Agenda item

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on the write the report and which do not contain exempt information)

Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Duncan Ellis, 01263 516330, Duncan.Ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The Portfolio Holder for Finance – Cllr E Seward introduced the Report and informed Members that it provided the final budget monitoring position for the 2018/19 financial year. It was noted that the outturn position at 31^st March 2019 showed an overall underspend of £969,666. Cllr E Seward reported that £273k of this was an underspend that was in-line with forecasts. The remaining figure of approximately £700k was the result of higher business rates returns than had been expected from central government. It was noted that the surplus had been placed in the general reserve.

Questions and Discussion

Cllr T Adams referred to the Fakenham Extra Care Scheme identified on page 34, and asked for further information. The Head of Finance and Asset Management replied that the Council had provided a capital contribution to support the scheme, and suggested that he could send a link with further details.

In response to a question from Cllr G Mancini-Boyle, the Head of Finance and Asset Management informed Members that an increase in wages for handymen had been driven by demand, and explained that with greater use of the Council’s public conveniences, came additional repair costs. He added that overtime was also included in the increase, with extra hours required for special events such as the Antiques Roadshow and BBC ident. Members were informed that the two events had generated approximately £11k of income for the Council, that would go some way to offset the cost of overtime payments.

Cllr N Pearce referred to the annual underspend, and asked whether something similar could be expected again in the future, despite predictions. The Head of Finance and Asset Management replied that the Council could possibly be less cautious when forecasting business rates returns, as it appeared that the tourism economy was still doing well in the district. Members were reminded however, that the fair funding review was pending, and this as well as a business’s rates review, could reset the base line, which would in-turn limit the Council’s additional income. As a result, the Head of Finance and Asset Management suggested that the Council ought to remain cautious, even though Brexit had to some extent delayed the funding reviews.

Cllr T Adams referred to Market revenue figures on page 31 that had not matched forecasts, and asked what had caused the variance in revenue. The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that there was a national decline in market trade across the country, and it was possible that traders were no longer being replaced as they retired.

Cllr N Housden referred to business rates retention and backlogs that had occurred with the NHS, and asked whether the Council had a contingency in place to cope with the backlog. The Head of Financer and Asset Management replied that the Council did have a business rates reserve of £1m, but acknowledged that there was still a backlog. He added that business rates refund would be backdated, and could amount to billions of pounds nationally.

In response to a question from Cllr T Adams on a TIC overspend on capital charges, the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that the overspend on REFCUS, which was revenue expenditure funded by capital under statute, referred to an asset which it does not own which would have been treated as capital expenditure had it been a capital asset of the authority. In this case, it had been a capital contribution of £90k to the Holt TIC. It was expected that saved revenue would return this figure within four years, suggesting that there was a good business case for the investment, and had therefore been included in the budget. 

Cllr T Adams noted that there had been overspends in the homelessness budget, and asked if a larger budget would be needed in the future. The Head of Finance and Asset Management replied that the budget was difficult to predict as the service was demand led. He added that hotels had been used on occasion, and that the service needed to be managed better in the future, in order to make better use of the Council’s own facilities. It was suggested that capital investment may be required in the future for new sites, though  income from the benefits system would offset some of the potential cost.

The recommendations were taken en bloc proposed by Cllr T Adams and seconded by Cllr L Shires.

RESOLVED

To recommend the following to Full Council:

1.        The provisional outturn position for the General Fund revenue account for 2018/19;

2.        The  transfers to and from reserves as detailed within  the  report  (and  appendix  C)  along with  the corresponding updates to the 2019/20 budget;

3.        Transfer  the  surplus  of  £969,666  to the  General Fund Reserve (£500,000) and the Asset Management Reserve (£469,666);

4.        The  financing of  the  2018/19 capital programme as detailed within the report and at Appendix D;

5.        The  balance  on  the  General  Reserve  of  £1.956 million;

6.        The  updated  capital  programme  for  2019/20  to 2022/23 and scheme financing as outlined within the report and detailed at Appendix E;

7.        The outturn position in respect of the Prudential indicators for 2018/19 as detailed in Appendix F.