Issue - meetings

The report considered by the Executive on 7^th September 2011 has been circulated under separate cover and Members are requested to bring copies with them to the meeting.

Members suggested that the Financial Strategy should, in future, be considered by the Executive and Resources PDS Committee for comments to be reported to Executive.

Report RES11105

At its meeting on 7^th September 2011 the Executive considered a report (RES11075)updating Members on the Council’s financial strategy and the various issues that would continue to shape the strategy over the medium and longer term. This was the first in a series of reports leading up to the final budget proposals to be considered in February next year.

The report provided latest budget projections and highlighted the further budget gap identified for 2012/13 to 2014/15.  

The Executive resolved that the report be referred to individual PDS Committees for their consideration and for any comments to be reported back to the Executive.

In discussion it was indicated that a lot of effort was being applied to identifying funding for school crossing patrols – this included discussion on sponsorship. Reference was also made to engineering solutions and the Chairman referred to questions the Portfolio holder had already put to TfL through officers to see whether TfL would agree to LBB using some of its TfL funding to support some school crossing patrols. Councillor Kathy Bance, who was opposed to the deletion of school crossing patrols and requested that her comments be recorded, referred to the health and safety of children. She also indicated her opposition to the closure of public conveniences. The Chairman also referred to exploring where TfL funding could be used in place of Council expenditure. Cllr Reg Adams opposed the cuts in funding for school crossing patrols and opposed the phased closure of Public Conveniences. Earlier in the meeting when considering the TfL Funded Work Programme for 2012/13 he felt that the provision of School Crossing Patrols should be considered an important pan-London road safety item -  which had been run by the Metropolitan Police prior to April 2000 - and he felt that this area would be suitable for TfL funding and control.

On food waste, reference was made to work at looking to obtain sponsorship for caddie liners. Concerning invest to save measures, Members were advised that energy efficiency schemes were being looked at and reference was also made to the rollout of food waste collections to the remaining flats in the borough. Proposals for a Green Garden Waste collection service could also be considered an invest to save initiative – it was intended to bring a report on the proposals at the next Environment PDS meeting. Textiles were also found in residual waste and the Waste Minimisation Working Group was looking at the possibility of a collection service being introduced for textiles. This would provide a possible income stream and contribute to reducing the Council’s landfill tax liabilities.

The Chairman also referred to carriageway and footway maintenance and a Member referred to useful discussions at the Highway Assets Working Group. The Chairman highlighted that outcomes from the Group’s work would go to the Committee’s meeting in November.

RESOLVED that the Committee’s comments above be referred to the Executive.

Report RES11075

The Executive discussed an updating report on the Council’s financial strategy which also outlined the issues that would continue to shape the medium and longer term strategy.  Particular attention was drawn to the ongoing reductions in funding faced by the Council over the medium and longer term in the light of the current financial state of public finances.

The Finance Director introduced his report and explained the context of the current financial situation which was an international as well as a national problem impacting on public finances which ultimately affected all local authorities.  The report included a summary of the latest budget projections for Bromley and the additional savings required to balance the budgets for 2012/13 to 2014/15.  Members noted that there was a further budget gap of £3.4m in 2012/13 rising to £28.4m per annum by 2014/15.  The key factors contributing to the ongoing budget gap were inflation, the ongoing loss of Government grants and service pressures as already highlighted in the previous budget monitoring item.  The Finance Director drew attention to Appendix 2 of the report which showed the crucial changes/proposals that could also impact on the Council’s finances.  He highlighted among others issues the Local Authority Central Services Education Grant (LACSEG) which showed that the potential further loss of grant to Bromley could be about £5m.  This figure had not been reflected in the budget gap at this stage as the situation was still unclear.  Against this background consideration had been given to how to bridge the on-going budget gap and one of the various measures included a review of the Council’s key assets was currently being undertaken.  Arising from this It was proposed to utilise about half (£25m) of the Council’s general reserves (totalling £49m) to set up two investment funds with the remaining reserves being the minimum level necessary for financial prudence.  The first one would be a Regeneration/Investment Fund which would allow for the acquisition of certain assets creating additional levels of income for the Council and supporting the Council’s regeneration ambitions. The second Invest to Save fund would provide for ‘loans’ to be made for appropriate initiatives with any savings taking into account an element for repaying the fund whilst generating further savings. Details of the stringent criteria for applications to the fund were set out in the report.

The Chairman commented that the proposals, particularly the Regeneration and Investment Fund were intended to make better use of the Council’s assets and yield higher returns whilst bringing much needed investment into the Town Centres.  Other London Boroughs had already used this approach to advantage rather than leaving funds in reserves which gained poor returns.

In response to some concerns raised by Councillor Evans about the true worth of Invest to Save schemes, the Resources Portfolio Holder accepted that a better system of monitoring such schemes was needed and he would expect monitoring reports, including the measuring of outcomes, to be submitted to the Improvement & Efficiency Sub-Committee and PDS Committee.  He also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61