Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: No
To consider amendments, if any, from the Executive and Opposition Groups to the Budget Setting Report.
15/22/SNRa Executive Amendment
Matter for Decision
The Head of Finance introduced the
Executive Amendment.
The
Officer’s report detailed amendments to the Budget-Setting Report 2015/16 that
was recommended to Council by the Executive at its meeting on 22 January 2015.
These
amendments include corrections and also reflect new or updated information that
has been received since that meeting and the consequent changes required.
Unless
otherwise stated, any references in the recommendations to sections, pages and
appendices relate to Version 1 of the Budget Setting Report (BSR) 2015/16.
Corrections and new or updated information:
·
Collection
Fund Deficit, Appendix B(e):
Change to item NCL3740 - increasing the City Council’s
share of the projected year-end deficit from £24k to £60k (revised calculation
based on updated information), the additional £36k to be met from general fund
reserves in 2015/16.
·
Budget
Pressures, Appendix B(a):
Inclusion of omitted item CF3672 £1m
·
Projects Under
Development (PUD) List, Appendix D(a):
Inclusion of omitted item UD016 Public Conveniences
·
City Deal:
Change the “City Deal Infrastructure Investment
Fund” to “City Deal Investment and Delivery Fund” - the Council has
committed to pooling a proportion of gross NHB receipts with its local
authority partners to provide funding to enable delivery of City Deal
objectives to support and address the impacts of growth. The change in wording
reflects ongoing discussions on the use of this funding [pages 22, 24, 31 and
100 in Appendix E refer].
Decision of Executive Councillor
for Finance and Resources
The Executive Councillor approved the amendments:
i.
Collection Fund Deficit:
Change to item NCL3740 – increasing
the City Council’s share of the projected year-end deficit from £24k to £60k,
the additional £36k to be met from general fund reserves in 2015/16.
ii.
City Deal:
·
Change the “City Deal Infrastructure Investment
Fund” to “City Deal Investment and Delivery Fund”.
·
To authorise the Section 151 officer to make
necessary changes to the Budget Setting Report 2015/16, to be considered by
Council at the meeting on 26 February 2015, to reflect the impact of changes
for the above.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions to endorse the
recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Councillor Smart joined the Committee after the decision was taken.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were
declared by the Executive Councillor.
</AI5>
<AI6>
15/22/SNRb Liberal Democrat Amendment
The Leader of the
Liberal Democrat Group introduced the item.
The following
questions (Q) were put by Members on the items in the Liberal Democrat
Amendment and answered (A) as listed:
Finance
i.
(Q) Would the amendment lead to higher spending?
(A) The purpose of 2015/16 Budget -
Bids & Savings – GF (P16 of Officer’s report) was to avoid higher net spend
2015 – 2020.
ii.
(Q) There appeared to be a conflict of information.
£97,500 spending increase was implied in Appendix [B(e) Non-Cash Limit] (P16), but tables
later in the report suggested a decrease. (A) Tables on P38 showed savings
targets.
iii.
(Q) The amendment would
lead to an unsustainable budget and higher savings requirements in future. (A)
Again referred to tables on P38 showed savings targets. Labour and Liberal
Democrats both wished to make savings by 2020, each had their own spending
priorities. There were £2.471m of undefined savings.
iv.
Queried details of saving expectations in 2015/16 Budget - Bids & Savings – GF (P16
– 17). (A) Reducing the backlog in delivery would make the process more
efficient.
v.
(Q) Referred to 2015/16
Budget - Capital Bids – GF (P17), how would separating a small element of
highways project funding for City Council use, instead of the Joint Area
Committee, lead to efficiencies? (A) The intention was to decentralise some
funding to Area Committees so they could decide how to use it. The role of the
Joint Area Committee was different from the Area Joint Committee it replaces.
vi.
(Q) Queried reason for
abandoning introduction of self-service telephony and electronic enquiry
services 2015/16 Budget - Bids & Savings – GF (P16). (A) An automated and
complex self-service system did not provide the service people expected from
the Council. The Customer Service Centre was brought in to address this.
Housing
vii.
(Q) Queried housing sites expected to come forward.
(A) Sites in Council General Fund ownership
·
Mill Road Depot.
·
North West Cambridge.
·
Park Street Car Park.
viii.
(Q) What is the average timescale to execute
housing projects and make potential sites available? (A) To be set out in
future for scrutiny by relevant committees. The timescales in Liberal Democrat
and Labour 2015 – 2016 budgets were similar.
The Director of Environment said the Mill
Road Depot site should come free for housing by 2018. Three operational sites
needed to be released before the land as a whole could be released. A detailed
plan was being worked up regarding the timeframe. This was also dependent on
the Local Plan timetable. Three years seemed a realistic timeframe.
Timeframes for making intermediate housing
sites available depended on particular site factors such as ensuring access and
undertaking consultation. Eighteen months to three years seemed a realistic
timeframe.
ix.
(Q) Requested clarity on how £450,000 of income
would be generated from housing sites in 2017 – 2018. (A) The income figures
were based on briefing details given by Officers. Councillor Bick undertook to
share the briefing information with The Executive to show the evidence base for
amendment figures.
If sites were brought forward for use quickly, the Council would get the
income sooner.
x.
(Q) Sought clarity on how planning process could be
speeded up to bring more sites forward for development and build housing. (A)
Undertake due planning process faster ie in parallel
not in series.
xi.
(Q) Why had the Liberal Democrats not undertaken
faster house building when they were in control of the Council? (A) A number of
factors had come into place recently such as some sites only now becoming
available.
Community, Arts
and Recreation
xii.
(Q) Were living wage sums appropriate? (A) The
premise of the amendment was to expect employers contracted by the Council to
pay a living wage. This would be paid for by contractors making operational
efficiencies. The situation would not be cost free, the Council would have to
negotiate with contractors.
xiii.
(Q) Why should the Council subsidise contractors to
pay the living wage when they should be doing this already? (A) Some contracts
were put out to tender prior to the Council implementing its living wage
policy, therefore changes to contract terms would have to be negotiated (as a
moral expectation), not expected arbitrarily. New contracts would reflect
living wage expectations.
xiv.
(Q) Were funding sources appropriate for Nightingale Recreation Ground Pavilion
refurbishment (P17)? (A) £400,000 was appropriate funding. The intention
was to re-instate the scheme in the Capital Plan.
xv.
(Q) Was Jesus Green Pavilion sufficiently developed
to receive funding (P17)? Had appropriate consultation been undertaken
on the scheme? Should the scheme should be listed in
‘projects under development’ rather than the Capital Plan? (A) The project had
received funding for two years prior to removal from the Capital Plan. The
intention was to re-instate the scheme. Detailed consultation information was
not set out in the Capital Plan.
xvi.
(Q) 2015/16 Budget - Bids
& Savings – GF (P16) set out tapering living wage costs. Please clarify
details. (A) Figures provided a platform/expectation that could be used for
future negotiation. Also for Lion Yard toilets and partnership work with the
Police.
xvii.
(Q) Had Liberal Democrat
budget amendment figures 2015/16 Budget - Bids & Savings – GF (P16) been
drawn up in conjunction with advice from the Police in terms of their resource
expectations? Labour had liaised with third parties when in opposition. (A) The
budget amendment was Liberal Democrats saying that Labour had got its spending
priorities wrong. The Police need resources to assist the Council.
xviii.
(Q) Would revealing that the Council was prepared
to negotiate on living wage terms and conditions (ie
provide subsidies) weaken its bargaining position? (A) No.
xix.
(Q) Sought clarification regarding Deletion of
proposed cutback in Maternity Fund funding 2015/16 Budget - Bids & Savings – GF (P16). (A) Accept that saving
will be made here if they cannot be found elsewhere, but object to making
savings in the Maternity Fund on principle.
Publication date: 13/07/2015
Date of decision: 13/02/2015