We are in the middle of a budget setting round. Politicians set their priorities, officers write the papers and put in place the numbers, our 151 officer (Chief Financial Officer) ensures rules are not broken, scrutiny committees pick over the details and Cabinet approve. It all then goes to full council to be debated.

In May, you will remember, a Labour led coalition was put together to run the council. The role of the Independants in the coalition is unclear. They appear to be unflinchingly following the Labour line. The Conservatives are the largest group but don’t have enough seats to command a majority.

One of the most important responsibilities of any council is to set a balanced budget to ensure the smooth running of the council for the benefit of the people we serve.

So what have we discovered? It seems whilst the budget will balance for two years it runs into trouble in year three with a deficit of between £6m and £9m. I have been pushing for this to be addressed now to prevent a significant impact on services in year three. It seems Labour is content to wait and see what happens!!

Several new priorities have been introduced, by the coalition, which require more staff. This is understandable but normally as one priority rises another must fall and take less resources. That is how budgets are balanced. Unfortunately, in this case it seems growing the wage bill is what is going to happen. Councils can’t just keeping adding staff.

West Suffolk Council has traditionally been a low borrowing council which in these difficult times is helpful. Not all borrowing is bad but it does have an impact on the revenue budget. Borrowing for an investment that serves the people and makes a good return can make sense. A new leisure Center for example. I am concerned that the borrowing requirement, currently at £56m is set to rise to £129m by 2026. This moves borrowing from 2% to 10% of the revenue budget. A significant increase.

This hike in borrowing is partially as a result of increased demand on services but a significant part is as a result of political choices being made. Not all of these decisions are good ones. For example, there is currently a proposal to spend ££££ on refurbishing an industrial building in the hope it will attract tenants at a higher rate. After borrowing costs it will only add a minuscule extra income. This is daft. Much better to dispose of the building and reduce the need for borrowing.

More to come on this I am sure.