Agenda item

Revenue and Capital Budget Proposals 2020/21

(To receive a report from Keith Noyland, Head of Finance – Communities, which outlines the budget proposals for the next financial year 2020/21 and the budget implications for the council's Environment and Economy services. The committee are invited to scrutinise and comment on the proposals, prior to consideration of the final budget proposals by the Executive at its meeting on 4 February 2020)

 

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report by the Head of Finance - Communities, which outlined the budget proposals for the next financial year 2020/21 and the budget implications for the Council's Environment and Economy services. The Committee were invited to scrutinise and comment on the proposals prior to consideration of the final budget proposals by the Executive at its meeting on 4 February 2020.

 

Members were referred to table A, which set out the total proposed revenue budget for the Council's Environment and Economy Services. Members were advised that the Environment and Economy Services were proposing to make savings of £0.657m in 2020/21; and the proposals for these services had allowed for pay inflation of 2% for 2020/21.

 

Increased contributions from third parties, integration of Countryside Services systems with existing Highways Services systems and realignment of the budget with current service requirements was expected to generate savings in 2020/21 of £0.066m.

 

Members were then referred to table B, which set out the proposed gross capital programme for the Council's Environment and Economy services. The full gross capital programme totalled £170.077m for 2020/21, plus a further £364.159m for future years, with grants and contributions of £127.864m giving a net programme of £406.372m to be funded by the County Council.

 

Members were advised that the following changes had been made to gross capital programme in 2020/21 as part of the budget setting process:

·       Addition of a programme of replacement of Household Waste Recycling Centres £2m in 2020/21 and £2m in future years;   

·       Addition of funding to further develop the Council's Industrial Estate Provision, £0.5m in 2020/21 and £1m in future years;

·       Addition of a range of Infrastructure and Economic Development initiatives to support economic and housing growth whilst reducing traffic congestion in and around Boston, £5.5m in future years. These schemes will replace the previous capital schemes for the Boston Barrier.

 

The budget proposals reflected the level of funding expected to be available to the Council from central government and an assumed increase in Council Tax in 2020/21 of 1.5% and an Adult Social Care 'precept' assumed to increase by 2% in 2020/21, giving a total Council tax increase of 3.5%.

 

Members were invited to ask questions, in which the following points were noted:

 

·       It was confirmed that the revised capital programme for the £5.5m for the Boston Development Scheme was for half of the proposed £11.1m for the Boston Barrier. It was noted that the £11.1m was no longer required to build the barrier and the remaining budget was being used for infrastructure and economic development in Boston. It was agreed that further information be sought from key officers and be circulated to the Committee in due course.

·       Members expressed their concerns over the limited budgets for rural and countryside services, as a growing service offering a range of benefits.

·       Members were concerned that the Lead Local Authority Flood grant had not increased despite their having been an unprecedented amount of rainfall in 2019 and consequently a rise in flooding incidents across the County. Officers advised that the Council were still awaiting the detail of other grants they had applied for. Members were advised that the Council would likely request further funding from the government if a substantial amount of further work was needed. It was suggested that this be revisited at a later stage.

·       Members were advised that the major project to alleviate flood risk listed in Table B consisted of a range of projects which were generally match funded with the Environment Agency.

·       It was questioned whether the Council ever took a proactive approach, rather than a reactive approach to flood defence. Officers advised that although Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) were the Lead Flood Authority, there was also a need for partnership working. Officers aspired to obtain a more proactive approach, however this was a longer term piece of work which needed a stronger partnership arrangement.

·       It was confirmed there had not been job losses as a result of a decrease in the budget for Highways. Savings had been made from system costs from the fix my street system.

·       The Committee expressed the need to ensure that adequate funding was provided for rural services and flood defences.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.    That the budget proposals be noted;

2.    That a summary of the above comments be passed on to the Executive as part of their consideration of the final budget proposals.

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

 
 
dot

Original Text: