Agenda and draft minutes

No declarations of interest were received.

Budget Review Group considered the draft Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2024-2029 and provisional 2024/25 budget and Council Tax proposals. A copy of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy was appended to the report.

Jaclyn Gibson, Chief Finance Officer, presented her report and highlighted that the main objectives of this meeting were to:

• examine the principles and planning process that underlaid the proposed budget and Council Tax for the 2024/25 financial year
• ensure that at each stage the budget was clear, focused, achievable, realistic, and based on sound financial practices;
• ensure that at each stage the budget had clear linkages with corporate plans that formed the Council’s Policy Framework, establishing that they were identifiable and designed to improve services in the Council’s strategic priority areas.

A number of questions were provided by Members in advance of the meeting which, together with responses provided, were noted as follows:

Question: Referred to page 8 of the report. Could clarification be provided in respect of the point ‘difficult decisions about the size and scope of services it can continue to provide…’. What service areas specifically, did the finance team view as being considered for reduction?

Response: There were currently no specific service areas that had been identified as being considered for reduction and the MTFS stated that a programme to deliver the savings targets would be developed over 2024/25 and 2025/26.  This covered a range of measures and would not just focus on service reductions.

Question: If the Council completely removed the neighbourhood working element of the Council’s service delivery, how much would be saved for the full MTFS period?

Response: The cost of the neighbourhood working team was c£190K per annum, a total cost of £981K over the period of the MTFS.

Supplementary Question: Was the overhead cost of circa £20K for the office itself included?

Response: Yes.

Question: Why was the proposed 2.92% Council Tax increase set at 2.92% rather than 3%. Was this a political decision to be viewed as increasing Council Tax by a lower amount when compared to neighbouring District Councils or was it set at 2.92% for accounting purposes?

Response: Historically, Council Tax was set slightly below the referendum limit rather than at the maximum, i.e. usually 1.9% or 2.9%. The Band D equivalent needed to be divisible by 9 and the nearest percentage to 2.9% that achieved that was 2.92%. There was no link with neighbouring Districts’ Council Tax proposals.

Question: If the Council ran a similar Council Tax Support (CTS) scheme similar to other neighbouring District Councils, what would the cost difference be?

Response:The budgeted cost of the 2024/25 CTS scheme was £1.28M, based on the Council’s share of 14%. If the scheme was capped at a maximum 90% support (instead of 100%) for eligible working-age recipients, the estimated cost would be 10% lower i.e. cost £1.52M which was £128K lower.  However, officers would then have a number of smaller Council Tax balances to collect (i.e. 10% of a taxpayers’ liability who may have previously received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.