Cabinet Member for Finance

Cabinet considered the report of the Head of Finance and the above Cabinet Member which set out the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan and proposals for the 2015/16 Budget.

The Cabinet Member introduced the report advising that the Council had to manage the impact of the Government’s deficit reduction programme, with a funding gap of £1.5m for 2015/16.  The Local Government financial settlement would not be known until mid-December, and an updated report would be presented to the Scrutiny Committee to review at the end of January 2015.

A Member asked the following questions: how concrete were the forecasts set out in paragraph 2.2?; could the business rate retention pool include the Mid-Kent Improvement Partnership (MKIP)?; why was there a difference in the New Homes Bonus (NHB) figures for 2016/17?; could clarification be given on growth items one and three in Appendix III?; regarding the new audio/visual equipment in the Council Chamber – is the Council subject to a defects liability clause in the contract?; and what does the CCTV loss of income in Appendix III relate to?

The Cabinet Member for Finance agreed that the forecasts set out in paragraph 2.2 were concerning and this would be monitored; MKIP would not be included within the business rates retention pool for 2015/16; and the NHB figures for 2016/17 related to the end of the six-year period.  With regard to the maintenance contract for the audio/visual equipment, he undertook to confirm the contractual agreement with officers and report back to the Member.

The Cabinet Member for Environmental and Rural Affairs confirmed that the growth item regarding additional waste contract monitoring related to the creation of an Environmental Projects Officer post.

The Head of Finance confirmed that, in relation to business rate pooling, 10 of the 12 Kent Districts had entered into the pool with the County Council for 2015/16, including Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells.  He undertook to follow-up regarding the loss of income from CCTV and report back to the Member.  With regard to the growth item for procurement he explained that this related to the increased costs associated with advertising tenders on business portals.

The Chief Executive confirmed that the figures contained within paragraph 2.2 were based on the most up-to-date forecasts at the time of the meeting, but further detail would emerge from the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement and the Council’s local settlement. 

A Member considered that the report did not contain adequate information and the changes being proposed had been described too briefly.  He asked the Cabinet to review the following items before the next report: the growth items set out in Appendix III were too great if the Council was experiencing budget pressures; an assumption of a 3% increase for the Council’s annual insurance renewal may not be enough; and the anticipated increase in planning fees seemed too low in comparison with the income received from planning for 2014/15.

The Cabinet Member for Finance undertook to look into these items.

A Member considered that many of the budget reductions were the result of good work by officers, such as the waste contract, and he supported investment in the beach huts, but overall he felt that the draft budget report did not offer much to residents, with no reference to funding for skateparks or healthy living.

The Leader thanked officers and the Cabinet Member for Finance for their hard work in producing the draft proposals.

RECOMMENDED:

(1)  That the draft proposals be noted.

(2)  That the Medium Term Financial Plan be noted.