Items
No. |
Item |
21. |
Items of Urgent Business
To receive additional items
that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter
of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
Minutes:
There were no items of urgent
business.
|
22. |
Declaration of Interests
Minutes:
There were no interests
declared.
Councillor Rigby arrived 19.02
|
23. |
Draft General Fund Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy Update PDF 228 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Director of Finance,
Governance and Property introduced the report and stated that an
updated version of Appendix 2 had been provided to Members, as the
table had been realigned. He described how the report explained the
Council’s current financial position, and had been discussed
by Cabinet last week. He then outlined that in the previous six
month’s there had been considerable pressures in some areas,
and highlighted one area of pressure as children’s social
care, which had received additional funding and improved their
OFSTD score at the last inspection. The Director of Finance,
Governance and Property also highlighted that adult’s social
care was under financial pressure, which was common on a national
scale, and pressure on the Housing General Fund, which was due to
increased numbers of people presenting themselves as
homeless.
The Director of Finance, Governance and Property then moved on to
the forecasted financial position in 2020/21 and clarified that an
indicative financial assessment had been carried out before
Christmas, but the Council were still waiting on the final
allocations of this due to purdah delays. He explained that
preliminary findings from this appeared hopeful, and budget
allocations had already increased, so he felt the Council were in a
good financial position. He added that last year the Council had
undertaken a Spending Review and Fair Funding Review, but due to
only one-year spending agreements from central government, these
were not at the forefront, although the Council could make an
estimate for the next two to three years. He stated that additional
funding received would go towards adult and children’s social
care, and increased homelessness grants.
The Director of Finance, Governance and Property then moved on to
discussing council tax and the governance process for setting this.
He explained that the Cabinet recommendation to increase council
tax would go to the relevant scrutiny committee for comment, which
would then feedback into Cabinet in February, and would be sent to
Full Council for decision. He stated that the proposed budget would
see an increase in 2% for the adult social care precept, which was
the maximum it could be raised by, and an increase in general
council tax by 1.49%, which was not the maximum of 1.99%. He
commented that this would increase the Council’s base going
forwards, as tax was a more stable income compared to
investments.
The Director of Finance, Governance and Property drew the
Committee’s attention to paragraph 4.4 on page 9 and
clarified the figures outlined in the table, including the current
council tax banding, total number of properties, and average net
charge, which took into account discounts, tax schemes and support
provided. He stated that council tax bands A-C made up 70.4% of all
properties, and a 1% council tax rise would equate to an additional
19p per week. He then drew the Committee’s attention to the
Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) on page 13 of the agenda,
which outlined that the increase in council tax and adult social
care precept would increase ...
view the full minutes text for item 23.
|
24. |
Capital Strategy 2020/21 PDF 76 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Director of Finance,
Governance and Property outlined the report, and stated that the
Capital Strategy was a new requirement for 2019/20 and incorporated
the Treasury Management Strategy. He stated that the main purpose
was set out on page 27 and provided a high-level overview of
capital expenditure levels, capital financing and treasury
management activity. He highlighted a number of tables to the
committee which set out the summary figures including capital
expenditure, capital financing, the Capital Financing Requirement,
borrowing, and a summary of the overall treasury position. He
described the significant press interest since Cabinet had
considered the six-month position last week, and he addressed some
of the comments that had been published, so the Council’s
position was clear. The Director of Finance, Governance and
Property explained that although Thurrock were quoted as having the
highest level of short-term borrowing, Thurrock were by no means
the highest borrower. He outlined the reasons for short-term
borrowing, which explained that Thurrock had taken the approach
since August 2010. He clarified that the Local Authority and
related Treasury Market had between £20billion and
£30billion of cash available that had to be lent or deposited
somewhere, and estimated that had all of the Council’s
borrowing been through the Public Works Loan Board, Thurrock would
be paying on average additional £15million per annum. He
highlighted that the Local Authorities money markets were not
linked to the bank base rate, and so were not as open to interest
rate fluctuations, and was simply about the amounts of surplus cash
available, and how much others needed.
The Director of Finance, Governance and Property then described
some facts and figures from 2018/19 and described how the Council
had taken out loans from a number of different Local Authorities,
the duration of which were between one month and one year, with
rates ranging from 0.4% to 1.15% depending on the duration. He then
outlined what the Council used the funds for, mainly being capital
expenditure on buildings, infrastructure and IT; and investments
that were made relating to assets that Thurrock had security over
and were repayable, which were mainly bonds on renewable energy
assets that raised additional income that the Council could
reinvest in frontline services. He described how three-quarters of
the Council’s borrowing was repayable on maturity, which was
currently between three and eight years, but the bond issuer had
the right to make early repayments. He stated that based on this,
even if long-term borrowing had attractive rates, it would not be
prudent to borrow for longer terms when the need was for a shorter
period.
The Director of Finance, Governance and Property then drew the
Committee’s attention to Table 1 on page 27 of the agenda
which set out projected capital and investment expenditure, and
clarified that these were not always uniform as opportunities did
not arise in that fashion. He clarified that over two years
investments were forecasted as an average, and the prudential
indicators had been adjusted in the budget report in February
...
view the full minutes text for item 24.
|
25. |
Draft Capital Programme PDF 83 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Director of Finance,
Governance and Property introduced the report and stated that an
updated Appendix 3 had been provided to Members, which removed the
summer carriageway drainage works, and replaced it with the Ship
Lane redevelopment programme.
Councillor Churchman returned 20.24
He outlined the capital programme and stated it was made up of a
variety of areas of expenditure including IT, housing stock, and
projects. He described how there had been a need to invest in
housing stock and the Council’s approach had now changed to
being a corporate landlord. He outlined
that there were three ‘pots’ which were digital,
property, and service review, all of which received numerous bids.
The Director of Finance, Governance and Property described the
variance between how much people thought they needed for a project,
and how much was actually needed, and described how a separate
budget had been set up for feasibility studies and business cases
to reduce this variance. He then highlighted Appendix 1 of the
report that outlined the existing capital programme, and Appendix 2
that outlined that future and aspirational projects. He clarified
that the Committee were not agreeing the individual projects listed
as these were only examples, but just the overall amount of
spending. He then highlighted Appendix 3 which were actual projects
not included in ‘pots’, but allocated funding in their
own right.
The Chair opened debate and highlighted page 58 of the agenda and
the proposed project relating to the Integrated Medical Centre in
Tilbury, and asked what the phasing for the project was, and if
this was certain to go ahead. The Director of Finance, Governance
and IT replied that it had been double-counted as its funding
had been agreed, but was still going
through the process of business case and feasibility. He explained
that this project was complicated as it involved a number of
external partners who all had different accounts processes, and factors such as rent charges and
spacing was still being negotiated. Councillor Fletcher asked why
only the Tilbury IMC was considered in the report, and the Director
of Finance, Governance and Property replied that it was because it
was the only IMC that the Council were responsible for delivering.
He clarified that the other IMCs were being run by external
partners, and the Purfleet IMC was
included as part of the Purfleet
regeneration project.
RESOLVED: That:
1. The Committee commented on the specific proposals set out within
this report.
|