Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

The report presented a summary of the 2018/19 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for all portfolios, compared to the final budget for the year.  The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets were highlighted.  Explanations had been reported to individual Executive Councillors / Scrutiny Committees and were reproduced here.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

i) Recommended to Council to carry forward requests totalling £923,000k revenue funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20, as detailed in Appendix C of the officers report.

 

ii) Recommended to Council to carry forward requests of £14,539k capital resources from 2018/19 to 2019/20 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the officers report

 

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 Head of Finance. The Officer updated her report:

i.             Referred to p225 of the agenda and stated that the Mill Road cemetery access and main footpath rephasing should show a carry forward of £20,000 which had been omitted. 

ii.            Referred to p194 of the agenda and the carry forward request contained in recommendation 2.b, this should read: Carry forward requests of £14,539k £14,519k capital resources from 2018/19 to 2019/20 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the officers report.

iii.           Referred to p195 of the agenda and the variance and increased use of General fund Reserves figure, this should read £1214k and not £1956k.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Queried the Bereavement Service’s loss in income and what the service’s future plans were.

    ii.        Commented that green burial sites were getting more popular and perhaps the council should look into this.

   iii.        Referred to Appendix D to the report and the number of significant carry forwards on capital, this year it was £14 million and last year it was £10 million. Queried whether there was an issue on project delivery and whether the growing backlog meant there was no capacity to deliver projects.

  iv.        Referred to p223 of the agenda and the vehicle replacement programme.

 

The Head of Finance said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        Work on the A14 had led to a decline in demand for the crematorium service. This should recover when the road re-opened. The City Council expected some compensation from Highways England.

    ii.        Income levels may not recover fully to pre-A14 work levels due to competition from another crematorium in the area.

   iii.        The City Council Crematorium should benefit from A14 road works in the long term as it would be in a better location.

  iv.        With regards to the query about rephasing, items are rephrased for a number of reasons, including those outside the control of the council. There were relatively few underspends which were released back into revenue.

   v.        Treasury Management Capital loans were those due to be given to Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) and a local bond to Allia, this was where large rephasing on financial transactions had taken place.

  vi.        The Head of Commercial Services was undertaking a review of the Council’s fleet vehicles.

 

The Chief Executive commented that the Bereavement Service was looking at income generating options, for example potential investment in a café at the crematorium. The service would also look at developing their marketing practices and relationships that they had with funeral directors. 

 

The Executive Councillor commented that most of the capital carry forwards were loans and bonds associated with the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) and Allia.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved 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.