Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
86 Housing Revenue Account Mid-Year Financial Review PDF 795 KB
Minutes:
Recommendation 2A was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair / Tenant
Representative) and recommendation 2B and 2C were chaired by Councillor
Todd-Jones
Matter for
Decision
The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget Setting Report,
considered and approved in January / February of each year was the long-term
strategic planning document for housing landlord services provided by Cambridge
City Council.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved the Housing Revenue Account
Mid-Year Financial Review, to include all proposals for change in:
·
Financial assumptions as detailed in
Appendix C of the document.
·
2015/16 and 2016/17 revenue budgets as
introduced in Section 5, resulting from changes in financial assumptions and
the financial consequences of change, as introduced in Section 5, detailed in
Appendix E (1) of the document and summarised in Appendix H.
·
2016/17 base revenue budgets, to
incorporate the savings recommendations arising for the Fundamental Review of
the Housing Service, as introduced in Section 5, detailed in Appendix E (2), of
the document, and summarised in Appendix H.
·
Rent Setting Policy, to allow for the
movement of all void properties directly to target rent, as outlined in Section
4 of the document.
Agreed to recommend that
Council:
ii.
Approves proposals for changes in
existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and
detailed in Appendix F(1) of the document, with the resulting position
summarised in Appendix I, for decision at Council on 22nd October
2015.
iii.
Approves proposals for changes in
housing capital investment resulting from the Fundamental Review of the Housing
Service, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix F(2) of the
document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix I, for decision at
Council on 22nd October 2015.
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 Business Manager & Principal Accountant. She confirmed
that long-term debts were staggered and were on differing rates. Refinancing
them now would not achieve any savings. The HRA carried reserves of £3,000,000
as Council properties were not insured and engaging in a building programme
could throw up unexpected costs.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Moving from planned maintenance to responsive
repairs might produce initial savings but would be more expensive in the longer
term.
ii.
The service achieved a high level of resident
involvement at the decision level but is less effective at an estate level.
Could funding for this service be protected? When cuts are happening, resident
involvement becomes even more important.
iii.
Suggested that the under
occupancy scheme should focus on people who were impacted by the spare room
subsidy rent increase.
iv.
Concerns were expressed
about the possible loss of the City Homes South office.
In response to Members’ questions the Director of Customer and Community
Services stated:
i.
There was not a shift from planned maintenance to
responsive repairs and efficiency saving had been under review for some time.
ii.
The proposals recognised the need for resident
involvement.
iii.
The under occupancy scheme was being brought back
to the base line of twelve months ago.
The Committee further discussed the position
of resident involvement. Officers confirmed that this service had carried an
underspend for a number of years. This dated back to the closure of the Tenant
Federation.
The Director of Customer and Community Services stated that it was
important to make decision now in order to achieve the significant saving that
were needed.
The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 with 8 abstentions to endorse the
recommendation 2A (i).
The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions to endorse the
recommendation 2B and 2C (ii and iii).
The Executive Councillor approved
the recommendations.