Agenda item

To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

Paul Elstone

Question 1

My first question relates to the Minutes of the last meeting and the promise to provide written answers to my questions. These have not been provided. Can the Leader tell me what has happened to them?

In response, an officer explained that these had been published and circulated.

Question 2

There appears to be no reference to the windfall £3 million leisure services VAT refund in the financial forecast. Has this substantial VAT refund already been incorporated in the forecasting figures or is this still to be done?

Question 3

There is no clear evidence that the 3 Rivers bad debt has been included in any short or medium term financial forecasting. Bad debt currently anticipated at more than £7 million and increasing by an estimated £125,000 per month, this when interest and overhead liabilities are factored in. Has the 3 Rivers bad debt provision been made and if so where is it shown in the papers?

Question 4

The Cabinet Member for Finance is reported as saying Quote: “that no money from Council Tax has been used to support the St Georges Court build”.The S151 Officer has been reported as saying that no loans were taken out to fund 3 Rivers. Therefore who funded the St Georges Court build and who holds the bad debt liability?

Question 5

If Council Tax Payers have not funded St Georges Court then in my business environment and by implication then the same Council Tax Payers have no liabilities for the substantial bad debt.  That there should be no reduction in the MDDC Council services resulting. If this statement is not correct can a full explanation be given? 

The Leader stated that a written response would be provided to the remaining unanswered questions.

Nick Quinn

Question 1

Why is there no mention anywhere in this report of any impact from the, potentially multi-million pound, losses resulting from the closure of 3 Rivers Developments?

In response the Cabinet Member for Finance noted that it was currently estimated that the soft closure of 3Rivers will be delivered during the remainder of the financial year 23/24 and therefore previous impairment provision and any further write off considerations will be completed in the current year. Therefore, no impact would need to be carried forward to future budgets in the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan.

Question 2

Does the Cumulative Budget Gap profile, shown at paragraph 5.1 in this report, take account of the purchase of the St George’s Court site, and the potential purchase of the Knowle Lane site, from 3 Rivers Developments - pushing forward the requirement for additional PWLB borrowing and the subsequent increased loan financing costs?

In response the Cabinet Member for Finance noted that any associated losses will be considered in the current financial year, as previously stated, and if a decision is made by the Housing Revenue Account to purchase any 3Rivers assets, it will be considered in its current and future budget planning scenarios.

Question 3

In the Appendix 2, attached to the report, is a table that gives a Summary of the Council’s General Fund MTFP position, with estimates for the coming years. The figures in the Net Interest Costs (Receipts) row shows a reduction of £2,000 (from 2023/24 to 2024/25), then a reduction of £30,000 (from 2024/25 to 2025/26) and then a further reduction of £10,000 (from 2025/26 to 2026/27), when it is becomes stable. The note (2) under the table states these reductions “reflects the removal of the possible interest earned from 3 Rivers”.

Therefore, the figures shown in this table indicate that the Council is anticipating that it will continue to receive interest payments from 3 Rivers into the 2025/26 financial year - is this correct?

In response the Cabinet Member for Finance noted that Note 2 explained that we had removed any assumption of interest receipts from 3Rivers. The reason why this didn’t then show a corresponding reduction in investment receipts is that they were offset by the current prevailing interest we would receive on normal Council treasury activities.