Issue - meetings

RESOLVED: To

1.1.          Consider the responses to the budget engagement with residents and statutory consultation with businesses (set out in Section 10 of this report and detailed more fully in Appendix J).

1.2.          Consider and have due regard to the equalities impact assessment undertaken on the budget proposals as set out in Appendix N.

1.3.          Approve the responses to the Scrutiny and Overview Committee recommendations (to follow after publication of this report – Appendix O) on the budget proposals as set out in Section 20.

1.4.          Approve that (subject to Full Council approving the budget and any further decisions required of the Executive) that Corporate Directors be authorised to implement their respective growth and savings proposals for 2024-25 in accordance with the recommendations within this report, the Council's Constitution, Financial Regulations, relevant Schemes of Delegation and undertake any further consultation required, including regarding the Equalities Impacts of specific decisions within the Budget envelope as approved by Full Council.

1.5.          Propose to Full Council for approval an increase in the Croydon element of the 2024-25 council tax charge by 2.99% (Band D £53.98).

1.6.          Propose to Full Council for approval a 2% increase (Band D £36.11) in the 2024-25 Adult Social Care precept levy.

1.7.          Note, based on the Mayor of London’s draft consolidated budget, a proposed 8.58% (Band D £37.26) increase regarding the Greater London Authority precept.

1.8.          Propose to Full Council for approval, the calculation of budget requirement and council tax as set out in Appendix I and note that the inclusion of the GLA precept will result in a total increase of 5.69% (Band D £127.35) in the overall Croydon council tax bill.

1.9.          Propose to Full Council for approval the setting of the Council’s own total net expenditure budget for 2024-25 at £361.267m.

1.10.       Propose to Full Council for approval the detailed programme of revenue savings, income, demand pressures and legacy budget corrections, by directorate, as set out in Appendix C.

1.11.       Propose to Full Council the proposed £5m budget in 2024-25 to support delivery of the transformation programme.

1.12.       Propose to Full Council the Reserves Policy set out in Appendix M.

1.13.       Propose to Full Council for approval that the Corporate Director of Resources be authorised to collect and recover National Non-Domestic Rate and council tax in accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (as amended) and the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

1.14.       Note the revenue budget assumptions detailed in the report and budget projections to 2027- 28 made by the Corporate Director of Resources in agreement with the Chief Executive and with the Corporate Management Team.

1.15.       Note the Council’s request for a Capitalisation Direction from the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [DLUHC] of up to £38m for 2024-25, £9.439m relating to 2019-20 and current assumption that up to a further £38m per annum in exceptional financial support will be required for future years.

1.16.       Note that all Directors will be required to report on their projected financial position compared  ...  view the full decision text for item 122

The Executive Mayor introduced the Budget 2024-25 and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2024-28 Report which proposed a deliverable budget for 2024-25. The budget planned to include £30 million in savings for 2024-25 with an ongoing asset disposal programme that aimed to deliver £200 million of receipts over the period 2022-2026.

The Chair of Scrutiny and Overview, Councillor Rowenna Davis, shared with Cabinet that following the Scrutiny and Overview Committee (the Committee) receiving the report, the outcome concluded with the following:

-       That the council could not balance its books without exceptional support of national government, and there was a gap of £38 million pounds wide that was to be filled next year. To fill this hole, the council was to seek permission to borrow from national government for capitalisation and selling assets to meet general expenditure. Though there was no guarantee national government would provide the money for the council to stay afloat.

-       The Committee noted that the council was doing all that they could with ambitious plans for savings, and based on the information provided, it was concluded that those proposed were deliverable whilst meeting the statutory needs of vulnerable residents, although the scale, pace and wide-ranging nature of the savings meant that they would need to be closely monitored.

-       The Homes Sub-Committee had reservations relating to the Housing Revenue Account and was not assured without further data particularly on the housing stock conditions survey which should reveal more on sale of investment needed.

-       In comparison to last years budget there was concern relating to the £5 million pound economic demand pressures budget which had been removed; though the use of this budget had helped balance the books for this years budget to plug the increased costs associated with rises in demand for emergency accommodation; and thus without this extra cushion of the economic demand fund, the pressure on the council to stick to its budget would become even greater.

-       It was important how the council would mitigate risks and, on the risks register in Appendix L, not all risks listed were quantified and some did not have any mitigating actions attached.

-       In regard to transformation, the scale and pace of this was essential though not where it needed to be.

-       The Committee noted that the council was sticking with the government maximum rise of 4.99% in council tax. The reduction of the council tax hardship fund from £2 million pounds to £500,000 pounds was questioned, and the Committee was pleased that the money had been reallocated to the council tax support scheme, though the Committee was not convinced that the low take up of the scheme was due to the lack of need rather than lack of awareness, and more work to promote awareness was advised.

-       Real improvements in the quality of transparency were noted by the Committee, though in the budget an extra £9.4 million pounds of capitalisation above and beyond of what was expected was to be requested from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122