Agenda item

Report number CHFCS61 by the Assets and Resources Portfolio Holder.                                                                                                             (Enclosure)

DECISION:

(1)         To approve the Medium Term Financial Plan for the period 2009/10 to 2012/13 as appended to report number CHFCS61;

(2)         To approve a further supplementary estimate in the current financial year of a maximum of £400,000 to meet the costs of the business rates and the management fee of the leisure centres and stadium in South Kesteven subject to Cabinet agreeing interim management arrangements at their meeting on 7 September 2009.  This amount to be met from the capacity building, priority setting and service improvement reserve.

Members had before them report number CHFCS61 attached to which was the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP), a document which brought together the Council’s financial position and demonstrated how the revenue and capital finance resources were organised in order to deliver the authority’s priorities.

Before the officer began his presentation, the Deputy Leader reminded members that the report referred to in the agenda papers would not be discussed by Cabinet until Monday and that it was an exempt report.

The Assets and Resources portfolio holder moved the recommendations contained in the report CHFCS61, subject to the addition of the word “further” before supplementary estimate in the second part of the recommendation.  The motion was seconded.

The Corporate Head of Finance and Customer Services explained that since the MTFP had been considered by Cabinet on 3 August 2009 (having previously been reviewed by the Resources PDG on 23 July) there had been clarification about the future delivery of the leisure services and the MTFP had been updated to include this issue.  Before summarising the MTFP, the officer highlighted the present uncertainty surrounding the level of government grant that may be available to local authorities during the latter two periods of the plan.  It was anticipated that the Government would reduce its public spending from 2011/12 the effect of which would be that the grant settlement would be significantly less in real terms than in previous years.  The MTFP reflected this uncertainty and included financial modelling for a 5% and 10% reduction.  Additional pressure would also be brought to bear by the requirement to meet increased efficiency savings.

After highlighting other key pressures on the Council’s finances, the Corporate Head of Finance and Customer Services advised that the Cabinet and senior officers would now be working towards the preparation of a balanced budget.  There would be challenging times ahead based on a variety of potential scenarios and a degree of uncertainty.  The MTFP would need to be kept up to date to meet changing circumstances and resources needed to be aligned to deliver the Council’s stated priorities.  The officer advised that South Kesteven district council was better placed than many other authorities and public sector bodies both within and outside Lincolnshire because of its history of prudent financial management.  This position afforded the Council a window of opportunity to gear itself up for the future and take the opportunities to ensure it was based placed to meet these challenges.

The Corporate Head was commended for the clarity of his report.  Councillor Thompson spoke to the Council as the member appointed by it to the Leisure Trust.  He referred to the issues behind the need to provide a supplementary estimate.  The failure of the Leisure Trust to gain charitable status was, he asserted, due to the procrastination of the Charities Commission.  The pursuit of the charitable status had been entirely at the expense of the contractor, Leisure Connection who had expended over £400,000.  Over a year had passed and the Charities Commission had still not reached a decision.  Leisure Connection could no longer afford to fund the process.  Councillor Thompson stated he had made personal representations to the Charities Commission to demonstrate how the Leisure Trust could have delivered better services to the community through the Trust.  However, the Commission had requested further information regarding the community benefit.  Councillor Thompson acknowledged the position of Leisure Connection and had no criticisms of their decision in the circumstances.

Discussion then moved onto the content of the officer’s report.  A member expressed concern that the authority was facing a difficult situation through no fault of its own financial management.  He was also concerned at the number of assumption made in the report and considered that the onus was now on members to make the necessary decisions.  The member referred to the Cabinet’s decision made on 3 August that a resources and efficiency plan should be developed in order to identify actions needed to ensure a balanced budget.  This, he suggested, did not go far enough if the council were to avoid a situation of having to make drastic cuts.  As an amendment, he proposed the following course of action: an in house team, comprising members and officers, undertake a review of all services.  The amendment was seconded.

A member spoke in support of the amendment stating that it was non political.  The whole council was facing a very difficult future and it was tribute to its past prudence that it was in a better position at this point than many others.  The amendment, if carried, would help the council to maintain a better position.

In opposition to the amendment, several members including the Chairman of the Resources PDG, said there was no need for this measure.  The Council already had an in house team in its PDG and this would only add another layer of work to what was already proposed.  The Chief Executive sought clarification from the mover of the amendment.  She advised that an amendment could not be made to a previously made decision of the Cabinet.  The member confirmed that his proposal was to amend the first part of the recommendation in the report before members today.  A vote was taken on the amendment and was lost.

Debate moved back to the original motion and after the Healthy Environment portfolio holder had responded to a member’s concerns about the impact on the waste collection service as a result of withdrawing the bring site facilities, a vote was taken and the motion carried.