Issue - meetings

Report to follow

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.