Skip to main content

Agenda item

Budget 2024/25 and Medium Term Financial Strategy

Purpose

To provide the proposed budget for 2024/25, whilst also considering approval for:

1)    The draft base budgets for 2024/25

2)    The Council’s Capital Programme for 2024/25 to 2032/33

3)    The level of Council Tax for 2024/25

4)    The Medium Term Financial Strategy

5)    The Council’s Financial Strategies

6)    Fees and Charges

7)    The Council’s Pay Policy Statement

 

Recommendation

The Executive resolved to recommend the following to Council for approval:

  1. The General Fund revenue budgets as summarised in Annex B.
  2. The updated Medium Term Financial Strategy in Annex C.
  3. The Capital Programme for 2024/25 to 2032/33 as set out in Annex E.
  4. Fees and charges for 2024/25, as detailed in Annex J and K.
  5. The Council’s Pay Policy Statement as set out in Annex M.
  6. The Council’s Capital Strategy as set out in Annex N
  7. The Council’s Investment Strategy as set out in Annex O
  8. The Council’s Treasury Strategy as set out In Annex P

Minutes:

Councillor Andy Graham, Leader of the Council, introduced the report, which provided the proposed Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy for the Municipal Year 2024-2025. The Executive had recommended to Council the approval of the Budget proposals by Council at their last meeting.

A copy of the Leader’s Speech is appended to the minutes of the meeting.

 

The Leader’s speech raised a point of clarity surrounding references made to ‘external funding’. This was confirmed by the Leader to have related to funding received by Council from both partnership working and funding received from Central Government.

 

Councillor Michele Mead, Leader of the Opposition, responded stating that the opposition could not support the budget proposals as a result of the details and forecasts provided and a predicted budget overspend. Councillor Mead referred to resident’s Council Tax being used to purchase a local shopping precinct, to contribute to the Publica transition programme, and on refurbishment & internal modernisation projects that were not necessary. Councillor Mead also highlighted that the administration was not committed to partnership working, and had previously dodged scrutiny by the Council for a recent of a new waste collection vehicle fleet.

 

Councillor Mead further highlighted that the residents of West Oxfordshire were set to pick up the bill for the spent money by an increase in Council Tax and an increase to the Garden Waste License, and that these increases would squeeze the budget of low-income households within the district.

 

Councillor Mead summed up stating that the administration had not learnt lessons from last year’s budget, and the same lines from twelve months ago were being repeated. Councillor Mead stated that the residents of West Oxfordshire deserved better.

 

In the wider budget debate, Members of the Executive thanked the Leader for their budget speech and said that they would support the budget. Executive Members individually stated that the Budget would provide great help and assistance to their individual portfolios, and would better support employment, the community, residents and the wider district more generally.

 

Executive Members stated that the proposed budget and projects completed within their own portfolio areas were brought as a result of the legacy of the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing Cost of Living crisis.

Executive Members highlighted that the priorities and ambitions of the Council would be met because of the budget proposals, and individually thanked Officers from across the Council for their continued hard work.

 

Members referred to predicted budget overspends in the current and next financial years. Several Members alluded to the opposition not proposing budget amendments or any alternative budget proposals. Members also highlighted their surprise to not see any alternatives offered, adding that there was only one option to vote upon.

Members also made references to the responses received from the Council’s budget consultation, stating that there were anomalies in the ‘scoring’ within responses submitted by residents, and that the anomalies helped to unbalance the budget overall.

 

Members stated that the opposition were looking to score political points by making references to ‘Pet Projects’ undertaken by the administration, and that the tactic was also being used a County Council level. Members also highlighted that political point scoring was a tactic to make headlines in the local media and in the local press, adding that it was not a true reflection on the measures proposed.

Members stated they believed that the term ‘Pet Projects’ was not appropriate, as the projects were undertaken by the administration with the residents of West Oxfordshire in mind.

 

Members also queried if Councillors from opposition parties were prepared to vote for the budget proposals, go against a ‘status quo’ and vote with the alliance to accept the budget proposals. Members also stated that no decisions of the Executive had been called in and made further references to a lack of alternative budget proposals or amendments.

 

Members made reference to the impacts of austerity measures and spending cuts made from central government and how this had impacted the pressures faced by local governments across the country, adding that the proposed budget would provide the best return for residents that it could, despite a central lack of funding. Members also highlighted that other local authorities were suffering as a result of inadequate funding, with some authorities declaring, or being close to declaring effective bankruptcy.

 

Members also stated that the proposed budget would allow the Council to make further progress on existing projects whilst continually promoting the needs of residents and promoting the environmental benefits.

 

Members of the opposition parties stated that the proposed budget was one of convenience for the administration and Council, and did not put the resident’s priorities first. Members highlighted that proposed rises in Council Tax levels and increases to the Garden Waste License Fee would impact residents when they were already struggling, whilst the administration prioritised needless projects, made unnecessary spending commitments, and residents would pay more Council Tax as a result to cover the associated costs.

 

Members also referred to the budget surplus of £5,107 and that the figure was being celebrated by members of the alliance parties, when it was suggested that the figure would be a reason for concern.

 

Many Members individually thanked the work of the Council’s finance team for their work in the preparation of the budget proposals, making reference to the amounts of time and resource this would have taken.

 

During the wider budget debate, Councillor Liam Walker left the Council Chamber for three minutes before returning. Upon being called to speak, the Director of Governance advised that Chair that under Rule 23.2 of Part 5A of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Liam Walker would not be permitted to take part in the vote on the budget proposals put forward by the Executive.

 

After receiving advice from the Director of Governance, the Chair stated that he would allow Councillor Liam Walker to make representations during the debate, but that under Rule 23.2, Councillor Liam Walker would be recorded as Absent during the budget vote. The Chair apologised to Councillor Liam Walker and Council generally for not advising of the procedure rule ahead of the Budget agenda item.

It was subsequently confirmed that Rule 23.2 would be discussed by the Council’s Constitution Working Group at their next meeting.

 

Councillor Alaric Smith, Executive Member for Finance and seconder of the recommendations, thanked Members for their contributions in the Budget debate and for their engagement during the wider process. The Executive Member also echoed the appreciation given to the Council’s Finance team for their resolve in the budget preparation and their engagement in the wider process.

 

The Executive Member stated that commercial property management was not generally understood by those who did not have the relevant experience. The Executive member stated that the Budget had been built upon the foundations of the Council’s priorities, and the predictions of the upcoming financial year.

 

The Executive Member highlighted that the backdrop to the budget was one of ongoing uncertainty surrounding local government finance, inflationary pressures and an ever-increasing stretching of resources.

 

The Executive Member highlighted that the increase in Council Tax was the only way to ensure that services to residents were maintained to the highest level they could be. The Executive Member stated that the proposed increase in Council Tax had arisen due to economic pressures that had filtered down through central government, and that no lectures would be taken from a party that had been responsible for this at national level. The Executive Member assured Council that the alliance would do all they can to ensure that residents were put first despite the challenges faced in the round.

 

The Executive Member stated that the Alliance of Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Greens, were fully aligned and committed to delivering for residents of West Oxfordshire. The Executive Member highlighted the administration's Asset Management Strategy programme, and described how this would be of vital importance in the future so that the Council's assets could be fully maintained whilst offering the greatest return in the interest of residents. The Executive member made reference to the commercial leasing of the Council’s Elmfield site, the refurbishment of the Woodgreen Council Chamber to enable the facility to be used as a community space, and improvements made to the Town Centre Shop on Welch way in Witney.

 

The Executive Member referred to the ongoing review into the Publica model, emphasising that the administration were committed to ensuring that the Council delivers for the residents of the district, whilst providing sound management of the finances and resources they currently had.

 

In formally summing up the Budget Debate the Leader of the Council, thanked Members for their contributions in the Budget debate, thanked officers for their ongoing work, and also thanked Member colleagues within the West Oxfordshire Alliance for their engagement during the wider process. The Leader concluded by stating they commended the budget to the residents of West Oxfordshire.

 

Councillor Andy Graham proposed that Council agree the Budget resolutions, as recommended by the Executive. This was seconded by Councillor Alaric Smith.

In accordance with legislation, a recorded vote on the proposition was taken and administered by Democratic Services, and the result was as follows:

 

FOR the proposition: J Aitman, A Al-Yousuf, L Arciszewska, M Brooker, A Coles, J Cooper, R Crouch, D Enright, A Goodwin, A Graham, D Jackson, N King, L Leffman, D Levy, C Maynard, D Melvin, M Parkinson, R Pearson, E Poskitt, A Prosser, C Rylett, G Saul, S Simpson, A Smith, R Smith, H St. John, T Sumner and M Walker.

 

AGAINST the proposition: T Ashby, A Beaney, D Cooper, J Doughty, J Haine, N Leverton, M McBride, M Mead, L Nicholls, D Temple, A Walsh, and A Wilson.

 

Abstentions: Nil.

 

There being 28 votes For, 12 Against, and 0 Abstentions, with 9 Members not in attendance. The vote was carried.

 

Council Resolved to approve:

  1. The General Fund revenue budgets as summarised at Annex B of the report;
  2. The updated Medium Term Financial Strategy at Annex C of the report;
  3. The Capital Programme for 2024/25 to 2032/33 as set out at Annex E of the report;
  4. Fees and charges for 2024/25, as detailed at Annex J and K of the report;
  5. The Council’s Pay Policy Statement as set out at Annex M of the report;
  6. The Council’s Capital Strategy as set out at Annex N of the report;
  7. The Council’s Investment Strategy as set out at Annex O of the report;
  8. The Council’s Treasury Strategy as set out at Annex P of the report.

 

The Chair announced a 5-minute comfort break at the end of the Agenda Item, to allow Members to ensure they did not fall foul of Procedure Rule 23.2.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 3.56pm and reconvened at 4.01pm.

 

Councillor Natalie King left the meeting at 3.56pm.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages