To consider for approval the General Fund Budget for 2023/24 including the use of reserves, Medium Term Financial Strategy, Capital Programme and Strategy, Treasury Management Policy/Strategy, MRP Policy and Annual Investment Strategy, Fees & Charges, Pay Policy Statement and the Annual Delivery Plan.

 

N.B. A recorded vote was mandatory on the Annual Budget Report 2023/24 in line with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.

 

A report was presented to enable consideration of the General Fund Budget for 2023/24 including the use of reserves, Medium Term Financial Strategy, Capital Programme and Strategy, Treasury Management Policy/Strategy, MRP Policy and Annual Investment Strategy, Fees & Charges, Pay Policy Statement, and the Annual Delivery Plan.

 

During his introduction Councillor Fry, Portfolio Holder for Finance wished to express his thanks to Christine Marshall, Section 151 Officer and the Finance Team for the time consuming and difficult work undertaken in the preparation of the budget and furthermore for the help and support from all Council service areas, officers and Portfolio Holders.

 

Councillor Fry stressed the negative effects that international crises were having on the global economy and that of the country, detrimentally affecting the finances of every ELDC resident and of theCouncil.

 

Councillor Fry continued that the economic environment was complex and volatiletherefore, whilst the words ‘Unprecedented and Challenging’ were appropriate to describe the budget setting process this year, snakes and ladders or swings and roundabouts might better characterise the lows and highsinvolved.

 

A number of positive key points during budget setting were highlighted to Members as follows:

 

·       That ELDC had largely met the challenge had much to do with the success of the South and East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership ‘One Team’ approach in maintaining services, driving growth and notably, successfully bidding for £68m of capitalfunds, which would achieve an estimated £3.271m in 2023/24.

 

·       More recently bids to the UKSPF, the Levelling Up Fund and NPO which, where appropriate, were now features of the Council’s 2023/24 revenue and capitalbudgets.

 

·       At £6m of existing savings the Council’s partnership with South Holland and Boston was on target to deliver the projected £42m pounds of savings identified in the businesscase.

 

·       2022/23 had seen decisions taken by the Council, such as the sale of Skegness Town Hall and Tedder Hall that generated the budgeted £1.5m capital receipt and resulted in ongoing revenue savings of £400k pa runningcosts.

 

·       The Council had prudently maintained a capital resource base commensurate with its delivery ambitions.  These resources were now being deployed in support of projects such as a new learning and leisure centrein Mablethorpe,a newand innovativeregeneration ofthe Colonnadein Suttonon Seaand SkegnessForeshore. 

 

·       However, inall ofthis, ELDCremained sovereignin termsof itsConstitution andbudget and its primary priorities remained to ensure that this Council remained financially resilient, able to deliver services it had to by law and to provide support to the district’s most vulnerable residents whilst seeking to drive improvement and economic growth to benefit its residents, visitors andbusinesses.

 

Main points relating to the budget were highlighted as follows:

 

·       The 2023/24 local government finance settlement was for one year only and was based on the Spending Review 2021, the (SR21) funding levels, updated for the 2022 Autumn Statement announcements.  The main points of which were:

 

·       A new Funding Guarantee replaced the Lower Tier Services Grant. This grant ensured that no local authority would see an increase in Core Spending Power that was lower than3%.

 

·       The Revenue Support Grant had been increased and existing grants had been rolled intothe RSG amounts and were expected to continue at the current level until the Council was advised of the ‘Fairer Funding Review’ result.

 

·       The ‘Fair Funding Review’ and a reset of Business Rates growth would not be implemented in the next two years.  However, the net effect of all the settlement elements on the Council’s budgetary position was a £6k reduction, so notsignificant.  The assumptions underlying the budget report were detailed at Appendix 1, Table 1, page 49 of the report refers.

 

·       With regards to income, notably the significantly increased return on the Council’s cash investments reflected recent increases to theBank ofEngland baserate fromthe recenthistoric lowlevels whichhad teeteredon thebrink of negative values.

 

Key points relating to Council Tax and Business Rates were highlighted as follows:

 

·       The previous Medium-Term Financial Strategy(MTFS) committedto aCouncil Taxincrease inline with the maximum allowed under the recent Local GovernmentSettlement.

 

·       Therefore,for ELDCin 2023/24this wasa £4.95(3.16%) perannum increase(for BandD properties). This wouldgenerate additionalincome of£321k andthe increasewas reflectedthrough thelife ofthe MTFS, Table 3, page 53 of the Agenda refers.  The tax base projections for 2023/24 (Table 1) indicated growth of 584 Band D equivalent properties (1.28%). Future growth had been projected at1.5%.

 

Key points relating to Expenditure was highlighted as follows:

 

·       For 2023/24, a 5% staff pay award had been assumed which would be  adjusted (in year) should it be settled at a lowerlevel.

 

·       Electricityand gascosts hadbeen inflatedby 50%for 2023/24as aresult ofincreased wholesale prices.

 

·       Vehicle fuel costs hadbeen inflatedby 25% for 2023/24.

 

·       The IDB levywould notonly consumeall of theCouncil’s proposedCouncil Taxincrease for 2023/24 but also required that significant savings were identified to meetit.  The totaladditional costof thisyear’s levyincrease representeda pressurein theCouncil’s revenue accountof £900kand wouldbring the Council’songoing IDBLevy commitmentto £5m per annum which was unsustainable, Table10, page 59 of the Agenda refers.

 

·       The Council’s budget deficit amounted to £1.608m, Table 11, page 61 of the Agenda refers.

 

·       The Council’s exposure to risk was detailed at Table 16, pages 70 to71 of the Agenda refer.  Although the Council faced a significant risk profile, it was confident that all the assumptions identified in the preparation of the budget estimate and Medium-Term Financial Strategy detailed in Table 1 on p49 were cautious and therefore sound.

 

·       Looking forward into 2023/24, Executive Board would be promoting projects in accordance with the Capital Programme in association with the Towns Fund, attendant business plans and the Council’s own commercial initiatives.

 

·       The Council’s capital programme was now greater in value than at any time in the Council’s history, thanks largely to the repeated success of officers in bidding and winning government funding to spend in thedistrict.

 

·       The Council retained a healthy reservesprovision, Table 12, pages 63 to 64 of the Agenda refers.

 

·       In the context of both capitals spend and the Council’s reserve position the Portfolio Holder for Finance proposed that the following sums were made available for use in the following areas with immediateeffect:

 

·       £1.5m for the Decarbonisation of Assets and,

 

·       £1m to provide targeted cost of Living Support for residents, including, but not limited to the followinginitiatives:

 

·       Extending the Council’s partnership with Citizens Advice Lindsey so more residents could access ‘financial first aid’.

 

·       Providing small grants for warm hubs and community drop-ins to support their work to reduce social isolation.

 

·       Further support for community hubs to help residents access online support and reduce digital exclusion.

 

·       Review local Discretionary Housing Budget allocation and process to ensure it met needs of residents at risk of homelessness.

 

In summary, the Portfolio Holder for Finance considered that in very challengingtimes, the budget presented a positive picture, appropriately met the challenges the Council faced and mostimportantly that the team had delivered a balanced budget.

 

Following which, it was proposed and seconded:

 

• That Recommendations 1 – 8 of the Annual Budget Report, Medium Term Financial Strategy, Financial Strategies and Council Tax proposed by Executive Board on the 15th February 2023 be approved.

 

• That the Pay Policy for 2023/24 at Appendix 6 and the Fees and Charges Schedule for 2023/24 at Appendix 7 be approved.

 

An Amendment by the Labour Group was Proposed and Seconded as detailed below’

 

Labour budget amendment 2023/24:

 

Car Park Solar Panels Project

We propose a budget amendment to invest in improvements to the council’s car parks with solar canopies in order to create an increased ongoing revenue stream for the council, and to assist in the transition to net zero by 2040. These may also include charging points for electric vehicles, depending on the outcome of a feasibility study. EV charging points will increase the capital costs but reduce the payback time for any installation.

 

The project would have the following elements:

 

1. A feasibility study to determine which car parks will give the greatest return on investment, and to understand the business case.

2. A reserve of £300,000 to draw on to begin work on installing solar panels over the most promising car parks. This would only begin if the feasibility study determines that the business case is solid.

 

Funding sources:

This project would be funded with contributions from the Carbon Reduction Reserve and the New Initiatives/Contingency Reserve. As there is anticipated to be a positive return on investment, there will be no negative impact on future budgets. The savings this initiative will make can’t be calculated until the feasibility study is done

 

2023/24

Spending

Car park solar feasibility study	£25,000
Car park solar implementation	£300,000
Total:	£325,000

 

Saving Plans

Carbon Reduction Reserve	£55,000
New Initiatives/Contingency Reserve	£270,000
Total	£325,000

 

No changes to 2024/25, 2025/26, 2026/27, 2027/28

Total cost over 5 years

£325,000

 

During her introduction of the Amendment, Councillor Jackson acknowledged that it had been a difficult budget to set and asked to pay tribute to officers who had worked through difficulties and for achieving a finalised budget.  In addition, Councillor Jackson was pleased to see that £1.5m had been allocated for the Decarbonisation of Assets and that the Council continued to deliver its strategy for Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) considerations.

 

Debate ensued on the Amendment, and Councillor Jill Makinson-Sanders considered that the design of the solar canopies had to be right for visual impact and that it was important for a feasibility study to be undertaken. 

 

Councillor Tom Ashton, Portfolio Holder for Planning agreed and added that design was very important to minimise a detrimental visual impact on the landscape.  With regards to any financial benefits to be had from the scheme into the future, this would be captured by the officers in the Economic Growth Team working on the decarbonisation projects.  In response, Councillor Jackson highlighted that officers worked on projects that had been budgeted for and did not consider they were resourced to work out financial savings on anything outside of this.  It was further considered that the proposed amendment would allow the Council to generate income and be more sustainable for residents into the future.

 

Councillor Danny Brookes stated that he would only consider supporting the amendment if there were proposed designs available to view for the solar canopies.  In response, Councillor Jackson advised that the design would not be known until a feasibility study had been undertaken.  Furthermore, a separate feasibility study would have to be undertaken for each car park considered due to the difference in geography of areas.  Councillor Jackson also highlighted that there was also an auditory element as well as visual, and that the noise from petrol cars had an impact in some of the towns which was detrimental to residents.

 

In further response to the amendment, the Leader of the Council referred to the £1.5m allocated for the Decarbonisation of Assets that would include car parks as set out by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and considered the amendment unnecessary, therefore would not be supporting it.

 

Councillor Tony Howard stated that he was disappointed with the comments made and urged that the money allocated to the decarbonisation of assets be used swiftly, furthermore he fully supported the amendment as it was affordable, and the benefits were clear to see.

 

Councillor David Hall highlighted the huge increase in numbers of electric and hybrid cars on the roads and the distinct lack of electric charging points across the district.  He also considered that the amendment went a long way towards the zero-carbon promise and did not agree with the comments made on design.

 

Following a query, the Leader of the Council provided a point of clarification on the decarbonisation projects and advised Members that it was in relation to reducing energy costs by seeking alternative energy sources on the Council’s assets.

 

Councillor Steve Kirk, Portfolio Holder for Coastal Economy agreed with the notion of the solar panel canopies and highlighted that this was not an innovative idea and had already been considered on a car park in Sutton on Sea.  Furthermore, with regards to the second part of the amendment in relation to EV charging points the huge cost involved was highlighted, together with the existing infrastructure that would not be able to sustain this, therefore he could not support the amendment.  In response to both Councillor Kirk and Councillor Leyland’s comments, Councillor Jackson stated that she did not see any evidence of solar panel canopies in car parks across the district and highlighted that there were many things that needed to be done from the £1.5m allocated to the decarbonisation of assets before specific projects could commence.

 

Councillor Claire Arnold highlighted that it was important for a feasibility study to be undertaken to plan for the future and supported the amendment.

 

Councillor Phyll Smith stated that he was pleased to see that the Portfolio Holder was looking at car parking options, as set out in the recommendations from the Carbon Management Plan Scrutiny Panel.  With regards to the aesthetics of solar canopies on car parks, he considered that these would look better than a mass of concrete.

 

Councillor Will Grover queried whether the £325k cost set out in the amendment was sufficient to cover the cost of the project and considered that the research and information provided lacked detail.  In response, Councillor Jackson advised Members that it depended on the outcome of the feasibility study and also whether other government grants could be leveraged into the project.

 

A recorded vote was required for this item, in line with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014. (Council Procedure Rule 5.2 (b)). 

 

Upon being put to the vote the Amendment was declared lost:

 

For the Proposal: Councillors Aldridge, Arnold, Cullen, David Hall, Howard, Jackson and Smith - 7

 

Against the Proposal: Councillors Andrews, Ashton, Richard Avison, Stan Avison, Bowkett, Danny Brookes, Burnham, Campbell-Wardman, Cunnington, Dannatt, Davie, Dennis, Devereux, Dickinson, Edginton, Evans, Foster, Fry, Gray, Green, Grist, Grover, Alex Hall, Harrison, Horton, Jones, Kemp, Kirk, Leonard, Leyland, McMillan, McNally, Makinson-Sanders, Mangion, Marsh, Martin, Matthews, Parkin and Platt - 39

 

Abstentions: Councillor Eyre - 1

 

Absent: Councillors Benjamin, Billy Brookes, Jimmy Brookes, Knowles, Mossop, Rickett, Taylor and Williams – 8

 

Debate returned to the original proposition.

 

Councillor George Horton congratulated Councillor Richard Fry, Portfolio Holder for Finance and his team for the difficult job of producing the 2023/24 budget.  As a point of interest, it was highlighted that in relation to Council Tax, Spilsby was the most expensive place to live in the district, however had less to offer then other towns and queried whether there was a reason for this.  In response, Councillor Richard Fry highlighted that the reality was that whatever precept town or parish councils asked for was reflected in their Council Tax.

 

Councillor Tony Howard highlighted the ongoing issue of how much the Council paid for Internal Drainage Board (IDB) levies and whilst acknowledging that they were efficient and effective in the work they did, stressed that this issue must reach a resolution.  In response, Councillor Tom Ashton stated that he was pleased that the Council had a good and deepening relationship with the IDBs and other related bodies and hoped that a solution would be offered by the government in the near future.  Councillor Fry added that he fully supported and valued the works undertaken by the IDBs across the district.

 

Councillor Makinson-Sanders, on behalf of the Independent Group thanked Christine Marshall, Deputy Chief Executive (Corporate Development)/Section 151 Officer, Councillor Richard Fry, Portfolio Holder for Finance and officers in the Finance Team for their hard work in putting the budget together and also wished the Section 151 Officer success in her efforts to reach a resolution with government on the IDB levies.  In response, the Portfolio Holder for Finance informed Members that he took great pride in the budget and hoped that future funding would meet the issues highlighted.

 

Councillor Tom Ashton echoed the thanks made and also highlighted that the efforts made extended over a much longer period than one year and even in the face of challenges that were both current and needed facing into the future, the Council had managed to achieve a balanced budget with good management of accounts and whilst continuing to deliver services.

 

Councillor Danny Brookes offered his thanks to Councillor Fry, Section 151 Officer and the Finance Team for their efforts in delivering a balanced budget.

 

In conclusion, the Leader of the Council thanked Members for their comments of appreciation for the work that had gone into the budget and those persons involved.  In particular, recognition was made to the work of the Section 151 Officer and those involved for trying to seek a resolution to the amount paid over from the Council for IDB levies and he was confident for a positive outcome with this. 

 

Upon being put to the vote, it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the following recommendations proposed by Executive Board on 15th February 2023 be approved:

 

1.          That the Revenue Estimates for the General Fund for 2023/24 (Appendices 1, 1a and 1b) be approved;

 

2.          That the Council Tax for a Band A property in 2023/24 be set at £107.76 (£3.30 per annum increase on 2022/23 levels) and band D £161.64 for 2023/24 (a £4.95 per annum increase on 2022/23 levels);

 

3.          That the additions to and use of reserves (as detailed at Appendix 1) be approved;

 

4.          That the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (at Appendix 1) be approved;

 

5.          That the Capital Programme and Capital Strategy (Appendices 1 and 2) be approved;

 

6.          That the Treasury Management Policy 2023/24 (Appendix 3a) and Treasury Management Strategy, including the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy and Annual Investment Strategy 2023/24 (Appendix 3b) be approved;

 

7.          That the Annual Delivery Plan for 2023/24 (Appendix 4) be approved;

 

8.          That approval be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive Corporate Development (S151), to account as required for any s31 grant and reserve transactions required in respect of the Collection Fund.

 

That the following items presented to Council be approved:

 

1.           The Pay Policy Statement for 2023/24 (Appendix 6);

 

2.           The Fees & Charges Schedule for 2023/24 (Appendix 7)

 

For the Proposal: Councillors Aldridge, Andrews, Ashton, Richard Avison, Stan Avison, Bowkett, Danny Brookes, Burnham, Campbell-Wardman, Cunnington, Dannatt, Davie, Dennis, Devereux, Dickinson, Edginton, Evans, Eyre, Foster, Fry, Gray, Green, Grist, Grover, Alex Hall, Harrison, Horton, Jones, Kemp, Kirk, Leonard, Leyland, McMillan, McNally, Makinson-Sanders, Mangion, Marsh, Martin, Matthews, Parkin and Platt – 41

 

Against the Proposal: - 0

 

Abstentions: Councillors Arnold, Cullen, David Hall, Howard, Jackson and Smith - 6

 

Absent: Councillors Benjamin, Billy Brookes, Jimmy Brookes, Knowles, Mossop, Rickett, Taylor and Williams – 8