Agenda item

The report on the General Fund Revenue Budget 2022/23 and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2023/24 to 2025/26 is to be presented to the Committee.

The Committee is asked to note the draft report and provide feedback to Cabinet.

Please note that Appendix A (State of Melton report) and Appendix D (Parish Council Precepts) are currently not available. These appendices will be available for Cabinet and Council in February.

The Chair informed Members that the report is due to be presented to Cabinet on 9 February 2022. Currently the report and appendices are in draft and subject to amendments.

Following an introduction by the Chief Executive, the Director for Corporate Services gave a presentation on the budget proposals for 2022/23 and the medium term financial strategy.

During the introduction, Members noted that the Budget Scrutiny Workshop was conducted before the provisional financial settlement was known. As a result of the favourable settlement, some of the suggestions made at the workshop have not been carried forward and therefore the savings have been scaled back.

With regards to the provisional financial settlement, the Council received £493k more than anticipated from the new homes bonus, a one-off payment of £60k from the lower tier services grant which wasn’t expected and a one-off payment of £92k from the 2022/23 services grant which wasn’t expected. This results in a surplus of £384k on the draft revenue budget.

In covering the medium-term financial strategy, the Director for Corporate Services stated that forward projection was difficult due to the uncertainty of future financial settlements.

The Chair stated that it was pleasing to see a consultant was due to be appointed to assist in the development of plans for a cemetery but questioned how a new cemetery was to be funded, especially as there is only £284k in the special expenses reserve. Members were informed that the cost of a reasonably sized cemetery is estimated to be £1m, although there is a considerable amount of work to be done before options and proposals were due to be considered. It was also confirmed that a new cemetery is not in the local plan but that a feasibility needs to be developed.

There was a discussion on how the ongoing maintenance of the cemetery in Melton Mowbray is paid for, it was confirmed that these come from special expense funds charged to residents living in Melton Mowbray. It was clarified that this does not preclude non-Melton Mowbray residents from choosing to be buried there but that they will face higher burial costs than a Melton Mowbray resident.

A discussion ensued regarding a crematorium for the Borough. It was noted that the issue was reviewed a decade ago but that with more growth this would need reconsidering and the assumptions regarding viability rechecked. In response, it was confirmed that there was an opportunity to include a review of the original business case in the specification for the consultant procured to support the cemetery development.

The query was raised why the £384k budget surplus was being transferred to regeneration and innovation reserve and what projects was it likely to be used for. In response, the Committee was informed that the reserve would be ringfenced for projects that are categorised as spend to save or invest to save and they would have a business case to proceed. The funds will enable the Council to ensure that the activities it wants to proceed, happens at the pace that is required. Supporting the Asset Development Programme was an example of the kind of project which could be supported through this fund.

In response to the query why is Council Tax being raised in light of the favourable financial settlement and the revenue budget surplus, Members were informed that due to the financial uncertainty of future finance settlements, then there is a need to maximise income. If council tax is not raised it would be lost each year going forward due to referendum restrictions. In addition to this, the Local Government Association review stated that the Council had a low level of reserves, therefore there is a need to bolster the reserves.

When reviewing Council Tax in special expense areas, the question was raised as to why there is a substantive variation. The Committee were told that in some special expense areas, the tax base is low so therefore a small change could have a greater impact.

With regard to vacancy savings, a comment was made that the Project Officer post should not be removed as it is important that the Council has in-house project expertise in order to support colleagues with their projects. The justification for the removal of the post was that the post could not provide the specialist support that is currently required and that additional support is funded via the relevant project budget. The team that this post sits within in the council would be the subject of a review in year as a result of an impending retirement and leaving the post vacant would assist with this.

In response to a query on the saving identified in the elections service, Members were reassured that the capacity remains in the service but that the saving relates to unused funding this financial year.

Concern was raised over the vacancy saving proposed in the Community Safety Team. It was noted that the team are already stretched and it was believed that additional capacity within the team would help.

A discussion ensued regarding staff vacancies and it was confirmed that SLT review every vacancy and the work of the section where the vacancy is. Every vacancy that arises is managed and monitored and that a decision might be taken, based on workload, not to recruit straight away but appoint on an interim basis. It is important that roles and structures are reviewed regularly to ensure resources are supporting current needs most effectively.