Issue - meetings

Appendix I(ii) to the report contains exempt information during which the public is likely to be excluded from the meeting subject to determination by the Scrutiny Committee following consideration of a public interest test. This exclusion would be made under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Matter for Decision

The Committee were present with the Budget Setting Report (BSR) been set out in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy approved by Full Council in October 2024.

 

Members were informed of the following typographical error in the report (p50) in that the target level and minimal level of HRA (Housing Revenue Account) resources were the wrong way round which would be corrected for the meeting of Full Council on 24 February.

 

The minimal level for HRA reserves should state £6.161milion and the target level of £7.393 million.

 

A summary of changes had also been published as a supplement on the committee agenda pages of the Council’s website.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources (noting the summary of changes) to refer the recommendations to the Executive:

 

General Fund Revenue Budgets:

a) Recommend to Council for approval the revenue pressures and bids shown in Appendix D(a) and the revenue savings and increased income shown in Appendix D(b).

b) Recommend that Council confirms delegation to the Chief Finance Officer of the calculation and determination of the council tax taxbase which is set out at Appendix A(a).

c) Recommend that Council approves the increase to the city council share of council tax for 2025/26 at 2.99%, and the updated council tax levels as set out on page 17 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

Note that the council’s preceptors (Cambridgeshire Police & Crime Commissioner, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority, Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority) will meet to confirm their precepts on or before 13 February 2025, following which the formal council tax calculation will be carried out for approval by Council.

d) Recommend that Council delegates authority to the Chief Finance Officer to reallocate budgets between services in relation to 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).

 

General Fund Capital Plan:

e) Recommend that Council approves the capital proposals set out at Appendix E(a), the revised capital plan set out at Appendix E(c), and the revised capital funding approach set out on page 28 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

f) Recommend that Council approves the Capital Strategy 2025/26 attached at Appendix H.

 

General Fund Reserves:

g) Recommend that Council note the impact of budget proposals upon General Fund unallocated reserves, as set out on page 34 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

h) Recommend that Council note the key risks to the council’s financial sustainability highlighted in the table on pages 30-31 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

i) Recommend that Council approve in principle a contribution to the Civic Quarter Development Reserve equivalent to the net underspend against budget for the 2024/25 financial year (currently forecast at £4.0 million).

j) Recommend that Council approve the transfers to earmarked reserves totalling £6.602 million in 2025/26 as set out on pages 32-33 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

Section 25 Report:

k) Recommend that Council note the Chief Finance Officer’s Section 25 Report, covering the robustness of estimates and adequacy of reserves, included at section 7 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

 

Treasury Management Strategy:

l) Recommend that Council approves the Treasury Management Strategy 2025/26 attached at Appendix G, including the prudential and treasury management indicators set out at Annexe C.

m) Recommends that Council approves a change to the maturity structure prudential indicator, such that all new borrowing will have a maturity of at least 5 years (rather than the previous 10 years), as explained at paragraph 3.8 of Appendix G.

 

Other:

n) Recommend that Full Council reconfirm that the incomes below will be disregarded (if above the £10 statutory disregard) when calculating entitlement to housing benefit and/or council tax reduction. These schemes are often called local or modified schemes:

·      War disablement pension

·      War widow, widower or surviving civil partner pension

·      Armed Forces Independence Payment

Note that the estimated cost to the council for payments of housing benefit made under the local scheme is £1,777.50 and for council tax reduction less than £50.

o) Recommend that Council note the Equality Impact Assessment in Appendix F covering all General Fund budget proposals.

p) Recommend that Council note the schedule of proposed fees and charges for 2025/26 in Appendix I(i) and Confidential Appendix I(ii)

 

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 Chief Financial Officer.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Chief Financial Officer, the Executive Councillor for City Services, Executive Councillor for Climate for Action and Environment, Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources and Chief Operating Officer, Director for Communities and Director of City Services said the following:

      i.         The Pinder Service would remain employed by the Council.

    ii.         The assumptions around the proposed Civic Quarter should it be approved by Full Council had assumed that some level of borrowing will be needed to part finance that project. The additional interest income of £3million (p32) was likely to be a one-off wind fall from interest rates remaining higher for longer than were anticipated. It was considered a good use of funds earned through the treasury management towards capital financing which would reduce the amount of borrowing on this project.

   iii.         Past practice had determined that where there had been surplus from CIP (Cambridge Investment Partnership) (p39) this would be earmarked against future capital projects to reduce the need to borrow for future finance capital expenditure.

  iv.         CIP was a 50/50 joint venture, if there was any surplus from completed development projects, 50% would come back to the Council which would be reinvested into new capital projects.

    v.         Given the size and variety of the Council’s property portfolio (both operational and commercial) there was a high inherent risk associated with the potential need to undertake unforeseen repairs (p41). Mitigations were in place around the council’s property such as the use of property conditions surveys.

  vi.         There was uncertainty in finding the remaining savings to total £11million under staff restructuring as no detailed plan had yet been determined on how that target would be reached, but this was a phased approach. The first phase was a target of £6million in the first two years, finding £4.9million of savings in the first year had demonstrated significant progress.

 vii.         There were other ways of thinking that were being considered to meet the £11million target over the next few years; the redevelopment of the Civic Quarter should deliver lasting revenue savings.

viii.         Further work would be undertaken to look at how the capital programme would be financed, such as, if capital finance was being used in the most effective way. More detailed work on the expenditure plan and what could be removed or streamlined to meet the £11millon savings target would also be looked at.

  ix.         The medium plan budgets were produced on a five-year rolling period, and it was important to determine that the Council had sufficient reserves in that five-year period which believed that it did. There was a budget gap to close over that period and this was an ongoing process each year over the medium term.

    x.         Welcomed the suggestion that the Council could publicise green funerals more which could potentially increase the cremation income (RI5299) under appendix D(a), p71,

  xi.         The garage income (RI5300) under appendix D(a), p71, related to the garage vehicle fixing facility at Waterbeach, not those in the city and there was no reported antisocial behaviour related to that site.

 xii.         At the January meeting of the full Licensing Committee the matter of garages to carry out taxi testing for a licence and during the life of the licence was reviewed.  Only two garages in the city had expressed an interest in providing testing facilities, one of these garages would not be able to test Tesler vehicles, so testing would be limited. Therefore, testing would continue at Waterbeach, but the Council’s new operational hub would be open soon on Cowley Road which may be a future option.

xiii.         The combined total savings of £1.7 under staff restructuring, communities (S5251), city services (S5252), corporate hub (S5254) were related to changes in the staffing structure, not to changes in services. In each case, work had been undertaken to look at how the services could be delivered more efficiently by looking at staff restructuring. 

xiv.         Noted the comment that the way the savings had been presented under staff restructuring (S5251, S5252, S5254) were almost impossible for scrutiny but did not agree.

xv.         Noted the comment regarding the reduction in Public Realm Enforcement Team over a three year period.  The Public Realm Enforcement Team had been down resource for a long period of time; as part of the management of resources, had looked to take out vacancies to limit the impact.

xvi.         To determine how the service could be delivered more efficiently it was recommended to bring the Public Realm Enforcement Team more closely aligned with other services, such Environmental Health (with broader skills and experience), and Community Safety, who together could deliver a wider range of work on issues such as  anti-social behaviour, without having a detrimental impact on residents.

xvii.         Would confirm the day-to-day operations including the public realm enforcement patrols outside of the meeting, until implementation had been finalised the question was difficult to answer.

xviii.         The Streets and Open Spaces consultation aimed to create new roles in the service, remove outdated posts and consolidate other position, all for greater efficiency and changing how the service would be delivered. This would be more data driven which would improve service delivery to measure performance, all of which supported the streamlining process and tightened budgetary control by using technology for greater efficiency.

xix.         There would also be a cultural shift towards greater collaboration, empowering staff who would become involved in the decision making.

xx.         Streets and Open Spaces Teams would be integrated into local neighbourhoods to better serve the residents and tenants.

xxi.         The 20% reduction for the Streets and Open Spaces Team would occur because of long-term vacant posts and improved services. This would be a mixture of office and front-line staff; the majority would be front line staff. 

xxii.         An example of data driven working was the ongoing bin sensor project, this measured which bins required emptying and when. Initial data suggested a 30% efficiency by re-profiling the staff rounds. The audit for street cleansing would also be data driven to work more efficiently.

xxiii.         The Council were committed to providing high quality public toilets in the right locations across the city and be responsive to the public needs.

xxiv.         Confirmed the public toilets (S5257) at Romsey recreation ground and Cherry Hinton high street would remain open, not closed as indicated in the BSR Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA).

xxv.         The Grand Arcade shop mobility toilet would remain open, and refurbishment would be considered. This no longer met the parameter as a Changing Place toilet but was still useful for the public. There were four Changing Place toilets across the city. 

xxvi.         Public toilets that were proposed to be closed were Gonville Place, Victoria Avenue and Quayside  p75) due to the reduced usage and the need to make savings. The BSR EqIA would be changed to highlight these closures when presented at the meeting of Full Council.

xxvii.         There was provision in Section 106 (S106) to bring forward investment in multi-use facilities for Jesus Green and the Lido, as part of public toilets provision. A feasibility options study would be brought forward to integrate work with the Lido. The capital allocation would be identified, once the cost had been finalised.

xxviii.         Community toilets were facilities provided by local businesses who had agreed to open them to the public.

xxix.         Noted the request for more signage to help people access public convivences faster and would speak to the relevant officers on this matter,  but this information could be found via certain apps.

xxx.         There were two elements to the swimming charges (II5284), on for residents and a higher charge for non-city residents.

xxxi.         Swimming charges had not increased each year with inflation but due to the increase in running costs, to keep the swimming pools open, there had been no other choice but to raise the entry cost. Concessions still applied, for some groups it meant a reduction in price, while there would be a higher charge for others.

xxxii.         Would have to supply the income figures for Bereavement Services and the Garage in relation to the cost of supplying those services outside of the meeting. 

xxxiii.         Would describe the income from the Garage as an added benefit; the Garage was responsible for the servicing maintenance and breakdown of the Council’s fleet, the Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Services vehicles and for other surrounding local authorities and businesses.

xxxiv.         Whilst there was a reduction in income from the Crematorium, there was still a surplus.

xxxv.         As part of the transformation restructuring, officers would be undertaking work to look at the future of the Crematorium and the Garage.

xxxvi.         Under statute, the Council before the start of each financial year was required to estimate the level of business rates that would be collected in the following year. This was the basis on which the Council would withdraw money from the collection fund to fund services. If there was a difference between the amount that had been estimated prior to the year beginning and what was collected, this could create a surplus or a deficit, which would be distributed the following year between the Council and those authorities / organisations collecting the precept.

xxxvii.         The reason for the large deficit for the business rates this year was that the Council within the collection fund as whole had over £10millon in adjustments to the previous year business rates appeal settled by the Valuation Office.

xxxviii.         Further research would be undertaken on how the car parks operated including car parking charges for street parking

  

The Committee voted 5 to 1 with 2 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