Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

The Budget-Setting Report (BSR) included the detailed revenue bids and savings and capital proposals and sets out the key parameters for the detailed recommendations and budget finalisation being considered at this meeting. The report reflects recommendations that will be made to The Executive on 3 February 2020 and then to Council, for consideration at its meeting on 13 February 2020.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

To recommend the Executive to:

 

i. Approve Revenue Pressures shown in Appendix C (b) and Savings shown in Appendix C (c) of the officer’s report.

 

i.    Approve Non-Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix C (d) of the officer’s report.

 

ii.   Agree there are no bids to be funded from External or Earmarked Funds (which would be included as Appendix C (e) of the officer’s report.

 

iii. Agree any recommendation in respect of the proposals outlined in Appendix D(a) of the officer’s report for inclusion in the Capital Plan including any additional use of revenue resources required.

 

To recommended Council to

 

i.      Approve delegation to the Chief Financial Officer (Head of Finance) of the calculation and determination of the Council Tax taxbase (including submission of the National Non-Domestic Rates Forecast Form, NNDR1, for each financial year) which will be set out in Appendix A (a) of the officer’s report.

ii.    Approve the level of Council Tax for 2020/21 as set out in Appendix A (b) of the officer’s report (to follow for Council) and Section 4 [page 17 refers of the BSR].

 

Note that the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel will meet by 6 February 2020 to consider the precept proposed by the Police and Crime Commissioner, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority will meet on 5 February 2020 and Cambridgeshire County Council will meet on 11 or 14 February 2020 to consider the amounts in precepts to be issued to the City Council for the year 2020/21.

 

iii.   Approve delegation to the Head of Finance to finalise changes relating to any corporate and/or departmental restructuring and any reallocation of support service and central costs, in accordance with the CIPFA Service Reporting Code of Practice for Local Authorities (SeRCOP).

 

iv.  Approve the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix D (c) of the officer’s report, and the Funding as set out in Section 6, page 25 of the BSR.

 

v.    Approve the updated Corporate Plan 2019-2022 attached as Appendix B to the officer’s report.

 

vi.  Note the impact of revenue and capital budget approvals and approved the resulting level of reserves to be used to support the budget proposals as set out in the table in section 8, page 46 of the BSR.

 

vii.  Approve the creation of an earmarked reserves to be called the Transformation Fund and its associated remit on page 19 of the BSR.

 

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, she also referred members to replacement page 92 of the agenda which had been corrected because of errors in the subtotals in the table. 

 

Members of the Executive and Spokes Councillors who did not ordinarily attend the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee joined the Committee for discussion on the budget.

 

Fair Funding review

In response to members’ questions the Head of Finance confirmed:

        i.                  The Council took advice on the fair funding review from a consulting firm called Pixal.  They gave advice on future funding projections. The New Homes Bonus balances and growth from business rates were removed as she expected the baseline to be re-set as part of the funding review.  These figures were only estimates and could be better or worse in the future. 

 

URP4500 Impact of overhead recharge for shared services

In response to members’ questions the Head of Finance and the Chief Executive confirmed:

i.               It was originally intended that shared services would be cost neutral between the councils.  We were now in the situation where considerably more services had been transferred to South Cambridgeshire District Council as lead authority so the neutrality between the councils had not come to pass.  It made more sense to look at marginal costs as there were certain parts of services which could not be reduced even where services were shared.  For example with financial services, both councils would still need to prepare a statement of accounts and the same Government returns, one set could not have been done for both councils.

ii.             Savings had been made to support services in previous years which offset some of this cost for example moving out of Mill Road Depot which had enabled the redevelopment of the site.

 

In response to Member’s questions the Councillor Robertson responded:

i.               As far as he was aware the County Council would be moving on to considering the next batch of residents parking zones.

 

URP4573 Proposal to balance partner contributions to 3C ICT Digital Team

In response to members questions the Strategy Director (FB) confirmed:

i.      When the digital team was set up, specific additional contributions were made by CCC to gain additional resource from the Head of the Team. The additional contributions being made should ensure that the team is resourced and able to meet customer demand. Whilst the demands on the team are increasing, the shared service directors and Intelligent Clients are agreeing prioritised work packages for the team, to ensure fit with resources and efficient progress. South Cambridgeshire District Council would be making a higher financial contribution as the City Council had previously made additional financial contributions.

 

B4663 Selective landlord licensing and II4671 Fees receivable for selective landlord licensing scheme.

In response to members questions Councillor Johnson confirmed:

i.               Increasing numbers of local authorities were introducing a selective landlord licensing scheme.

ii.             A feasibility survey was being undertaken to see whether the scheme was required. 

iii.            It was anticipated that the scheme would apply to the private rented sector particularly in the Romsey and Petersfield wards. 

iv.           Discussions had taken place with Nottingham City Council who had introduced a similar scheme and had a similar demographic to Cambridge. Feedback was that the scheme was successful. He was also aware that similar schemes had been introduced by London authorities.

v.             He did not want to pre-judge any consultation exercise however he had met with tenants who had complained about the standards / suitability of their homes which were private rented homes.  This scheme would enable the council to intervene if private rented accommodation was not being maintained to a suitable standard.

vi.           If following a consultation the evidence suggested a scheme would be viable then a scheme should be considered.  

 

In response to members questions the Strategic Director (SH), Chief Executive and Head of Finance confirmed:

vii.          There needed to be an evidence based (feasibility) exercise to support the introduction of a selective landlord licensing scheme and a consultation exercise would be carried out after this. Depending on the scale of the scheme the council may need to seek approval from the Secretary of State before introducing a scheme.

viii.        It was often the case that provision would be made in the budget for policy led schemes that the administration wanted to introduce but at the time that the budget was being considered exact details/costings were not known.  Once the feasibility survey had been completed there would be due officer diligence carried out to make sure that the scheme was sound.

ix.           For the scheme to be locally approved and adopted, it must not seek to apply designation to more than 20% of the local authority's geographical area (i.e. not more than 20% of the area of the city, many local authorities have adopted schemes only for specific estates in which they have a problem), and it must not affect more than 20% of privately rented homes in the area (some authorities have chosen to license only particular types of home).

x.             This budget item had been included within the s151 officer’s s25 report because there was work still to be done. The two lines of the budget income and expenditure were effectively cancelling each other out and the impact on the budget was very small.

 

CAP4564 Vehicle fleet replacements 2020/2021

In response to members questions Councillor Moore confirmed:

i.               A review of the fleet service was being carried out and the impacts of moving over to an electric fleet would be considered as part of the review. She believed that savings would be made but this may depend where the electric energy came from.

 

B4630 Consultant to lead and implement installation of EV charging in our car parks [linked to CAP4631]

In response to members questions Councillor Moore confirmed:

i.               External consultants were procured to carry out the implementation of the EV charging in car parks so that the project could be progressed as soon as possible.

 

S4544 Dog Warden Service – service review

In response to members questions Councillor Moore confirmed:

i.               Currently there was one member of staff who just focussed on dog warden work and others who focussed on general enforcement, the intention was to upskill the officers so that they could cover all enforcement work. The costs for training would be met from existing training budgets.

 

URP4506 Rebasing of Shared Planning Service expenditure budgets

In response to members questions the Director of Planning and Economic Development confirmed:

i.               A completed shared services agreement had been signed between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. The likely service costs were estimated. The planning service was a net budget but a view was taken based on assumptions. It was difficult to predict development activity in the context of changes to the planning system and the economic buoyancy of the area.

 

B4665 Chalk stream project

In response to members questions Councillor Thornburrow confirmed:

i.               The bid had been put forward by the Ecological Officer.  She had been in contact with various local nature partnerships looking at water resources in the area to consider practical projects to improve chalk streams.  The bid was an ecological proposal that could be run in this area.

 

S4541 Restructure cycling and walking promotion grant in line with demand

In response to members questions Councillor Massey confirmed:

i.               That the Pedestrian and Cycling Steering Group had not met for some time and this was why the service had been looked at.

ii.             The Council had considered a walking event in the city but also wanted to encourage many different sustainable forms of travel.

iii.            It was being considered whether to combine the grants process so that the pedestrian and cycling grants would be included in a single city council grants pot.

 

S4543 Transfer ‘Green Fingers’ domestic gardening service to the Housing Revenue Account

In response to members questions Councillor Johnson confirmed:

i.               The vast majority of people who had taken up the scheme had been council tenants.  It was reasonable to assume that the housing revenue account should fund this to keep the service going for the vast majority of people who were council tenants.

 

B4609 2 seas – nature Smart Cities – partnership project to enhance green infrastructure.

In response to members questions Councillor Thornburrow confirmed:

i.               If every property in Cambridge planted one tree in their garden then Cambridge would increase its tree coverage by 5%.

ii.             Confirmed that the funding had been fully secured from the EU (post Brexit) and that it was part of a programme of working with other partners who had similar programmes.

iii.            The council retained a record of the number of trees which had been removed from the city versus those that had been planted.  Reference to tree coverage was not to the number of trees but to the amount of tree cover.  If young trees were planted then the tree cover may take 10-20 years to develop.

 

S4531 Reduction of non-essential training and overtime budgets within Community Services

In response to members questions Councillor Smith confirmed:

i.               The reduction in training was looking at whether training could be delivered in a different way for example training being delivered in-house rather than using external consultants.

ii.             The reference to reduction in overtime was to try and plan staff resource better so that staff did not unnecessarily work overtime.

 

CAP4571 Replacement structure for pool plantroom at Jesus Green Outdoor Pool

In response to members questions Councillor Smith confirmed:

i.               The Environment and Community Services Committee had agreed the replacement structure for the plant room at Jesus Green outdoor pool as this was essential works which if were not carried out would mean that the outdoor pool would need to be closed.

ii.             Confirmed that if a bat survey was needed before works were undertaken then the council would ensure that a survey was undertaken.

 

RI4504 Bereavement Services projected reduction in income and S4537 Bereavement Services – service review

In response to members questions Councillor Smith confirmed:

i.               The service review was not designed to balance out the bereavement service, officers felt that they could deliver the service better. The loss in income should improve once the A14 was back in operation.

 

In response to members questions Strategic Director (FB) confirmed:

ii.             All teams had a specific training budget so if there were training requirements these should be met from existing budgets.

 

B4618 Celebration of Women 2020

In response to members questions Councillor Smith confirmed:

i.               The reason that this funding was not being aimed at university women was in order promote women in the civic sphere that not many people knew about. For example Clara Rackham who was a campaigner for workers’ rights, and a Councillor and magistrate in Cambridge.

ii.             Confirmed she would work with Councillor Payne to see how residents and ward councillors could be involved with this project.

 

URP4660 Increase in service charge for Grand Arcade car park

In response to members questions the Head of Finance confirmed:

i.               When the budget setting report was completed inflation would be added to the majority of contracts.  Cost centre managers from the car parks department were aware of the issue for future years.

 

RI4505 Reduction in car parking income for all parking revenue

In response to members questions Councillor Massey confirmed:

i.               The only data on footfall the council had was from the Lion Yard.  When the Grand Arcade had the Midsummer Chronophage clock a spike in footfall was noted.

 

B4619 Youth Liaison Officer – supporting partnership work on child criminal exploitation and serious violent crime

In response to members questions the Strategic Director (SH) confirmed:

i.               Discussions were currently taking place regarding external support for funding.

 

Councillor Robertson made the following comments:

i. There was even more uncertainty this year as to funding. The effects of the Fair Funding review were as yet unknown and it was uncertain whether anything would replace the New Homes Bonus, and this was why decisions on investments were being delayed. Income from business rates was an unknown quantity and this had amounted to a substantial figure. Reserves were higher than expected but there were proposals in the budget to spend some of this money.

 

The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 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.