DOCSLIB.ORG

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea A4 THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CABINET - 19 FEBRUARY 2009 REPORT BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR FINANCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND PROPERTY REVENUE BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX 2009/10 This paper sets out the following recommendations for Cabinet to make to Council on 4 March: total gross revenue spending of £531 million. Within that: a budget requirement of £182 million funded from grant and Council Tax; including: a one-off efficiency dividend of £50 for resident Council Tax payers in April and further measures aimed at helping local businesses, which together promote economic well being. These will cost up to £4.2 million; and a 3.2 per cent Council Tax increase for the Royal Borough for 2009/10. FOR DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The recommendations made in this paper are: consistent with the Council’s medium term financial strategy (Appendix 1 ) and its policy on reserves ( Appendix 2 ); follow consultation with the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and others on the 2009/10 proposed budget (set out in Appendices 3 to 5); and take account of Council’s agreement to the Council Tax base on 21 January. 1.2 They have been tested against the outlook for the economy, the public finances and residents’ views. 2 THE COUNCIL’S POLICIES 2.1 The proposed budget will maintain the Council Tax rate in the bottom quartile for London; identifies £5.4 million of savings and re-direction of spending to higher priorities; provides for price increases and retains a minimum of £10 million in working balances. 1 2.2 It is recommended to retain a minimum balance of £15 million in each of the Capital Expenditure Reserve and the Car Parking Reserve at the end of 2011/12 and if the figure falls below £20 million for either reserve this should trigger review. There is no unsustainable use of reserves to meet recurring expenditure. 2.3 As part of this year’s financial forecasting all reserves held have been reviewed, their purpose reconfirmed or revised and the potential funding impact of recession and the Council own budget plans modelled. A full list of the reserves held with forecast balances for the next three years is set out at Appendix 6 . 2.4 The Council’s working balance is currently £14.3 million and will drop to around £10 million as a result of the planned release to fund the £50 efficiency dividend and business measures. Cabinet is requested to confirm that the minimum level of working balance should be £10 million. This means that full Council approval is required to reduce the working balance below that level. 2.5 The Council also holds a central contingency budget for in-year budget risks such as higher than forecast pay and price inflation and provisions for budget not yet allocated to Business Groups. The contingency is £2.633 million and the provision is £0.175 million of grant yet to be confirmed – a total of £2.808 million. 2.6 Table 1 below shows budgeted revenue movements on General Fund reserves and balances. Table 1 Movements in Reserves and Balances 2008/09 2009/10 £m £m Better City Life Reserve 0.600 0.300 Cost Reduction 0.000 -1.100 Insurance Reserve -0.540 -0.340 IS Initiatives 0.438 0.432 Local Initiatives 0.000 -0.150 Risk Management 0.000 -0.160 Service Risks Reserve 0.325 -0.204 Severance Reserve 0.500 0.325 Specific Grant Loss Reserve -0.172 -0.172 Supporting People Reserve -0.052 -1.052 Business Group Specific Reserves -0.056 -0.005 Sub Total 1.043 -2.126 Car Parking Reserve (Revenue) 1.952 0.188 Total Revenue Reserve Movements 2.995 -1.938 Capital Expenditure 5.500 5.500 Working Balance 0.000 -4.200 Total Reserve and Balance Movements 8.495 -0.638 2 3 THE ECONOMY AND THE PUBLIC FINANCES 3.1 Along side many signs of a deteriorating economy, there is a persuasive view that London may be disproportionately badly affected. 3.2 To gain a measure of the financial risks to the 2009/10 budget, the Business Groups have estimated possible reductions in income and increases in expenditure. It is also possible that cost reductions may be secured. 3.3 There could be effects on interest earned and income derived from parking, land charges, commercial property, halls lettings, commercial waste, planning applications and building regulations. The collection of Council Tax and National Non-domestic Rates could suffer. 3.4 Service pressures also may be experienced, for example in temporary accommodation, looked after children, community learning, Housing and Council Tax Benefit administration and increased pupil numbers (if there are transfers from private to maintained schools). 3.5 Overall, a net cost of up to £4 million is a realistic prospect for 2009/10. Although Business Groups will be expected to absorb such pressures where possible, the Council’s contingency and reserves are more than adequate to meet the possibility that Cabinet agrees to additional net spending. 3.6 In response to the economic pressures and as part of this year’s budget setting, the Council proposes a one-off £50 efficiency dividend and measures aimed at helping businesses in the Royal Borough. Discussion of this is set out in Appendix 7 . External Funding 3.7 Government grants will fund 65 per cent of the Council’s gross spending of £531 million. 3.8 Formula Grant for 2009/10 was confirmed at £104.4 million; and provisionally at £106.0 million in 2010/11, the last year of the current three year funding settlement. 3.9 These figures include £14.7 million and £10.1 million respectively of “damping” to the Council’s benefit. Subject to changes in methodology and data, the main medium term question in relation to the Formula Grant may therefore be the minimum rate at which the Government chooses to increase it after 2010/11. 3 3.10 The Council also receives £238 million in specific grants, of which over £10 million (comprising Area Based Grant) are not ring-fenced for a particular purpose. Details are set out in Appendix 8. 3.11 The future of the Council’s grant funding is most uncertain from 2011/12, arising from the Government’s need to make savings, data changes (notably the next Census of resident population in 2011) and methodology e.g. the outcome of the current review of Dedicated Schools Grant. 4 COUNCIL TAX CONSULTATION 4.1 The Council has again consulted residents: the results were reported to Cabinet on 7 January 2009 (“Consultation on Council Tax and Priorities for Council Services”)1. 4.2 Overall feedback continues to be positive: the “Big Blues” survey of 2008 indicated that 76 per cent of respondents believed the Council to be efficient and well run, compared to 54 per cent in 2004. 4.3 A survey of the Residents’ Panel found that majorities support the current levels of spending on many services, with some support for higher spending on adult social care and community safety. 4.4 On the overall balance between spending, charges and Council Tax: 54 per cent agreed that charges for services should be increased to reduce any increase in Council Tax; 52 per cent would like Council Tax to stay at the same level even if this means cuts in local services; but 44 per cent are more concerned about maintaining the quality of local services than about the amount of Council Tax they pay. 4.5 The 2009/10 spending and savings proposals were published in a report to Cabinet in November; further publicised through the draft Cabinet Business Plan taken to Cabinet in January; and taken to Overview and Scrutiny Committees as part of the Business Group revenue budget reports in January. 4.6 The draft Cabinet Business Plan has been widely circulated to local representative bodies. Round-table reports from each major public sector partner on their budget plans were discussed by the Kensington and Chelsea Partnership in January 2009. Discussions have also taken 1 The full report can be found at: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/committeedocuments/pages/document.aspx?id=26487 http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/committeedocuments/pages/document.aspx?id=26508 4 place during the year on the financial plans of the Council and its key partners including the Tenant Management Organisation, the Kensington and Chelsea Primary Care Trust and the Central and North West London Mental Health Trust. 5 BUDGET PROPOSALS 5.1 The proposed gross revenue budget for 2009/10 is £531 million. Within that, the budget requirement funded from Formula Grant and from Council Tax is £182 million. 5.2 The Council’s key priorities supported by many of the budget proposals are set out in Appendix 9. Full details of 2009/10 growth and savings proposals by Business Group are set out in Appendix 10 . 5.3 In addition to these, it is the Council’s ambition is to become the country’s “Smartest Council”. The Council continues to reduce running costs in order to redirect resources to priorities and is committed to reducing management costs by 15 per cent by March 2011. The Council’s reserves provide sufficient capacity to manage and resource its major change programmes. 5.4 Detailed service budgets for operating expenditure are set out in the Business Group estimates reports submitted in full to the Council as part of the Revenue Budget Book. This is summarised in Table 2. Appendices 3 to 5 provide more detail. 5 Table 2 Budget Summary 2008/09 2009/10 £m £m Family and Children's Services 53.655 55.409 Housing, Health and Adult Social Care 69.343 72.311 Planning and Borough Development 6.310 5.304 Transport, Environment and Leisure Services 21.012 25.083 Corporate Services* 20.279 25.423 Total Service Costs 170.599 183.530 Area Based Grant held corporately** -9.476 -10.386 Charges for Capital Assets and Financing 1.646 -3.348 Pension Fund Liabilities 8.621 9.931 Contingencies and Provisions 3.294 2.808 Interest *** -9.100 -3.267 Levies 3.595 3.638 Capital Reserves 5.500 5.500 Revenue Reserves 2.995 -1.938 Working Balance release 0.000 -4.200 Total Spending 177.674 182.268 *Corporate Services includes the estimated cost of the £50 efficiency dividend and related business measures of £4.2 million.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Commonwealth Budget: Process and Presentation (Updated April 2010)
    Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library Information, analysis and advice for the Parliament RESEARCH PAPER www.aph.gov.au/library 27 April 2010, no. 16, 2009–10, ISSN 1834-9854 The Commonwealth Budget: process and presentation (updated April 2010) Richard Webb Economics Section Executive summary • This Research Paper contains an overview of the Commonwealth budget process. It describes the main stages in the process, the system of appropriations, budget documents, reporting requirements, and key concepts and terms. It also describes how the content and presentation of the Budget have changed. Contents Introduction .......................................................... 1 1. Overview of the budget process .......................................... 1 1.1 Budget Process Operational Rules ..................................... 2 1.2 Strategic Priorities and Budget Committee of Cabinet ....................... 2 1.3 Portfolio budget submissions ......................................... 2 1.4 Estimates ....................................................... 3 1.5 Expenditure Review Committee and the budget Cabinet...................... 3 1.6 Budget documents ................................................. 4 1.7 Budget presentation ................................................ 4 1.8 Senate estimates committees ......................................... 5 1.9 Additional estimates ............................................... 5 1.10 Final Budget Outcome ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • False Economies: Unpacking Public Service Efficiency
    ISSN: 1835-0135 False Economies: Unpacking public service efficiency By Christopher Stone Public Service Research Director with Emma Cheyne, Matthew Wilkinson, Neha Kasbekar & Stephen Beverley June 2014 False Economies False Economies: ISSN 1835-0135 This paper is the final in a series looking at the false economies that result from short-term thinking on Australia’s public services. It incorporates updated versions of the previous three reports in the series: ‘Decoding efficiency’, ‘Doing less with less’ and ‘Bang for our bucks’. Be part of our ongoing public sector discussion on Twitter by using #falseeconomies #ozpublicservice or #ozbigsociety. About the Author Christopher Stone is the Research Director of the Centre for Policy Development’s Public Service Program. His interests focus on the use of social science concepts and findings to improve the effectiveness of regulation and governance. Christopher has previously worked in university research centres focusing on environmental law and policy. He has worked with a range of State Government departments and Local Governments in previous research projects. He has qualifications in law, psychology and philosophy. Acknowledgements This publication was funded by the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), the Becher Foundation and Slater & Gordon to contribute to the debate on public sector reform in Australia. Its conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of its funders. CPD would like to thank the Public Service Program’s funders for making this publication possible. This paper was subject to an informal review process. Thanks to Greg Smith, Ian McAuley, Kathy MacDermott, Miriam Lyons, Travers McLeod, Kristin van Barneveld, Stilgherrian and Tim Roxburgh for their helpful feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Sector Expenditure
    Table of Contents Submission to the Standing Committee on Estimates an d About CCI ............................................................................................... .. ................. 3 Financial Operations Inquiry into Public Sector Executive Summary .......................................................................................... ........ 4 Expenditure Findings and Recommendations ..... ................................... ..................... .. ............... 6 Economic and Fiscal Overview ..... ........................................................................... 8 Public Sector Expenditure ......... ... ............... ................................... ... .... ................. 10 Recent Trends .. ............................................................................... ...... ......................... .............. 10 Recurrent Expenditure ,' , ...... , .. .. , ............................... , ... , ..... ... ....... .. ......................... ........ ... ....... 10 Capital Expenditure ...... ............................ .......... .. ......... .. ... ........... .. ...... .......... ...... .... .. .... ........... 12 Need for Reform .... ... ... ... ................................. ........................................................ 14 Recent Commitments ............................... ........... ..................... .......................................... ......... 14 Endnotes and References ............. .................................... ... ... ........... ... ....
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Inquiry Into Public Sector Expenditure
    THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT REPORT 21 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS REPORT ON THE INQUIRY INTO PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURE Presented by Hon Giz Watson MLC (Chair) May 2009 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS Date first appointed: 30 June 2005 Terms of Reference: The following is an extract from Schedule 1 of the Legislative Council Standing Orders: ‘2. Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations 2.1 An Estimates and Financial Operations Committee is established. 2.2 The Committee consists of 5 Members, 3 of whom shall be non-government Members. 2.3 The functions of the Committee are to consider and report on - (a) the estimates of expenditure laid before the Council each year; (b) any matter relating to the financial administration of the State; (c) any bill or other matter relating to the foregoing functions referred by the House; (d) to consult regularly with the Auditor General and any person holding an office of a like character.’ Members of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations for the purpose of the inquiry into Public Sector Expenditure: Hon Giz Watson MLC (Chair) Hon Sue Ellery MLC (substitute for Sheila Mills MLC) Hon Brian Ellis MLC Hon Jon Ford MLC (substitute for Hon Ken Travers MLC) Hon Helen Morton MLC Hon Ken Travers MLC (participating Member pursuant SO326) Staff as at the time of this inquiry: Suzanne Veletta, Advisory Officer (General) Renae Jewell, Committee Clerk Address: Parliament House, Perth WA 6000, Telephone (08) 9222 7222 [email protected] Website: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au ISBN 978-1-921243-98-1 Note The Twenty First Report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations consists of a Report of the Committee and a Minority Report of Hon Brian Ellis MLC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Efficient-Market Hypothesis and the Financial Crisis
    October 28, 2011 The Efficient-Market Hypothesis and the Financial Crisis Burton G. Malkiel* Abstract The world-wide financial crisis of 2008-2009 has left in its wake severely damaged economies in the United States and Europe. The crisis has also shaken the foundations of modern-day financial theory, which rested on the proposition that our financial markets were basically efficient. Critics have even suggested that the efficient--market–hypotheses (EMH) was in large part, responsible for the crises. This paper argues that the critics of EMH are using a far too restrictive interpretation of what EMH means. EMH does not imply that asset prices are always “correct.” Prices are always wrong, but no one knows for sure if they are too high or too low. EMH does not imply that bubbles in asset prices are impossible nor does it deny that environmental and behavioral factors cannot have profound influences on required rates of return and risk premiums. At its core, EMH implies that arbitrage opportunities for riskless gains do not exist in an *Princeton University. I am indebted to Alan Blinder and to the participants in the Russell Sage Conference on Economic Lessons From the Financial Crisis for extremely helpful comments. 2 efficiently functioning market and if they do appear from time to time that they do not persist. The evidence is clear that this version of EMH is strongly supported by the data. EMH can comfortably coexist with behavior finance, and the insights of Hyman Minsky are particularly relevant in eliminating the recent financial crisis. Bubbles, when they do exist are particularly dangerous when they are financed with debt.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Impact Assessment
    Inclusive Financial Sector Development Program, Subprogram 2 (RRP CAM 44263–015) PROGRAM IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1. Executive Summary 1. Only a few policy actions have been selected to estimate costs and benefits in this assessment. Transfers between agents within the economy are excluded, as far as is practicable, although direct transfers to the poor are incorporated. Benefits are attributed to two channels: reduced borrowing costs and increased access to finance. Reduced borrowing costs are achieved by having a better regulatory framework that reduces risks to lenders and increases confidence among borrowers; this deepens the financial market thus making it more flexible and responsive to consumer needs. Improved access to finance is achieved by improving financial literacy of borrowers, enabling more efficient microfinance and increasing the number of ATMs and bank branches. Improved financial inclusion also helps to alleviate poverty and reduce income inequality, in addition to measures that specifically target the poor, rural people and women. In summary, the program produces benefits to the economy with a present value of between $341 million and $672 million, with the most likely scenario yielding $507 million in benefits. Benefits are split evenly between reduced borrowing costs and financial inclusion. Estimated costs range between $113 and $282 million and arise primarily from staffing and regulatory costs, as well as the establishment of a deposit protection scheme. 2. Macroeconomic context 2. The Cambodian economy has grown above 7% per annum from 2011 to 2016 with a slight decrease to just below 7% in 2017 and 2018. This growth is broadly in line with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries in a similar stage of economic development such as Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.
    [Show full text]
  • EM-1.3 Financial Institution Rating System
    EM-1.3 Category: General Information Topic: Financial Institution Rating System Published: 2/13/2020 Introduction Most financial institutions are categorized and rated by their respective regulators through the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System. This system has been modified to reflect the non-depository nature of Farm Credit System (System) institutions and adopted by the Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) to evaluate and categorize the safety and soundness of System institutions on an ongoing, uniform, and comprehensive basis. FCA’s Financial Institution Rating System (FIRS), as outlined in FCA Board Policy Statement 72, provides valuable information to the Agency for assessing risk and allocating resources based on the safety and soundness of regulated institutions. As such, it is a key component of the Agency’s risk assessment process. The FIRS also provides an effective mechanism for identifying problem or deteriorating institutions, categorizing institutions with deficiencies in particular component areas, and communicating the overall condition of the System to internal and external stakeholders. This section of the Examination Manual provides an overview of the FIRS process and describes the general factors considered in assigning institution ratings. Refer to the FIRS Guide in Attachment 1 for a detailed description of the factors and criteria used in assigning ratings. Overview Although each institution has its own examination and supervisory issues and concerns, the FIRS is structured to provide a consistent rating system for all significant financial, asset quality, and management factors. Under the FIRS, each institution is assigned composite and component ratings based on an evaluation and rating of six essential components of an institution’s financial condition and operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Budget Strategy and Outlook 2019-20
    Budget Strategy and Outlook 2019-20 Budget Paper No. 2 Budget Strategy and Outlook Contents Under Treasurer’s Certification 3 Chapter 1 Overview 5 Chapter 2 Fiscal outlook 11 Chapter 3 Economic outlook 27 Chapter 4 Fiscal strategy statement 39 Chapter 5 Intergovernmental financial relations issues 51 Chapter 6 Territory taxes and royalties 65 Chapter 7 Risks and contingent liabilities 81 Chapter 8 Uniform presentation framework 93 Appendices 113 Appendix A Classification of entities in the Northern Territory 115 Appendix B Glossary 116 1 2019-20 Budget 2 Budget Strategy and Outlook Under Treasurer’s Certification In accordance with provisions of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act 2001, I certify that the financial projections included in the May 2019 Budget documentation were based on Government decisions that I was aware of or that were made available to me by the Treasurer before 28 April 2019. The projections presented here are in accordance with the Uniform Presentation Framework. Craig Graham Under Treasurer 29 April 2019 3 2019-20 Budget 4 Budget Strategy and Outlook Chapter 1 Overview Budget Paper No. 2 presents whole of government financial information and consolidates information from other budget papers. It also meets the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act 2001 and the Uniform Presentation Framework, as agreed by all Australian jurisdictions. Fiscal outlook The 2019-20 Budget incorporates significant savings and revenue measures approved through the recent root and branch program review and government’s response to the recommendations of the Fiscal Strategy Panel’s final report: A plan for budget repair. The measures introduced in the 2019-20 Budget demonstrate the government’s commitment to returning the budget to a sustainable position and is underpinned by a new fiscal strategy with the twin objectives of supporting the economy in the short term and providing a pathway back to a balanced budget and reduced debt levels over the medium term.
    [Show full text]
  • Decoding Efficiency
    False economies DECODING EFFICIENCY ¢£¤≠º€≠@=&§¤‡‰∂∆Ø=¥§Ω◊€ ¥§<€µE»¿×Ø÷ð◊≤*§∫<$@º#^ º±¥¢∂∆F∑√∞∫≈†>%π@ø¢º±≠@ {~∫§¤&¡F¢£¤¥§<€≠ºµ+Ω◊¢∂ #$% º±¥¢{I*+<@[◊«‰^¤¥§¥ Œ£π†≥$∫§¤¡C¤§%¡Ø=&§≠≤*‡ ‡‰Œ¤€Ωº‰±¥¢=I±^≥¿¡@Øð÷∫ ≤≠+∫∑µøΩ=&]‰‡Eπ÷»¤‰^µ§$ ð×∂∆º±^¥¢√≥~&}N^≠¤€Ωº‰# |†€«@=&$>#[§º‰^¡C§◊+«±@ ≈◊π€§≥§»¿Ø<]%§¤¡*Y∫Œ£π≠ ∫§¤¡=&º‰^µ§$+«Œ¥≠§¤‡‰∂Ω Christopher Stone Public Service Research Director April 2013 About the Author Christopher Stone is the Research Director of the Centre for Policy Development’s Public Service Program. His interests focus on the use of social science concepts and findings to improve the effectiveness of regulation and governance. Christopher has previously worked in university research centres focusing on environmental law and policy. He has worked with a range of state government departments and local governments in previous research projects. He has qualifications in law, psychology, and philosophy. Acknowledgements This publication was funded by the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), the Becher Foundation and Slater & Gordon to contribute to the debate on public sector reform in Australia. Its conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of its funders. CPD would like to thank the Public Service Program’s funders for making this publication possible. This paper was subject to an informal review process. Thanks to Ian McAuley, Greg Smith, and Miriam Lyons for their helpful feedback. All conclusions and any errors that remain are the author’s own. About CPD The Centre for Policy Development is a progressive think tank dedicated to seeking out creative, viable ideas and innovative research to inject into Australia’s policy debates. We give a diverse, cross-disciplinary community of thinkers space to imagine solutions to Australia’s most urgent challenges, and we connect their ideas with policy makers, media and concerned citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • Output Based Funding Model Principles
    OUTPUT BASED FUNDING MODEL PRINCIPLES (Financial Years 2019-20 to 2021-22) Background and purpose All Australian Governments have agreed to continue to meet the fair and reasonable costs of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service (Blood Service), to allow the Blood Service to meet it supply and quality obligations, in accordance with the arrangements under the Deed and the Funding and Services Agreement. This commitment is limited to paying the Blood Service for the cost of products and services provided in accordance with arrangements established under the National Blood Agreement and consistent with policy determined by Australian Governments. Australian Governments also require adequate accountability and transparency in the application of funding provided to the Blood Service and that the Blood Service appropriately manages its affairs and associated financial risks within the resources provided by the Australian Governments. Consequently, the National Blood Authority (NBA) on behalf of Australian Governments, and the Blood Service have agreed to the high level funding principles set out in this document. These Principles cover the funding cycle consisting of the following financial years: • 2019-20 (Year 1) • 2020-21 (Year 2) • 2021-22 (Year 3) Edited version for publication on NBA website The Output Based Funding Model Principles (OBFM) provided here has been edited, and is not in the form as executed. In addition, certain parts of the contract are not disclosed. The OBFM is provided for information only and should not be relied on by any person. The NBA is not liable for any reliance upon the contract herein which results in loss or damage to any person.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Budget 2016
    Contents Executive summary ........................................................................... 1 Economic and fiscal analysis ............................................................. 2 Economic assumptions ..................................................................... 3 Personal tax ....................................................................................... 4 Business tax ...................................................................................... 5 International tax ................................................................................. 7 Small business................................................................................... 8 Superannuation.................................................................................. 9 Infrastructure ................................................................................... 11 Free Trade & Customs .................................................................... 12 Health and ageing ............................................................................ 13 Human services ............................................................................... 14 Education ......................................................................................... 15 Defence ........................................................................................... 16 Overview of changes ...................................................................... 17 Announced but unenacted measures ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Revenue Budget 2014-15
    REVENUE BUDGET 2014-15 Presented to the Council 5th March 2014 COUNCILLOR NICHOLAS PAGET-BROWN NICHOLAS HOLGATE Leader of the Council Joint Chief Executive and Executive Director of Finance CONTENTS Page Revenue Budget and Council Tax 2014-15 Report 1-15 Medium Term Financial Strategy 1 Reserves Policy 2 Revenue Budget Summary 6 Service Subjective and Service Budget Summary – Whole Authority 7 External Funding 8 Reserves and Balances Forecast 9 Garden Square Levies 10 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council Tax 11 Total Council Tax 12 The £100 Efficiency Dividend 13 REVENUE BUDGET Adult Social Care 15 Children’s Services 21 Environment, Leisure and Residents’ Services 27 Housing Services 31 Housing Revenue Account 35 Library, Archives and Heritage Services 37 Planning and Borough Development 41 Public Health 45 Transport and Technical Services 49 Corporate Services 53 Adult and Family Learning 59 REVENUE BUDGET 2014-15 6 THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA Meeting of the Council – 5 March 2014 Item 6 – Submissions from the Cabinet The following budget, plans and strategies were considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 24 February 2014 and are now submitted to full Council for approval and adoption. 1. BUDGET PROPOSALS 2014-15 1.1 The attached report presents the Cabinet’s budget proposals for 2014- 15 and sets out its broad approach to revenue budgeting, Council Tax and the capital programme to 2016-17. 1.2 Residents, businesses, key partners and Scrutiny Committees were invited to comment on an earlier draft. 1.3 The plan will be published by the end of March, subject to any minor drafting or formatting changes.
    [Show full text]