Decision details

i) Recommend to Council to approve carry forward requests for revenue funding from 2022/23 to 2023/24 as detailed in report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing from 2022/23 to 2023/24 as detailed in report appendix.

Matter for Decision

 

This report presents, for all Portfolios:

 

      i.          A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2022/23 (outturn position)

     ii.          Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations

   iii.          Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2023/24.

The outturn report presented reflects the Executive Portfolios for which budgets were originally approved (which may have changed since, for example for any changes in Portfolio responsibilities).

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance & Resources:

 

i.      To carry forward requests totalling £1,391,800 of revenue funding from 2022/23 to 2023/24, as detailed in Appendix C. These are carry forward requests in excess of £50k. Requests up to and including £50k which total £176,070 are approved via delegated authority to the Chief Financial Officer.

ii.     To approve additional budget in 2023/24 of £80k to the Climate Change Fund funded from reserves, as detailed in Paragraphs 3.6 to 3.8 below.

iii.   To approve the allocation of £200k from the General Fund reserve to establish Greater Cambridge Impact (GCI) as detailed in Paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10 below.

iv.   To approve the allocation of £218k in 2023/24 from the General Fund reserve to fund the additional resource required to enable the delivery of key programmes and projects within the Place Group. The allocation required will increase to £267k in 2024/25 and £281k 2025/26 onwards as detailed in Paragraphs 3.11 below.

v.    To carry forward requests of £81,444,000 of capital resources from 2022/23 to 2023/24 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D.

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Chief Finance Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

       i.          General policy was to move business rates growth into reserves. This was because there was always risk in relation to the amount of business rates growth that would be received. This had achieved a high level of reserves and had enabled the Council to look at reserves as a source of capital funding for the Place Group schemes, for example reserves could be used as capital schemes are brought forward for the modernisation and decarbonisation of the Guildhall, Market Square, and other significant projects. This meant that these projects could be carried out without having to borrow to do so.

     ii.          While the Council held high levels of reserves at the moment, they would also be used going forward while going through the Transformation programme. The Council currently has a policy of maintaining £7 million in the General Fund reserve as a prudent minimum balance.

   iii.          The Settlement Funding Assessment was funding from Government which came mainly from Business Rates. That figure was dependant on the allocation of funding from the Government. The expectation is that level will continue until the fair funding review is implemented. We are expecting this to be 2026-2027.

   iv.          Appropriations from earmarked reserves included a variety of items, including grant funding. The final budget was in line with the outturn position, that is as planned. Therefore, the amounts would vary year on year depending on level of grants the Council received and the use of earmarked reserves.

    v.          It had been difficult to get take up of Sustainable Warmth Grants. There had also been a lack of available contractors. There was a possibility that the grant money would need to be repaid to the Government for what was remaining in due course. There were Officers working in this area in hopes of minimising that.

   vi.          A detailed report would need to be written reporting on how agile the Council had been regarding the Sustainable Warmth Grant. That report would need to be written by a different department, and likely go to a different committee, most likely Housing Scrutiny Committee.

 vii.          Regarding variances in the budget, this was reviewed monthly. There was a quarterly report produced covering both revenue and capital. This report was presented to the Executive, the Leadership Team, and the Senior Management Team.

viii.          Regarding budgets, when the budget was set at the beginning of the year Officers avoided tweaking it too often because it then became difficult to understand the forces that were impacting the budget. Budgets were adjusted at budget setting time based on proposals put forward.

The Leader of the Council said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

      i.          When quarterly budgets were reported they were reviewed by the Executive who would raise any issues they may have at that time.

     ii.          If there was to be interrogation over each individual item in the budget, when reviewing the budget setting process this was something that could be considered. The Leader stated he would speak to the Chief Executive about this after the meeting.

The Chief Executive said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

      i.          Regarding Sustainable Warmth Grants, the Council had been in contact with BEIS about how the scheme was set up and eligibility, this had proved to be a barrier.  Ministers had responded and extended these schemes. This scheme is managed by Cambridge City Council for all of Cambridgeshire. BEIS had extended the timeline in which the money could be used. This was now being focused on by Officers. There was a better supply chain in place, and it was being advertised better. It was important that the money was spent.

The Director of City Services said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

      i.          Bereavement services had reduced income due to increased competition in the market and the local area. However, the service was still making a profit. There was currently work being done to see what the future of the service would be.

     ii.          Regarding the new City Services directorate, would be looking into garage and crematorium services.

Committee Manager Note: Regarding Warm Home Grants

 

The rephasing of the grant fund is not for the full amount, but only applies to a much lower amount of the funding that has already been committed to jobs.

 

For clarity, all funding was due to be spent by March 2023. However DESNZ granted a “managed closure” extension which allowed us to carry over funding for jobs already in the pipeline, and where these jobs could be completed on site by end of April 2023 for off gas properties and end of September 2023 for on gas. The total spend and number of properties in this managed closure has already been signed off by DESNZ. We can not use this rephasing of the budget to bring in new jobs, only complete those in the pipleline. Therefore our focus for this funding is to work with the contractors to get these final properties completed by the deadlines agreed.

 

Any new leads and engagement activity is being fed into alternative and new funding streams (i.e. ECO and HUG Phase 2)

 

We have already retuned the majority of the identified underspend, and should currently just hold the equivalent of the estimated value of work to cover the manage closure (+20%). However I am not sure if this is return already made is reflected in the reports. Karen and Joanna Taylor were looking into it.

 

On this basis there is no scope to spend more of this particular funding, apart from ensuring all jobs in the pipeline are completed on time which we are managing on a daily basis.

 

Provided by Justin Smith, Environmental Projects Team Leader after the conclusion of the meeting.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed 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.