Issue - meetings

Councillor Richard Brooks referred Members to the elements of his brief as Finance Portfolio Holder, those being:

§     Audit and Investigations;

§     Finance;

§     Legal Services;

§     Procurement; and

§     Revenues and Benefits.

In response to Members’ questions, the following was highlighted:

(i)            Financial Settlement – The Council was operating in an environment where central funding would continue to reduce until 2020, when there would be a negative grant position. Whilst investment had previously generated funding of £1.5 million, the current level was £200,000.

(ii)           Property – The Council had invested in property with recent purchases of the St Georges Industrial Estate and Ashworth House.

St Georges Industrial Estate - In terms of income, the Industrial Estate would generate rent of approximately £500,000 per annum. Interest on the loan was fixed at 3% over 50 years and would cost £260,000 per annum with management costs at £68,000, leaving an annual return of £174,000 or 2.1%.

Ashworth House - Whilst Members noted issues in relation to BHS renegotiating its rent across all sites, this would not have an immediate impact on Ashworth House, with contingencies in place and development potential in the upper floor.

(iii)          New Homes Bonus – Concern had been expressed on the use of this bonus to underpin Council Tax, particularly since it could cease in 3 years’ time. The Portfolio Holder noted that while some Councils used 100% of the Bonus for that purpose, this Council allocated only 50%.

(iv)         Resources - The Council had reduced staff from 280 full time equivalents (FTEs) to 220. A number of services were shared, such as procurement with Woking Borough Council. The Council had already rented part of Surrey Heath House and other resources to organisations including Surrey County Council, Surrey Police, the Surrey Heath Clinical Commissioning Group and Job Centres Plus, part of the Department for Work and Pensions. Other similar opportunities were being explored.

(v)          Savings Targets – The Council continued to achieve its saving targets, year on year, despite reduced central funding and internal resources. The annual budget had been the subject of detailed consideration by a Star Chamber.

(vi)         Corporate Overheads – The Council was controlled by CIPFA regulation on how it covered corporate overheads. Whilst it was not clear what percentage these were of overall expenditure, costs included management, ICT, floor space, the Contact Centre, legal and financial support and democratic and electoral services. The total cost of corporate overheads stood at £4.829 million.

Members sought further clarification on overheads as a percentage of overall expenditure and the basis of the allocation of corporate overheads, noting that the Camberley Theatre and Arena Leisure Centre Working Group had previously expressed concerns at the level of the allocation of overheads to the Theatre.

The Executive Head of Finance had recently completed a review which demonstrated income generated against costs across all services. He agreed to circulate the review outcomes to Committee Members.

(vii)        Benchmarking – The Council had previously had a more formal benchmarking process with other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40