed to be closed.
In 2026/27 changes to central government funding would add to the pressures faced by the Council and action needed to be taken now.
Council officers, Publica and Ubico had worked with the administration to reduce the deficit faced and in doing so had had to make difficult choices.
There would be £1.25 million in savings made to reduce the pressure on reserves, which included £500,000 a year in waste collection changes, and £125,000 through the changes to contact centre opening hours. There would also be £2 million of revenue increases from fees and charges.
The Council was projecting surpluses in the coming 2 years of £516,000 and £324,000 to replenish the Council’s reserves. Furthermore, it was noted at paragraph 6.25 that allocations from the final local government settlement of £118,000 be allocated to a Workforce Planning Reserve to support the Council’s priorities.
Reserves originating from the sale of housing stock to Fosseway Housing Association in 1997 had been depleted over time and could no longer be relied upon to sustain the Council’s finances.
The Council had removed the need for external borrowing to fund capital programme through the use of the Community Municipal Investment providing capital for the installation of electric vehicle charging points and Solar PV panels for the Council Offices.
The approach of the Council in the face of financial pressures centred around efficient service delivery, increasing income to compensate for lost funding, utilising external funding and protecting the most poor and vulnerable members in the District.
The focus on rebuilding the finances was supplemented with the work through council officers such as Crowdfund Cotswolds and the Green Economic Growth strategy which support communities and the local economy.
The Budget Consultation recorded 542 responses allowed residents to provide their views on the proposals including changes to parking fees which included Sunday charging. It was recognised that whilst the changes to parking may not have been popular, they were necessary as part of the overall budget to sustainably fund services within the District.
Cabinet had agreed the principle that discretionary services such as garden waste collection needed to be charged on a cost-recovery basis and the increase to £64 per annum for garden waste would achieve this.
Decisions such as the rise in Council Tax of £5 for a Band D property were made within a challenging environment for residents’ finances. It was highlighted therefore that the Council had taken steps to improve the Local Council Tax Support Scheme and Members were encouraged to engage with residents on this.
Provision of £500,000 had been made for service transitions from Publica to the Council or another shared service model but this would not change service budgets at the time.

The Deputy Leader concluded by thanking officers for their work on the Budget and commended it to Members.

The Chair then invited the seconder of the budget Councillor Spivey to speak. Councillor Spivey made the following points:

The Council’s work for core and discretionary services within the District against the backdrop of uncertainty around central government funding and economic volatility.
The Council’s ambition was to deliver more than the core statutory services.

Councillor Stowe then reserved his right to speak until later in the debate.

Councillor Maclean was then invited to respond to the Budget on behalf of the Green Group. Councillor Maclean started by thanking the Deputy Chief Executive and officers who had worked hard on the Budget and made the following points:

The Green Group would have liked to have seen more resources for Council priorities particularly the climate change crisis.
Central government reductions to Council grants and the lack of reform for Council Tax had left local government in a difficult financial situation.
The more affluent residents should carry more of the burden of increase but the rise in Council Tax proposed was the best that could be done within the remit of the District Council.
The Green Group would support the Budget.

The Chair then invited Councillor Stowe as Leader of the Conservative Group to propose their amendment which was then circulated in the room.

Once it had been circulated, Councillor Stowe then spoke to the amendment which read as follows:

The proposed introduction of charging for parking on Sundays from April 1st, 2024 is cancelled.

The £105,000 projected income currently budgeted is covered by assuming a 12 month freeze in members allowances (subject to consultation with the Council’s Independent Remuneration Panel) saving £33,236 and £71,764 allocated from the additional unexpected “windfall” £118,000 from increased central government funding.

The following points were made by Councillor Stowe:

The Deputy Chief Executive had confirmed the amendment was viable.
Market town centres across the district relied upon car parking and increases would affect them disproportionately without other means of transport.
The proposed increases in parking charges would lead to potential reductions in tourism which would be damaging for businesses in the District.
The amendment would seek to reduce the impact on towns by cancelling Sunday charging proposes and supporting businesses in the Cotswold.
The proposed rise in Member Allowances was not appropriate given the state of the Council’s financial position.

David Fowles as Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group then seconded the amendment and made the following points:

Market towns should be supported.
The rise in parking charges would cause disruption as residents park elsewhere to avoid the higher charges.
The amendment, whilst a small adjustment, would provide a benefit to residents and businesses within the District.

The Chair then invited Members to ask any questions of clarification.

It was stated by the administration that the amendment proposed was similar to previous criticisms made by the opposition on parking and the actions from the Conservative-controlled County Council.

It was noted that the money given to Members were allowances for their work and not a salary.

There were various comments around how the financial challenges had presented difficult choices for the Council and higher parking charges would only be paid by those who could afford to have a car which was seen as being equitable.

It was stated that there were mixed views about the rises and that there would be some residents who would find the increases difficult.

The Chair then handed over to the Chief Executive to present the views of the Council’s Deputy Chief Executive and S.151 Officer.

It was confirmed by the Chief Executive that the S.151 Officer was content with the amendment and satisfied that it was arithmetically correct and received in line with the Budget Council Protocol provisions. It was also stated that the amendment would not alter the revenue budget for 2024/25 other than set out in the proposal.

The Chair initially moved to the adjournment to discuss proposals, but following interventions from Group Leaders, it was felt that the adjournment was not necessary. The Chair therefore decided to continue with the session.

The Chair then asked Deputy Leader as the proposer of the Budget if the administration had accepted the amendment and it was confirmed that it had not been accepted.

The Chair then moved to the debate on the amendment.

It was stated that a number of towns had a low vacancy rate which was felt to be something not affected by the increase in car parking charges.

It was noted that some residents assume that the charges would apply on Sunday.

Councillor Stowe in summing up the debate on the amendment made the following points:

The use of the word salary was because Councillors receive taxpayers money into their accounts and are taxed upon it.
Some residents were not affluent despite owning a car and higher parking charges would affect them.

The Deputy Leader then responded to the amendment and made the following points:

The introduction of Sunday charging for all car parks would standardise charging across car parks.
Sunday trading in 2024 was as normal as other day but the parking provision for worshippers was recognised.
In the current financial position, the charges could not easily be avoided.

The Chair then moved to the vote on the amendment, proposed by Councillor Stowe and seconded by Councillor Fowles.

Voting Record

8 For, 23 Against, 0 Abstentions, 3 Absent/Did not vote

For	Against	Abstention	Absent/Did not vote
Chris Twells	Andrew Maclean		Gina Blomefield
Daryl Corps	Angus Jenkinson		Jon Wareing
David Cunningham	Claire Bloomer		Tony Slater
David Fowles	Clare Turner
Jeremy Theyer	Dilys Neill
Julia Judd	Gary Selwyn
Len Wilkins	Helene Mansilla
Tom Stowe	Ian Watson
	Joe Harris
	Juliet Layton
	Lisa Spivey
	Mark Harris
	Michael Vann
	Mike Evemy
	Mike McKeown
	Nigel Robbins
	Nikki Ind
	Patrick Coleman
	Paul Hodgkinson
	Ray Brassington
	Roly Hughes
	Tony Dale
	Tristan Wilkinson

The amendment was lost.

The Chair then returned Council to the substantive budget and sought questions of clarification.

There was a question regarding paragraph 3.3 of page 134 regarding value for money around performance measurement techniques regarding investments. The Deputy Chief Executive confirmed that Arlingclose Treasury Management provided quarterly benchmarking data against other Arlingclose clients and that Audit and Governance Committee received regular updates on this performance.

There was a question about the performance criteria for treasury investments listed on page 136 of the pack. The Deputy Chief Executive explained that Arlingclose benchmarking showed groups of investments but may not show individual investment performance. It was confirmed that further information could be made available as part of the Audit and Governance Committee Treasury Management reports and/or the Cabinet Financial Performance reports.

There were no further questions on the substantive budget, and the Chair invited Councillor Stowe to speak as the Conservative Group Leader who had reserved his right to respond to the budget. Councillor Stowe thanked officers for producing the budget and made the following points:

The Council was facing a serious financial situation and the proposals were seen as an ‘emergency budget’ which would affect residents of the district.
The previous spending conducted by the administration had meant that the Council needed to make difficult decisions.
Table 1 – Core Spending Power on page 58 of the pack showed that the core spending power of the Council had increased by £639,000 leaving aside the geopolitical and other macro-economic headwinds facing the Council, residents and businesses.
The decision to withdraw council services from the Publica partnership remained a material and significant risk to the Council finances in light of the indicative costs rising to £500,000 from the original figure of £200,000 within the Publica Review report presented to Full Council in November 2023. There were also concerns around the final costs given the costs for HR and legal consultants needed and the pension cost settlement for Council staff.
There was concern that the Budget had not set out savings from the transition of services back to the Council.
The Council Priorities Reserve and the use of these funds would need to be carefully managed against any new programmes.
The planned capital programme borrowing required by 2026/27 of over £4 million would need to be scrutinised and opened to challenge by Members.
Member Allowances would rise and there would be a backdated uplift following the freeze that had taken place for 2023/24 financial year.
The residents and businesses of the District would now need to pick up the burden given the position of the Council’s finances.

Council noted the increase in demands from local authorities across the UK and the pressure this had put on Council finances.

It was stated that longer-term local government settlements were required for all councils and that short-term settlements from central government did not allow for sufficient financial planning.

It was noted that there was some capital spending available to improve discretionary services such as leisure centres.

It was welcomed at 1.13 of Annex A that a purchasing consortium for energy with other local councils had been achieved to reduce energy costs.

The Deputy Leader as proposer of the Budget then summed up the budget and thanked Members for the debate and discussion on the budget:

There was agreement with the comments around Council Tax reform which was seen as long overdue from central government.
Comments around financial management were not recognised, and all spending decisions were open and done properly.
Comments around the spend on consultants did not recognise the expertise needed to support officers on work like the Local Plan Update.
On the Publica transition, it was recognised that the reserves were based on indicative costs but that these would become clearer to Council.

The Chair then moved to the vote on the substantial budget proposed by Councillor Evemy and seconded by Councillor Spivey.

RESOLVED:

That Council APPROVED:

1. the Medium-Term Financial Strategy set out in Annex B

2. the Savings and Transformation items for inclusion in the budget,

set out in Annex C

3. the Council Tax Requirement of £6,596,721 for this Council

4. the Council Tax level for Cotswold District Council purposes of

£153.93 for a Band D property in 2024/25 (an increase of £5)

5. the Capital Programme, set out in Annex D

6. the Annual Capital Strategy 2024/25, as set out in Annex E

7. the Annual Treasury Management Strategy and Non-Treasury

Page 37 Agenda Item 8

Management Investment Strategy 2024/25, as set out in Annex F

8. the Strategy for the Flexible use of Capital Receipts, as set out in

Annex H

9. the balances and reserves forecast for 2024/25 to 2027/28 as set

out in Section 6 of the report.

10. the Council Tax Support scheme recommended by Cabinet

summarised in paragraphs 7.29 and 7.30 of this report

Voting Record

23 For, 8 Against, 0 Abstentions, 3 Absent/Did not vote

For	Against	Abstention	Absent/Did not vote
Andrew Maclean	Chris Twells		Gina Blomefield
Angus Jenkinson	Daryl Corps		Jon Wareing
Claire Bloomer	David Cunningham		Tony Slater
Clare Turner	David Fowles
Dilys Neill	Jeremy Theyer
Gary Selwyn	Julia Judd
Helene Mansilla	Len Wilkins
Ian Watson	Tom Stowe
Joe Harris
Juliet Layton
Lisa Spivey
Mark Harris
Michael Vann
Mike Evemy
Mike McKeown
Nigel Robbins
Nikki Ind
Patrick Coleman
Paul Hodgkinson
Ray Brassington
Roly Hughes
Tony Dale
Tristan Wilkinson

Supporting documents:

Agenda item

2024/25 Revenue Budget, Capital Programme And Medium-Term Financial Strategy

Related Pages