Meeting documents

The Committee was reminded that the announcement of the decision to create a new unitary authority did not affect the legal responsibility to set a budget for 2019/20.  There would need to be provision made for transition costs under the obligation to co-operate but these were not yet known.  Most of the costs were now split as part of the shared services arrangement.  The budgets had been scrutinised by Policy Holders and Officers.  This resulted in budget reductions or additional income of over £300k. 

The number of properties in the District that would be subject to Council Tax had increased slightly by 0.8%.  The settlement details for local government had still not been received.  It was expected that there would be no changes to the limit to the annual increase in Council Tax but the budgets would be reviewed once the settlement had been announced.  A modest use of reserves of £107k was listed but this would be adjusted with the final figures.

Committee asked Cabinet to consider the following points when considering the budget:

1.     Business rate growth forecasts.  It was asked whether the trend for office conversions to residential accommodation by permitted development would undermine business rate forecasts.  It was advised that Chiltern had for the last 2 years taken part in a business rates pooling scheme.  It had also applied to take part in a business rates pilot scheme which would cover all the County’s authorities.

2.     It was asked if the 18/19 budget could be compared to the estimated outturn figures.  It was confirmed that budget monitoring was done monthly and could be provided to future committees.

3.     Amersham Multi-Storey Car Park.  The interest payable on the car park compared to the minimum revenue provision was queried.  It was suggested that the figures from the business case should be used in the budgets and it was confirmed that they were.

4.     Inflation expenditure on the pension contributions (P39) were explained as a 2% increase for all.

5.     Business Rate Precept for the Police (P37) it was confirmed that the Police are not funded through business rates.

6.     Public Conveniences (P71) the figure had gone down.  It was advised that there was a saving as business rates no longer payable following an announcement in the recent Budget.

7.     Car Park Management.  It was confirmed that the cost of the admin team was covered by car park income.

8.     Depreciation on P54.  It was advised that the decision had been taken to accelerate the depreciation on the Chiltern Pools as it would not be used beyond the next 2 years.  It was explained that this was a local authority form of accounting that did not affect the bottom line.  It was asked that the £2.9 million depreciation item be brought to the attention of Cabinet.

9.     Council tax rates (P34).  It was asked why the current Council Tax rates are higher in Chiltern compared to the other Bucks Districts.  It was advised that this was largely historical and down to local political decisions.

10.  Joint Community and Leisure Cost Share.  It was advised that there was a joint team but some items were specific to each Council eg GLL payments were CDC only.

11.  Appendix 9 Revised charges.  A request was made to round up the charges so there were not odd pence.  Concern was also expressed about charging for containers as some people in the district could not afford to replace their bins.  It was suggested that a fund be set up for residents that need help.  It was noted that this was a service issue rather than a financial one, and officers had discretion to waive charges, but Members requested detail on how discretion is exercised to help genuine cases with replacing their containers when they are stolen or after wear and tear or contractor damage. 

12.  Licensing Charges.  It was advised that these are regulated and they are made in reflection of Officer time and seniority.  It was likely that the shadow authority would compare fees with other local charges.

13.  Economic Development Team.  It was noted that it was being funded from Earmarked Reserves. 

14.  It was asked why income had reduced from pre-application advice.  It was advised that this service had been unavailable for periods during the reorganisation and staffing changes.  The previous target had also not been achievable.  Members considered this to be an important service and an aspiration in the shared service business case, so any reduction should only be of a short term nature.

15.  Car park income.  It was asked why the projected income from the car parks was going down.  It was advised that the car parks had been re-evaluated for business rates and following a transitional relief period, costs would increase.

16.  Disclosure Scotland Fees (P127).  It was advised that these were CRB checks that were required by law for taxi drivers.

RESOLVED

That the draft revenue service budget for 2019/20 be noted and that Cabinet take into account the comments made above by the Resources Overview Committee.