|
The Director of Corporate Services / Treasurer
advised that the 4 appendices in the Budget Report were
linked, with changes in one impacting on the others: A) the Medium
Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) set out the financial outlook and
estimated borrowing over the next five years, B) the Capital
Strategy set out major expenditure for investment for investment
within the Service (including the ten-year capital programme), C)
the Reserves Strategy set out savings and how they were planned to
be used over the next 5 years, and D) the Treasury Management
Strategy set out investment, borrowing, repayment and how money was
set aside to repay borrowing.
The Director of Corporate Services / Treasurer
presented the report that set out the Council Tax Precept and
Budget for 2024/25 along with the associated appended
documents.
The Authority was required to set a balanced
budget and council tax precept for the next financial year by 1
March 2024. The Authority had to ensure it:
·
Considered the link between capital investment decisions and the
revenue implications.
·
Considered the Treasury Management implications of revenue and
capital decisions.
·
Provided value for money.
·
Reflected best practice.
The Budget and appended documents in the
report formed the Service’s financial strategies which were
part of our strategic planning activity and governance framework
which set out the direction of the Service and how it would achieve
the aim of making Lancashire safer. These financial strategies were
one of six core strategies that set out how Lancashire Fire and
Rescue Service (LFRS), would provide services in line with the
following priorities in the five-year Community Risk Management
Plan (CRMP):
·
Valuing our people.
·
Preventing fires.
·
Protecting people and property.
·
Responding to fie and other emergencies.
·
Delivering value for money.
Financial
Context
The economy in 2024 was expected to struggle
as inflation was forecast to remain above the government set target
of 2% until the end of 2025. According to the Bank of England,
increased borrowing costs and weak Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
growth resulted in a 50-50 chance of recession in 2024.
The public sector continued to face
substantial challenges, among them rising demands and reducing
financial resilience. Nationally, Fire and Rescue Services
continued to face inflationary pressures because of significant
increases in running costs and demand pressures, such as responding
to climate change emergencies.
Funding
The funding for the fire sector had changed in
the last 15 years. The 2008 banking crisis was followed by a period
of austerity in the sector. During this period, government grants
for the fire sector reduced; in cash terms the main grant, the
Revenue Support Grant (RSG), for Lancashire reduced from £19m
(35% of the funding) to £10m (14% of the funding).
Changes to the funding methodology during this
period also meant that changes in the economy, which impacted on
benefit claimant numbers or business rates, now impacted on funding
levels. Council Tax and Business Rates represented 85% of the
Service’s funding and these changed had presented an
additional risk.
Funding for capital schemes had also changed
over this period with the sector now almost exclusively funding new
capital schemes from local sources of funding such as revenue
contributions, reserves, capital receipts and borrowing (this was
repaid from revenue budgets).
On 5 February 2024, the Secretary of State for
the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC),
released the final local government finance settlement for 2024/25.
It was for one year only and based on the Spending Review 2021
(SR21) funding levels, updated for the 2023 Autumn Statement
announcements. The main headlines for the 2024/25 budget were:
· The
council tax referendum limit would be 2.99% The fire sector had
lobbied for a £5 increase (equivalent to 6.1% for the
Authority) that was consistent with 2023/24 and reflected current
inflationary and demand pressures.
· The
Fire Services Pension Grant of £3.3m had been included in the
Revenue Support Grant (RSG) from 2024/25, it was previously
included in the Service net budget. This had no overall impact, but
it increased the Service’s net budget and sources of income
by £3.3m.
· The
September CPI figure of 6.7% had been applied to increase business
rates grants funding (£12.1m) and the Revenue Support Grant
(£13.5m).
· The
Services Grant reduced from £0.6m in 2023/24 to £0.1m
in 2024/25.
· One
year Funding Guarantee Grant received of £0.9m. The Service
did not receive this in 2023/24 but it ensured that each
authority’s funding overall increased by at least 4%.
It was noted that it was disappointing not to
have received the £5 council tax referendum limit lobbied
for, alongside a reduced Services Grant of £0.5m; a £5
increase would have provided an additional £1.2m in
2024/25.
Long term planning was essential and whilst a
one-year settlement was expected, as there would be a general
election before 2025, the Service would continue to lobby for a
longer-term planning horizon. However, the timing of the election
could impact on whether there was time for a longer-term settlement
from 2025/26. Together with the uncertainty on the timing and
potential impact of policy changes that could affect the overall
funding level, such as the Fair Funding Review and review of
Business Rates Retention, there was uncertainty around future
funding assumptions.
Council Tax income was based on the precept
approved by the Authority and the estimated taxbase; this was the
number of Band D equivalent properties in the area. Factors that
influenced the taxbase included changes to property numbers,
collection rates in each local authority, local authority discounts
and changes in benefit claimants. The estimated taxbase for 2024/25
increased by 1.38% compared with 1.82% in 2023/24.
At the end of each year, an adjustment was
made to the Council Tax to reflect the previous year’s actual
council tax collection; this could lead to a surplus or deficit.
The total surplus for 2024/25 on the Council Tax and Business rates
collection funds was £0.1m and £0.1m respectively; this
was £0.2m less in total than in 2023/24.
Proposed Revenue
Budget 2024/25
The 2024/25 budget proposals were based on the
latest funding assumption set out in the report. A maximum increase
in the council tax precept allowed of 2.99% at D was assumed, which
provided additional funding of £1.1m compared to 2023/24
which resulted in an overall net revenue budget of £75.2m.
Based on the information and assumption, the following table set
out the proposed 2024/25 budget:
Budget Proposals 2024/25
|
|
|
£’m
|
|
Budget
|
Base Budget*
|
71.6
|
|
Inflation
|
2.5
|
|
Commitments
|
1.3
|
|
Resourcing – permanent
|
0.7
|
|
One-off items
|
0.5
|
|
Contribution to Capital
|
(1.5)
|
|
Proposed Budget Requirement
|
75.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funding
|
Council Tax
|
(39.4)
|
|
Business Rates
|
(21.3)
|
|
Revenue Support Grant
|
(13.5)
|
|
Other Grants
|
(1.0)
|
|
Total
Funding (Net Budget Requirement)
|
(75.2)
|
Precept (Council Tax – Band
D)
£84.73
Increase from 2023/24 Band D of
£82.27
£2.46
* Note: the base budget had been adjusted to
reflect the transfer of the Pensions Grant to Revenue Support
Grant.
The table demonstrated that the proposal
delivered a balanced budget as required by law. If the precept was
reduced, additional savings would be required, for example, a
reduction of 1% would reduce funding by £0.4m.
The main elements that made up the Proposed
Budget Requirement for 2024/25 were set out within the MTFS
(Appendix A):
·
Inflation – An allowance of 3% for pay awards in 2024/25 had
been included with 2% thereafter. Specific increases in price
inflation for known areas had been assumed. Other non-pay budgets
had increased by the latest Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR)
CPI figures; 3% in 2024/25 and 2% thereafter. If pay awards were
higher than assumed, they would need to be met from reserves or in
year savings in 2024/25 with additional savings made in future
years. Each 1% increase resulted in an additional £0.5m and
£0.1m for Grey book and Green book staff, respectively.
·
Commitments – These reflected the impact of previous
decisions that had a financial consequence in 2024/25 or were due
to policy, legal or regulatory changes. The commitments
included:
-
The Authority reaffirmed their commitment to North West Fire
Control in December 2023 which included an increased contribution
to their costs due to changes in activity levels which resulted in
an increase of £0.2m.
-
The reduction in interest rates had resulted in a loss of
investment income of £0.4m in 2024/25.
-
Vacancy levels across the organisation were forecast to be lower in
2024/25 along with more staff expected to reach Competency which
resulted in an increase establishment cost of £0.4m in
2024/25.
-
The Emergency Cover Review (ECR) approved by the Authority in 2022
had resulted in an overall increase of 8 Wholetime Firefighters
across the Service. In 2024/25, there was a resourcing commitment
of £0.2m as previously agreed, to fund these posts.
·
Resourcing – permanent – Several growth proposals were
included in the budget for 2024/25 which included:
-
As reported in the budget monitoring reports to the Resources
Committee, there was a need to rebase the apprenticeship levy
income budget by £0.3m to reflect the expected income profile
because more new recruits had prior learning which did not attract
a levy.
-
Additional costs of £0.4m were necessary to meet the
Service’s digital ambitions to enable developments that
improved our resilience, productivity, and efficiency.
·
One off items included:
-
Opportunities for four non-operational apprentices for two years
had been identified that resulted in a one off item of
£0.1m.
-
Additional short term funding of £0.4m was provided to meet
resourcing pressures in support services.
·
Contribution to Capital – A reduction in the Contribution to
Capital of £1.5m was proposed which resulted in a revenue
contribution of £2.5m in 2024/25; this was consistent with
the average contribution made over the previous 10 years.
Council Tax
Precept
Council Tax funding was based on the estimated
taxbase (band D equivalents) provided by each local authority.
Compared to 2023/24. The overall taxbase had increased by 1.38%
(6,319 properties), last year the increase was 1.82%. The table
showed the number of Band D equivalents and proposed precept for
each local authority based on the precept increase of 2.99%
Table 3 – Proposed Precepts 2024/25
|
|
Number
of Band D Equivalents
|
Precept
on Collection Fund
|
|
Burnley Borough Council
|
23,844
|
2,020,299
|
|
Chorley Borough Council
|
38,641
|
3,274,030
|
|
Fylde Borough Council
|
32,208
|
2,728,980
|
|
Hyndburn Borough Council
|
22,095
|
1,872,107
|
|
Lancaster City Council
|
42,583
|
3,608,052
|
|
Pendle Borough Council
|
24,957
|
2,114,586
|
|
Preston City Council
|
42,650
|
3,613,721
|
|
Ribble Valley Borough Council
|
25,321
|
2,145,445
|
|
Rossendale Borough Council
|
20,891
|
1,770,092
|
|
South Ribble Borough Council
|
37,758
|
3,199,206
|
|
West Lancashire District Council
|
38,357
|
3,249,946
|
|
Wyre Borough Council
|
39,138
|
3,316,198
|
|
Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
|
37,070
|
3,140,915
|
|
Blackpool Council
|
38,756
|
3,283,791
|
|
Total
|
464,268
|
39,337,368
|
|
Band
|
Proposed 2024/25
£
|
Actual 2023/24
£
|
Change per year
£
|
Change per week
£p
|
|
A
|
56.49
|
54.85
|
1.64
|
0.03
|
|
B
|
65.90
|
63.99
|
1.91
|
0.04
|
|
C
|
75.32
|
73.13
|
2.19
|
0.04
|
|
D
|
84.73
|
82.27
|
2.46
|
0.05
|
|
E
|
103.56
|
100.55
|
3.01
|
0.06
|
|
F
|
122.39
|
118.83
|
3.56
|
0.07
|
|
G
|
141.22
|
137.12
|
4.10
|
0.08
|
|
H
|
169.46
|
164.54
|
4.92
|
0.09
|
The increase for a Band D property per year was
£2.46; which was 5 pence per week.
It was noted that LFRS was in the bottom third
of Fire and Rescue Services in terms of the value of its precept
which represented value for money for tax payers.
Medium Term Financial
Strategy
The purpose of the Medium Term Financial
Strategy (MTFS) was to provide the Authority, staff, the public and
other stakeholders with information on the financial outlook and
the estimated available funding over the next five years. It took
into account future estimates on funding and potential high-level
revenue and capital expenditure over the period.
Revenue MTFS
|
|
24/25
£m
|
25/26
£m
|
26/27
£m
|
27/28
£m
|
28/29
£m
|
|
Base Budget
|
71.6
|
75.2
|
76.5
|
78.7
|
81.0
|
|
Inflation
|
2.5
|
1.6
|
1.6
|
1.6
|
1.6
|
|
Commitments
|
1.3
|
(0.0)
|
0.5
|
0.1
|
(0.3)
|
|
Resourcing – permanent
|
0.7
|
0.6
|
1.4
|
0.4
|
0.5
|
|
One-off items
|
0.5
|
(0.3)
|
0.2
|
(0.3)
|
0.1
|
|
Savings
|
(1.5)
|
(0.5)
|
(1.5)
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
|
Net
Budget
|
75.2
|
76.5
|
78.7
|
81.0
|
83.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Council Tax
|
(39.4)
|
(40.8)
|
(42.4)
|
(44.0)
|
(45.7)
|
|
Business Rates
|
(21.3)
|
(21.7)
|
(22.1)
|
(22.6)
|
(23.0)
|
|
Revenue Support Grant
|
(13.5)
|
(13.9)
|
(14.1)
|
(14.4)
|
(14.7)
|
|
Other Grants
|
(1.0)
|
(0.1)
|
(0.1)
|
(0.1)
|
(0.1)
|
|
Funding
|
(75.2)
|
(76.5)
|
(78.7)
|
(81.0)
|
(83.5)
|
Note that Council Tax increases were assumed at
2.99% per annum.
Some of the key financial assumptions and
estimates were:
·
Inflation – The pay awards for 2024/25 were estimated at 3%
then 2% thereafter. Non-pay budgets had increased by the latest
Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) CPI figures; 3% in 2024/25
and 2% thereafter.
·
Permanent Resourcing – These included:
-
An allowance was made in future years for replacement Personal
Protective Equipment based on recommended lifespan.
-
A reduction was forecast at the next valuation of the Local
Government Pension Scheme surplus which resulted in a pressure in
2026/27 of £0.5m.
-
Additional borrowing was required to meet the planned capital
programme from 2025/26. This resulted in an overall increase in
borrowing costs (repayment and interest) from 2025/26 of
£0.3m, that would rise to £2.1m by 2028/29.
·
Identified savings – These included:
-
The revenue contribution in the proposed capital programme each
year from 2024/25 was £2.5m, £2m, £3m, £3m
then £4m from 2028/29. The resulting change from the 2023/24
MTFS was (£1.5m), (£0.5m), £1m, £0m then
£1m.
-
From 2026/27, efficiencies of £2.5m were required to be
delivered and were included in the MTFS.
·
Funding – Detailed assumptions were included in the MTFS, in
broad terms the funding increased between 2% and 3%.
The key variables within the budget were
inflation assumptions, in particular, pay awards, and funding
levels. The MTFS considered a range of risks and scenarios that
impacted on the MTFS.
Capital Strategy
In addition to the revenue budgets, a programme
of capital investment was proposed from 2024/25, this was set out
in detail in the Capital Strategy. The purpose of the Strategy was
to provide the Authority, staff, the public, and other stakeholders
with information on the Capital plans. Capital plans needed to be
affordable, prudent, and sustainable, and treasury management
decisions taken in accordance with good professional practice and
in full understanding of the risks involved.
Capital Programme and Funding
|
|
2024/25
£m
|
2025/26
£m
|
2026/27
£m
|
2027/28
£m
|
2028/29
£m
|
|
Vehicles
|
3.2
|
1.6
|
1.6
|
1.6
|
2.1
|
|
Operational Equipment
|
1.3
|
1.0
|
0.9
|
0.4
|
0.6
|
|
Buildings
|
3.5
|
15.4
|
15.4
|
7.9
|
10.8
|
|
ICT
|
2.2
|
2.3
|
0.6
|
0.2
|
0.5
|
|
|
10.2
|
20.3
|
18.5
|
10.0
|
13.9
|
|
Funding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue Contributions
|
2.5
|
2.0
|
3.0
|
3.5
|
4.0
|
|
Capital Reserve
|
7.7
|
11.1
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
Capital Receipts
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
5.0
|
0.0
|
|
Grants
|
0.0
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
Borrowing
|
0.0
|
6.2
|
15.5
|
1.5
|
9.9
|
|
Total
|
10.2
|
20.3
|
18.5
|
10.0
|
13.9
|
The current 2023/24 five-year capital
programme approved by the Authority in February 2023 included three
major projects; Headquarters relocation (£15m), Training
Centre Props (£5m) and Preston replacement station
(£10m). Together with the Member Capital Project Working
Group, officers had been reviewing the scope of the projects and
updating costings to reflect changes in prices and timings for
these three major capital projects. The key changes considered by
the working group was reflected by in the 2024/25 capital programme
proposed which included:
·
Headquarters relocation – The business case for the
relocation of Headquarters recommended the value for money option
of building a new Headquarters at the Training Centre. Alongside
this, the working group also considered the future of Lancaster
House at the Training Centre given the age and maintenance
liabilities. The updated project was for a combined Headquarters
and Training Facility at the Training Centre that replaced the
current Headquarters at Fulwood and office / teaching space in
Lancaster House. This would provide modern office and training
facilities that met current environmental and design requirements
and would also ensure that staff had the best facilities to support
health and wellbeing by providing a safe and positive work
environment. The costings were updated during the year to reflect
the latest inflation forecast and an estimate of £18m was
included in the programme between 2024/25 and 2026/27.
-
The relocation of Headquarters necessitated the need to invest in a
new station to replace Fulwood either on the existing site or at an
alternative location. This formed part of the Preston review but
was included in the programme at an estimate of £7m in
2027/28 that was part funded by a capital receipt from the sale of
the land at the Fulwood site.
·
Training Centre Props – A modern and progressive service
required high quality facilities to help in the initial training
and ongoing maintenance of competency requirements across a broad
spectrum of operational activities. The existing facilities were
reviewed alongside more modern facilities in the region. The review
identified that greater investment was required to meet the
Services requirements and an estimate of £10m was included in
the programme between 2024/25 and 2026/27.
·
Preston replacement station – A review of emergency cover in
Preston had commenced. The aim of the review was to create a new,
modern station either in the same place or another location that
served both staff and the local community well. To date, 25 sites
had been considered and further work was ongoing, however many of
the sites had been discounted due to unavailability. The budget
remained at £10m and was programmed for the final year of the
five-year programme, nonetheless, work was required in the short
term on the current station, particularly on the welfare facilities
and training area, and this had been included in the capital
programme. The budget for the replacement remained at £10m
and was programmed for 2028/29.
Whilst the projects had been sequenced, the
Authority needed to remain flexible as the years that the projects
were delivered could change due to opportunities of land and other
matters, details of which would be discussed with the Working Group
and approvals sought as required.
In the past, general capital grant funding had
been received each year from the Government which helped to fund
annual replacement of vehicles, IT and operational equipment and
capital maintenance of buildings. This general grant funding ended
in 2014/15. As a result, all capital investment since then had been
funded from the Authority’s own resources unless specific
funding was available. No further government capital grant funding
was anticipated going forward. The level of reserves currently held
would not be sufficient to fund the proposed capital works over the
medium term and borrowing would therefore be required going forward
to meet the capital programme. Borrowing incurred on-going costs of
interest payments and the funding that was set aside to repay the
loan in due course.
The Authority had not utilised borrowing to
fund its capital programme and thus had one of the lowest levels of
borrowing of all fire services in the country. However, the
necessary investment in the estate could not be delivered without
borrowing.
To fund the Capital Programme, in addition to
utilising the Capital Reserve and revenue contributions, £31m
of additional borrowing was required. The long-term revenue costs
of this borrowing, based on the latest borrowing forecasts, was
approximately £2.5m per annum which was included in the MTFS,
and from 2026/27 would need to be met from efficiencies within the
revenue budget.
Following the capital investment, the
Authority’s reserves and borrowing levels would be
commensurate with similar sized fire services based on current
levels across services.
Reserves
Strategy
Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003
placed a requirement on the Section 151 Officer to formally report
on the adequacy of the reserves. The Director of Corporate Services
assessed this in the context of the strategic operational, and
financial risks and opportunities facing the Authority.
While holding reserves was a recognised and
recommended financial management tool, the levels of such reserves
had to remain prudent, appropriate to the level of risk and
opportunity and not excessive. This was set out within the Reserves
Strategy which included details of the reserves held and their
proposed usage over the next 5 years.
It was good practice to review reserves on a
regular basis and during the year, a review of all reserves had
been undertaken which had resulted in a number of changes.
The General Reserve exists to cover unforeseen
risks and expenditure that could be incurred outside of planned
budgets. The minimum level of General Reserve advised by the
Treasurer for the 2023/24 budget was £3.75m. A generally
accepted level was one that was equivalent to 5% of the net revenue
budget but that must be considered alongside specific Authority
risks; the previously advised level of £3.75m was about 5%.
Considering the risks facing the Authority, the Treasurer
recommended maintaining this minimum level for 2024/25. Following
the review of reserves and forecast 2023/24 outturn, the level of
the General Reserve at 1 April 2024 was estimated at £4.9m,
this was above the minimum level of General Reserve
recommended.
Treasury
Management
Treasury Management covered the cashflow,
investment and borrowing activities together with the impacts of
budgetary decisions on such activities. The Treasury Management
Strategy comprised of four main elements:
·
Capital Expenditure Plans and Prudential Indicators.
·
Borrowing Strategy and Prudential Limits.
·
Annual Investment Strategy.
·
Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Statement.
The Strategy reflected the revenue and capital
estimates contained in the MTFS and Capital Strategy. Treasury
Management in the public sector was heavily regulated and
transparency with the Authority on its activities was paramount.
The Resource Committee oversaw Treasury activities, but it was a
legal requirement that the Authority approved the Strategy.
Statement of
Robustness of Estimates
Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003
placed a requirement on the “Chief Finance Officer” of
an Authority to report on the robustness of the estimates used in
preparing the budget. There was then a requirement for the
Authority to have regard to the report of the Chief Finance Officer
when making decisions on its budget. At Lancashire Fire Authority,
the Chief Finance Officer was the Director of Corporate
Services.
The statutory requirement was reinforced by
the Prudential Code, which required authorities to have regard to
affordability when considering recommendations about future capital
programmes.
The Authority had a medium term planning
process that took account of service demands and the financial
scenario covering a 5-year period to 2029. The aim of the Medium
Term Financial Strategy was to provide a realistic and sustainable
plan that reflected the Authority’s priorities and
anticipated the future impact of current decisions. Alongside this,
future capital programmes were planned and took into account
forecast Government funding, borrowing limits and council tax.
For 2024/25, full consideration of these
issues had led to:
·
Policy and expenditure proposals that reflected the Local
Government Finance.
·
Settlement together with the ongoing revenue impact of new capital
projects, whilst recognising the outstanding issues and
uncertainties.
·
A proposed capital financing budget based on the 2024/25 capital
programme.
In assessing the
robustness of the 2024/25 proposals and the estimates on which they
are based, the Director of Corporate Services (DoCS) had been
assured that:
·
The budget proposals were based on the advice of service managers
(supported by finance staff) or were based upon or supported by
information that the DoCS considered reasonable to accept.
·
The budget proposals had been fully reviewed and endorsed by the
executive Board and the implications on performance, if any, had
been identified and assessed.
·
The proposed budget provided for all known future developments
either within the revenue budget itself or as part of the Reserves
Strategy.
When using estimates in preparing the budget,
every effort was taken to ensure that they took into account the
most up-to-date data. There was, however, always the potential for
the actual impact to vary from the estimates used in setting the
budget, particularly as a result of:
·
Variations in the rate of price inflation, pay awards and pension
increases;
·
Service financial performance (i.e. variances on budgets);
·
Ability to deliver policy proposals and/or achieve projected
savings; and
·
Unforeseen additional operational demands and activities.
The potential for unanticipated events to
occur that could impact on the budget reinforced the importance of
prudent financial management which included:
·
The promotion of a robust approach to financial management that
required budget holders to monitor expenditure against budget and
to take early action in reporting and responding to projected
variances;
·
Regular reporting of the projected budgetary outturn supplemented
by exception reports to prompt remedial action if necessary;
and
·
The maintenance is an appropriate and proportionate contingency, as
part of the General Reserve, to cushion the impact of unexpected
events and emergencies.
Based on the advice and assurances set out
above, and the process by which the budget had been constructed,
the DoCS was satisfied that the estimates were robust and could be
relied upon for approval as part of the proposed budget.
In response to a question raised by County
Councillor Singleton regarding council tax precept collection by
district councils and how the proposed precept may not be
reflective of the actual amount collected, the Director of
Corporate Services confirmed that each district council provided an
estimate of the level of council tax arrears expected over the
coming year which was built into the council tax base. However,
when the council tax base was set, district councils had a
statutory responsibility to pay the amounts that had been agreed to
be met and the Service remained in contact with Section 151
Officers concerning arrears. County Councillor Mein commented that
she did not agree with County Councillor Singleton’s comments
as they did not reflect the correction position and should not be
recorded in detail.
County Councillor Hennessy thanked the
Director of Corporate Services and the Finance Team for the budget
and commented that she understood that borrowing was essential for
investment.
Couty Councillor Mein asked, and it was
confirmed by the Director of Corporate Services that the reduction
in the Revenue Support Grant from £19m to £10m had
occurred since 2010.
County Councillor Mein commented that she was
disappointed that the Service had not received the council tax
precept of £5, particularly considering that LFRS was in the
lowest quartile in terms of value for its precept, and yet were one
of the highest performing Fire Services. The Director of Corporate
Services confirmed that no Fire and Rescue Service had been allowed
the £5 precept. The Chief Fire Officer advised that the
Service, including the Chair of the Authority, had lobbied
significantly for the £5 precept, and had also followed this
up with a letter of disappointment. It was hoped that this would be
acknowledged by the government when setting council tax referendum
limits in future.
County Councillor Morris asked if the larger
increases in pension costs was directly linked to the significant
changes to retirement profiles, as listed in the MTFS Risks and
Scenarios. The Director of Corporate Services explained that the
risks listed were based on assumptions in relation to recruitment,
retention, and retirement levels within the Service. The Director
of People and Development added that the increases in pension costs
were due to the McCloud remedy, specifically changes to the pension
scheme which would increase the pension entitlement upon
retirement. Some staff had delayed retirement while awaiting the
remedy which, therefore, could lead to more people retiring in the
upcoming year.
In response to a question from County
Councillor Singleton, the Chief Fire Officer informed that TOR
stood for Training and Operational Review which effectively, was
the Training Centre.
The proposals were MOVED by County Councillor
D O’Toole and SECONDED by County Councillor Hennessy. The
Authority voted unanimously in favour of the recommendations by a
named vote.
The motion was therefore CARRIED and it
was:
Resolved: - That the Authority: -
·
Agreed the 2024/25 budget which included the Net Budget Requirement
of £75.2m (as set out in Table 2 paragraph 13 on page 48 of
the agenda pack), which took account of adjustments set out and
detailed in Appendix A.
·
Agreed the proposed Council Tax increase of £2.99% and the
setting of a Band D Council tax precept of £84.73 for
2024/25.
·
Agreed the levels of Council Tax precept set out in Table 3,
paragraph 16 on page 49 of the agenda pack.
·
Approved the capital programme and associated funding for 2024/25
set out in table 5, paragraph 21 on page 51 of the agenda pack;
·
Approved the Medium Term Financial Strategy set out in Appendix
A;
·
Approved the Capital Strategy set out in Appendix B;
·
Approved the Reserves Strategy set out in Appendix C;
·
Approved the Treasury Management Strategy in Appendix D which
included the Prudential Indicators and Minimum Revenue Provision as
set out in the Appendix; and
·
Noted the Statement of Robustness of Estimates set out in paragraph
34 on page 54 of the agenda pack.
|