Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: No
To approve proposed charges for 2015/16, and to recommend to the Executive revenue budget proposals, capital funding requests and changes to the Capital Plan.
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s
report detailed the budget proposals relating to this Environment, Waste and
Public Health Portfolio that were included in the Budget-Setting Report 2015/16
to be considered at the following meetings:
i.
19 January 2015 Strategy & Resources.
ii.
22 January 2015 The
Executive.
iii.
13 February 2015 Strategy & Resources.
iv.
26 February 2015 Council.
The report also
included consideration of any recommendations concerning the review of charges
and project appraisals for schemes in the capital plan for this portfolio.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and
Public Health
Review of Charges:
i.
Approved the proposed charges for this portfolio’s
services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A to the Officer’s report.
Revenue:
ii.
Noted the revenue budget proposals as shown in
Appendix B.
Capital:
iii.
Noted the capital budget proposals as shown in
Appendix C.
iv.
Agreed to delete some schemes from the Capital Plan
as shown in Appendix C.
v.
Approved, where relevant, project appraisals as
shown in Appendix D.
vi.
Agreed to adjust capital funding for items (iii) to
(v) as appropriate.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant. He
advised the Officer’s report (second agenda circulation, P6, Table 2) contained
a typographical error: The headings had been transposed so ‘Capital Deletions’
should read ‘Capital Bids’ and vice versa.
In response to Members’ questions the Head of Refuse & Environment
said the following:
i.
All fees and charges (eg
scrap metal P9 of the Officer’s report) fell into two categories:
· Statutory fees eg Licensing Act.
· Administration
cost for provision of the service, which was charged at ‘cost rate’ ie non-profit making.
ii.
Changes to legislation in 2012 led to a review of
local authority Commercial Waste Service charges across the city.
iii.
The increased charges reflected increased disposal
charges for the City Council, which had taken over responsibility from the
County Council.
iv.
The £80,000 total increased income (P10 of the
Officer’s report) could be robustly defended as the harmonisation of the Commercial Waste Service's tariff structures was a
win-win for the City Council and customers.
v.
The City Council had increased co-mingled
recycling. The City Council also gave customers advice on how to reduce their
disposal costs. Disposal costs decreased as the City Council undertook more
co-mingled recycling.
vi.
Unavoidable revenue pressure items such as the North West Cambridge Collection vehicles
running costs (P11 of the Officer’s report) were included in the budget
report for the first time as part of North West Cambridge site waste /
recycling costs.
vii.
Fluctuating oil prices had a dual impact on the
City Council. Lower oil prices meant:
· Waste truck fuel costs
were lower.
· The Council
receive less revenue from sales of recyclable waste.
viii.
Officers were aware that the value of recyclable
waste varied. It was not practicable to store waste when sale values were low
in order to wait for them to rise as storing waste reduced its quality and
therefore its value. Quality and contamination rates were considerations for
officers.
ix.
The City Council was in partnership with all
Cambridgeshire authorities to get the best price for recyclable waste.
x.
Black bins were in high demand locally and
nationally. The Council had received various freedom
of information requests regarding bin provision costs. Officers liaised with
residents requesting bins, the replacement cost was
determined by responses. For example, the cost of replacing a damaged bin was
lower than providing a second additional one.
xi.
To encourage recycling property owners could ask
for large bins to be replaced by smaller ones free of charge.
xii.
Refuse crews had been asked to advise officers of
any damaged bins so they could be replaced before a property owner requested
this.
In response to Members’ questions the Principal Accountant said projects
were formerly included on the capital plan before a project scheme document was
worked up. Under the “project under development” process projects would need a
business case to be written before being added to the capital plan. Projects
without a business case were grouped in the “under development” heading.
The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health gave the
Silver Street public toilets as an example of a project under development.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions to endorse the
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Publication date: 18/02/2015
Date of decision: 13/01/2015