Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Leader of the Council
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: No
To approve Revenue and Capital Budgets 2012/13 (Revised), 2013/14 and 2014/15 (Forecast).
Matter for Decision:
The
report set out the overall base revenue and capital budget position for the
Strategy Portfolio. The report compares the proposed 2012/13 Revised Budget
to the budget as at September 2012 and details the budget proposals for 2013/14
and 2014/15.
Decision of the Leader:
The Leader resolved
to:
Review of Charges:
a) Note
that there is no proposed review of charges requiring approval for Strategy
& Climate Change Portfolio services.
Revenue
Budgets:
b)
Approve, with any amendments, the current year funding requests and savings,
(shown in Appendix A of the officer’s report) and the resulting revised revenue
budgets for 2012/13 (shown in section 3, Table 1 of the officer’s report) for
submission to the Executive.
c) Agree
proposals for revenue savings and unavoidable bids, as set out in Appendix C of
the officer’s report.
d) Agree
proposals for bids from external or existing funding, as set out in Appendix D
of the officer’s report, if applicable.
e) Agree
proposals for Priority Policy Fund (PPF) bids, as set out in the amended
Appendix E as circulated.
f)
Approve the budget proposals for 2013/14 as shown in Table 2 of the officer’s
report, for submission to the Executive.
Capital:
g)
Approve capital bids, as identified in Appendix H of the officer’s report, for
submission to the Executive for inclusion in the Capital & Revenue Projects
Plan or addition to the Hold List, as indicated.
h)
Confirm that there are no items covered by this portfolio to add to the
Council’s Hold List, for submission to the Executive.
i)
Approve the current Capital & Revenue Projects Plan, as detailed in
Appendix J of the officer’s report, to be updated for any amendments detailed
in (g) and (h) above.
j) Note
that there are no project appraisals requiring approval for Strategy Portfolio
services.
Reasons
for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report
Any alternative options considered and
rejected: As set out in the
officer’s report
Scrutiny Considerations:
The committee received a report from Director of Resources, which
included the amended Appendix E (Priority Policy Fund (PPF) bids) as
circulated.
In response to member’s questions the Chief Executive confirmed the
following:
i.
£80,000 had been allocated in the budget for maternity costs (RB3157) and
this was based on staff currently on maternity leave. However spending against
this provision, by its nature, was very difficult to estimate.
ii.
The Project Facilitation Fund (RB3236) was originally set up to help
facilitate the delivery of capital schemes. After speaking further with
departments it has now become clear that the full allocation of funding would
not be required and a reduction had therefore been identified.
iii.
The costs associated with the Living Wage (PPF3208) did not include
contract-related costs, as these would have to be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
In response to member’s questions the Leader and the Chief Executive
confirmed the following:
i.
Business Improvement Districts (BID’s) had not been set up to allow local
authorities to reduce their own services and therefore save money. Whilst the
City Council may benefit from additional improvements in things such as the
street cleaning, the Council’s core level of service could not be reduced, as
this would be unlawful.
ii.
As part of the BID the City Council had committed to a core level of
funding for street cleaning and would bid to undertake additional work for the
BID. Whilst this may allow the service to be managed differently and free up
efficiencies elsewhere, this level of funding could not be reduced.
To emphasise this point the Director of Environment read out the relevant
part of the BID regulations.
In response members made the following points:
i.
Emphasised that by improving the city centre the City Council would then
potentially benefit from improved business rates.
ii.
A successful BID could result in there be less irrecoverable debt to
write off.
The Scrutiny
Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations by 4 votes to 0.
The Leader approved
the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):
Not applicable.
Publication date: 14/02/2013
Date of decision: 21/01/2013