• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Conference
  • Events Calendar
  • Webcast151
  • MOTB
  • Log In
  • Register

Room 151

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews

In and out of the pool

0
  • by Steve Bishop
  • in Funding · Recent Posts · Steve Bishop
  • — 6 Dec, 2012

Steve Bishop is Strategic Director for South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils

A couple of weeks ago we received the latest round of modifications to the ongoing saga that is the business rates retention scheme. Here in Oxfordshire the six councils in the county have been trying to make a pool work to spread risk and generate more return for our taxpayers.

District councils were in the first instance excited by the prospect of being rewarded by rates retention for any economic work they’d done in their area. We perhaps got a bit too optimistic about how much we could make out of it and gave less thought to the return versus risk side of things. That was probably a bit naïve of most of us.

When the new scheme came out for consultation though, it was hugely disappointing in terms of how little return we would actually make. My two Districts decided fairly early on that the amount of economic development activity in terms of investment wouldn’t be cost effective to the amount of business rates we could generate: the average district council would be making five or six pence in the pound in business rates growth because 50% goes straight to the government and the levy applied to what was left was so high for district councils that we ended up passing most of that back to the government as well.

So there was very little return but I must say that there was also little risk too. At District level the safety net was generous: for the councils I work for the net would kick in at about £170,000. The interesting thing about our situation is that one of the two Districts I work for, Vale of White Horse, has Didcot A power station due to close from 2013 onwards. It’s a great example of worst-case scenario under the local retention of business rates because it is the biggest rate payer in the District. As soon as it stops paying rates under the new scheme the loss falls on the District Council, subject to safety net rules. It would be a £2m hit to the council without the safety net, so a loss of £170,000 didn’t seem that bad compared to a scheme that didn’t have a safety net and could see the council going bankrupt due to its major rate payer going.

Because the Vale is almost certainly facing a difficult settlement, and coming up with a sustainable five year plan is always tricky for that council, we were looking at ways to make a better return. So when the possibility of pooling came up we wanted to see if it would offer a more attractive return. Sure enough, the return went up if Oxfordshire’s five district councils and one county council got together. Individually we districts are ‘tariff authorities’, had a high levy rate and would have to pay 80% back to the government in terms of levy on growth. But under the pooling arrangements the district councils’ levy got averaged out with the county council (which invariably in England is a ‘top-up’ authority) under the retention of business rates scheme which means that the government has to make a net extra payment back to it so that it can have enough funding to deliver its services. So you pool and the county drags the levy rate down from 80% to 40-odd percent: we’d retain more of our business rate growth money in Oxfordshire within the pool and the mechanics of divvying it up would be left to us to decide.

Two weeks ago we thought that the pool could retain £1.5m per year more of any growth in rates for Oxfordshire. There are various ifs and buts, with business rate baseline, funding baseline and predicted business rate take being unknowns. There was also greater risk associated with the pool. We winced a little at it but it would be daft of the government to give more return unless it was for more risk. The county council had a safety net of several million pounds and if you pool, the safety net becomes combined for all the authorities, making it £6m. In that scenario with Didcot A closing in the early years of the new scheme, the loss of that ratepayer falls entirely on the pool. We had a firm closure date of March 31 2013 given to us a couple of months ago. That’s the day before the new scheme kicks in, which is a unique anomaly for my authority. We’ve got a request in to the government which says can you not reflect the loss from the power station ceasing to pay rates before the new scheme kicks in from our baseline calculation because it seems inherently unfair that our baseline would be calculated from the average of the last two or five years including the station. We have yet to have a response but I imagine the government will say no to that.

Given all the uncertainties, at each of the milestones where the Government requires you to sign up for a pool the six Oxfordshire councils have sometimes been indecisive on it. For much of the Autumn, one of the Districts was out, then after some clarifications from the government it decided to come back in again but that was prior to the most recent news.

Now over the last two weeks yet more number-crunching has been going on. The reduction in the levy cap for individual authorities from 80p to 40p is obviously welcomed at that individual level, it’s good that individual councils can retain more. The safety net remains at the 7.5% of baseline funding level so again that is good news on an individual district basis but on the pool basis it looks like we’ll be worse off doing things together. I think that will be true of most pools in the country.

We haven’t yet abandoned the idea of our pool because another big uncertainty is the spending baseline, which nobody will know until the settlement is announced. It is just possible that the government will set spending baselines so generously that it will counteract the recent levy change making pooling more attractive again. But I doubt it. In Oxfordshire we’re expecting to abandon the pool but what I don’t see is why the government made such a big deal of pooling to now just make it not worthwhile.

Perhaps in the next few weeks the government will realise that its latest revisions are undoing pooling. Don’t forget that pooling has worthy aims: spreading risk, spreading return, getting a genuine economic region to work together rather than compete with each other at District level. Maybe there will be further clarifications on the pooling regime as part of the Autumn statement or grant settlement that will make it more attractive again. We’ll make a decision probably first week in January after the settlement and I imagine that is what other pools will do.

The question is why has this turned into what it has? It was announced as a great rate retention incentivising scheme and then when it came out it wasn’t that. It was marginal, hardly worth the effort.
Then pooling was the thing. If you had a bigger risk appetite and wanted the opportunity to earn greater retention and reward it was seen as the way forward. The mechanics of it then gave us so many uncertainties that many pools, like the London pool, came and went.

Why did the government try and push this through so quickly? It created a huge amount of work with councils responding to consultation, doing the sums, going in and out of pools and getting those up and running with the governance issues and the time taken to come up with the structures. Then the government changed all the rules and put back into the scheme some of what we all wanted when it was first announced, but scuppered the pools.

Finance teams in every council, with their limited resources, have scrabbled around and wasted time responding to the government. All this at the same time as the Government is announcing major changes to funding, of which rates plays a major part. How is RSG going to be divvied out, we’re left asking?
I would like to know why the Government didn’t just take a couple of years, get some pilot authorities into a scheme and then refined the anomalies and mistakes? A two or three year pilot on business rates retention would have let us have a national launch when uncertainty on RSG had been resolved and we’d have less uncertain baselines and have wasted less time working on models.

What we are left with is a basic business rates retention scheme that is better than it was two weeks ago. It’s just a shame we have had to do so much running around for it.

Share

You may also like...

  • Andrew Hardingham: FDs face endless demands but competence keeps them going 22 Sep, 2020
  • Where to turn in the absence of growth? Where to turn in the absence of growth? 19 Sep, 2012
  • S&P affirms BCC rating at AA+ S&P affirms BCC rating at AA+ 7 Nov, 2012
  • Security top priority for corporate treasurers Security top priority for corporate treasurers 25 Apr, 2012

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Latest tweets

    Room151 18 hours ago

    New realities of investing cash and liquidity: “What to do now?”: Sponsored article: Brian Buck looks at the “unique challenge” for cash management strategies. As investors assess the ongoing impact of the pandemic on their business, levels of cash and… dlvr.it/RqVbk9 pic.twitter.com/ZElVASmEUV

    Room151 21 hours ago

    Extra finance promised by the government receives a broad welcome: Sponsored article: The financial pressures facing local authorities this year continue to pose challenges for council treasurers. While the launch of the UK’s Covid-19 vaccination… dlvr.it/RqTzTF pic.twitter.com/HCjH0pyHR5

    Room151 21 hours ago

    A savvy approach to managing your cash: Sponsored article: Caroline Hedges examines the need for active cash management to achieve a higher than average return. Last year saw the already mountainous pile of negative-yielding debt around the[...] dlvr.it/RqTzMK pic.twitter.com/uP0RQYTJLt

    Room151 2 days ago

    Putting alternatives at the heart of multi-asset portfolios: Sponsored article: Nick Edwardson looks at the assets that provide the “most attractive opportunities”. We believe that asset allocation is the primary driver of investment returns and that the… dlvr.it/RqQ2Qt pic.twitter.com/WLBzvRRRUQ

    Room151 2 days ago

    Thriving in the pandemic: Avoiding the stragglers: Sponsored article: George Crowdy looks at the sectors providing opportunities for sustainable investment. Throughout much of 2020, we talked about why sustainable investing has thrived in the pandemic,… dlvr.it/RqQ2NQ pic.twitter.com/dxiPWKFsPl

    Room151 2 days ago

    The development of CCLA’s mental health benchmark: Sponsored article: Amy Browne examines the importance of investing in mental health in the workplace. We are living through a public health emergency in more ways than one. Physical health[...] dlvr.it/RqQ2Jx pic.twitter.com/o6yRSCX3oF

    Room151 3 days ago

    Brexit: What the EU trade deal means for the UK economy: Sponsored article: Hetal Mehta looks at the impact of Brexit on economic prospects. Four and a half years after voting to leave the EU, on Christmas Eve the UK finally[...] dlvr.it/RqLBDt pic.twitter.com/No62srfE8h

    Room151 3 days ago

    Cash dethroned: The quest for liquid yield: Sponsored article: Peter Hunt and George Carne ask how treasury departments can balance the need for yield and liquidity. The massive stimulus and waves of liquidity provided by central banks[...] dlvr.it/RqLBDj pic.twitter.com/05g6Zhu1kU

    Room151 3 days ago

    Richard Harbord: Delayed “capital determinations” make section 25 opinions a new crunch point: The severe pressure on local government budgets now means section 151 officers confront a tricky call on  whether they can make a judgement on the robustness… dlvr.it/RqLBDV pic.twitter.com/vTAbDKFzkI

    Room151 4 weeks ago

    PWLB Consultation: Analysis straight from Dickens: Helen Radall and Paul McDermott present a legal examination of the new PWLB borrowing rules as Charles Dickens might have imagined it. Free and easy PWLB (“Marley” to his friends)[...] dlvr.it/RnmwLq pic.twitter.com/yFxcPrQqEG

    Room151 4 weeks ago

    Room151’s top stories from a momentous year: 2020 was the year in which local government grappled with Covid-19, funding strains, controversy over borrowing rules and the threat of financial collapse. It has been an exhausting and historic[...] dlvr.it/RnlpZg pic.twitter.com/g3myNyox6J

    Room151 4 weeks ago

    Tracy Bingham: 2020, a year best forgotten but also one of learning: Many will rush to erase 2020 from their memories but, writes Tracy Bingham, there were also many lessons about finance teams, strategic planning and leadership. 2020: A year we’d… dlvr.it/RnlpY2 pic.twitter.com/m7G1krrtCu

    Room151 4 weeks ago

    Settlement must address ‘precarious’ local government finances: Dan Bates crosses his fingers for “no nasty surprises” in this week’s funding settlement but argues the “bigger prize” is post-Covid financial certainty. Thursday (17 December) should be the… dlvr.it/Rnj9dG pic.twitter.com/KLKjjuBqJE

    Room151 1 month ago

    PWLB consultation: Big change on the way but there are ‘grey areas’ and opportunities: The consultation on PWLB borrowing has concluded creating a new landscape for funding property acquisition. Our experts look at the implications. Tracie Langley The… dlvr.it/RndRvJ pic.twitter.com/KEqXEBmEfq

    Room151 1 month ago

    2021: Better income outcomes?: Sponsored article: Investors should be mindful of structural challenges posed to income generation as a result of rapid thematic change. Jon Bell looks at the prospects for the coming year.[...] dlvr.it/RndRsw pic.twitter.com/TxVk8aXkMq

    Room151 1 month ago

    Capturing the ‘spirit’ of borrowing rules and a sequel for interest rate swaps: The year in treasury has been marked by a return for interest rate swaps and new rules from PWLB on borrowing for yield. Jackie Shute asks whether they will sprinkle[...] dlvr.it/RnQwv7 pic.twitter.com/it5FApdCcl

  • Categories

    • 151 News
    • Agent 151
    • Blogs
    • Chris Buss
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • Dan Bates
    • David Crum
    • David Green
    • Development
    • Forum
    • Funding
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O'Donnell
    • Interviews
    • Jackie Shute
    • James Bevan
    • Jobs
    • LGPSi
    • Mark Finnegan
    • Recent Posts
    • Resources
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Fitzgerald
    • Stephen Sheen
    • Steve Bishop
    • Technical
    • Treasury
    • Uncategorized
  • Archives

    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
  • Previous story The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement
  • Next story Scenario planning “particularly weak” says Grant Thornton report

© Copyright 2021 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website.OK