Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: This a virtual meeting
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: No apologies were received. |
||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2020 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
||||||||||
Public Questions Minutes: A member of the public put forward the
following statement as set out below.
i.
Wanted to highlight the
deletion of the named dog warden post referred to in agenda item 12, service
variations.
ii.
Aware
that it was part of the initial savings put forward by the Environment and
Community Scrutiny Committee before lockdown but wanted to ask about the
rationale behind this saving.
iii.
Wished to highlight the impact on an important and effective service
provided by the Council which reflected the feelings of the local
community. iv.
The current post provided a
responsive personal service which treated each issue on an individual basis;
this was not a one size fits all service.
v.
Enforcement was not the only
option the post required understanding, specialist knowledge and education. vi.
Had witnessed locally the
work of the named dog warden post; a local resident having taken advice from
the dog warden improved their care of the dog, equally taking care of
themselves and began sharing their issues and needs with members of their local
community. Enforcement would not have achieved such positive results. vii.
The saving proposed does not
recognise the benefit of the service to those who use and pay for this service
locally, plus the work that has been done with those in the homeless community.
viii.
All the individuals that had
been informed of this deletion in the local community did not support these
proposals. ix.
Queried if the free
microchipping would still be offered; a valuable service to those on low
incomes.
x.
The service in its current
form won an award in 2019, offering a corporate delivery would lose the
specialism of an individual post. The Executive Councillor
for Finance and Resource said the following:
i.
The
proposal for this saving had been agreed at the beginning of the year; the
review had been delayed for six months but was now underway.
ii.
The
enforcement team would share the dog warden responsibilities and would be given
the necessary training.
iii.
This
should mean an increase in the availability of officers who could deal with dog
duties when and where this was needed. The Chief Executive
advised there was a benefit for several teams across the council not to rely on
one single specialist but to spread the skills across a range of people. This
provided flexibility and resilience to the service. The following
supplementary points were point forward:
i.
Understood
the need to build resilience but would lose the expertise of a specialist.
ii.
Believed
that enforcement officers undertook numerous tasks and adding dog services to
that list would not allow an in-depth knowledge and service in that area; just
covered the basic responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
iii.
The
current post worked consistently well covering a diverse range of issues
throughout the city and offered an expert service to all residents. |
||||||||||
Combined Authority Update PDF 214 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report provided
an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined
Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February 2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources
Scrutiny Committee. Decision of
Executive Councillor for Strategy and External
Partnerships Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority
held on 25 March, 29 April and 3 June 2020. 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 Executive presented by the Executive Councillor
for Strategy and External Partnerships. Matter for
Decision The report provided
an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined
Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February 2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources
Scrutiny Committee. Decision of
Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority
held on 25 March, 29 April and 3 June 2020. 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 Executive presented by the Executive
Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships. The Committee made
the following comments in response to the report: i.
Agreed
the Mayor’s approach to the transport projects in relation to the Greater
Cambridge Partnership (GCP) was not positive for public accountability or
public understanding of the issues that were involved which was regrettable. ii.
The GCP
had just completed their first five years of project delivery and had recently
been awarded the next tranche of government funding, therefore the GCP clearly
the right organisation to undertake the transport project work. iii.
Asked if
the capital grants scheme had been widely advertised and if the criteria to
apply for a grant was clear. It was vital there was transparency to show where
and how public money had been allocated, particularly as funds were being
dispersed into the private sector. iv.
Questioned
if the Mayor understood the need for affordable housing in Cambridge, any
delivery was welcome. v.
Highlighted
an article in the local press regarding affordable housing being delivered by
the Combined Authority Mayor. It also referenced that he had negotiated £100
million as part of the devolution deal. The council had also taken part in the
negotiations and believed a proportion of funding had been allocated to the
city for affordable housing. Questioned how the income stream was allocated. vi.
A recent
Savills report highlighted the lack of affordable housing in the city; the
median house price to median income ratio was 13 times the average income,
compared with the national average of 7.8. vii.
Queried
the £40million rolling fund the Combined Authority had, which the same
newspaper article referred to. viii.
Asked
how the Mayor decided what the funding criteria was for strategic projects as
this did not appear to be clear.
Provided the example of Lancaster Way Roundabout on the outskirts of Ely
and noted there were projects that required more urgent works. ix.
Queried
the Mayor’s declarations of interests at meetings at they did not seem to be
consistent. x.
Requested
an update on the CAM metro policy. xi.
Asked
for an update on Alconbury Weald as had read the lease was being surrendered. The Executive
Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships and the Strategic Director
said the following in response to Members’ questions: i.
Understood
there had been a widespread publicity campaign regarding the grant scheme for
the first round. Comments made by the committee overlapped the concern expressed
outside of the committee regarding the governance of the business board. It was
important for the board to remain accountable and to report on their
spending. ii.
Having
reviewed the grant applications these had been submitted by a diverse selection
of businesses. iii.
The
grants awarded were to those organisations who needed the funding to protect
jobs. iv.
The
capital grant funding had been linked to the previous growth hub funding in
terms of innovation specifically linked to COVID-19, shared by the economic
sub-groups and had been promoted very strongly. v.
Acknowledged
the hard work and support that had been undertaken and given during the
COVID-19 pandemic by the Combined Authority. vi.
With
regards to the CAM metro it did feel that the Mayor was trying to create
‘banana skins’. The Mayor’s recent actions and comments were not compatible
with the Local Transport Plan agreed at the GCP January meeting. vii.
Suggested
the Mayor could be invited to a future meeting of the Strategy and Resources
Committee. viii.
The
Alconbury Weald lease was expensive and unnecessary, the Mayor proposed to
relocate but no future strategy had been provided where this would be. ix.
The
revolving fund of up to £40million could be used for projects which would
achieve an outcome and bring a return. x.
£10million of the revolving fund had been
allocated to a development on Histon Road on the former squash club site, four
of the nine units would be affordable homes (£100,000 homes). Up to one
thousand people had registered an interest in this scheme. xi.
Believed
that more could be achieved with the revolving fund. xii.
Questioned
the allocation of funding of projects and if the best outcome had been
achieved; would suggest working with the committee to look in detail at the
work going forward. xiii.
Suggested
that members read the annual finance report to look at the money spent and what
had been delivered. The Committee resolved
unanimously to note the report. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
||||||||||
Cambridge City Council Outline Coronavirus Recovery Plan PDF 459 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report provided
a brief summary of the actions taken by Cambridge City Council in response to
the Coronavirus emergency in the Spring of 2020, and set out the key areas of
activity and emerging issues that the Council was working on as it developed
its recovery plan. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships i.
Noted the
Council’s response to the Coronavirus emergency. ii.
Agreed the priorities for recovery. 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 Executive that outlined
the council’s rapid responses to the crisis, which
had continued to evolve in the subsequent weeks and months since the City
Council put its business continuity arrangements and pandemic plan into
operation in March 2020. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Reiterated the comments of the Chief Executive at
how hard the staff had worked during this period and what had been achieved.
ii.
Asked if the council had begun the furlough scheme
early enough.
iii.
Noted it was difficult for some staff working at
home such as poor internet connection, lack of space and not being able to work
in an environment that was removed from ‘life at home’. iv.
Believed working from home could result in an
unequal work / life balance with staff working more hours; there were no
boundaries away from work.
v.
Queried what help was being given to staff who were
finding it difficult to work from home. vi.
Virtual meetings suited some members of the council
but not all; some felt that they did not offer a quick resolution of issues and
could be tiring for those members who attended on a frequent basis. vii.
Questioned what tools the council had to encourage
and work with businesses to continue to employ furloughed staff as Government
funding ended as stated in the officers’ report. viii.
Asked how the council would
sustain the appropriate support and care packages for those rough sleepers who
had moved into emergency accommodation. ix.
Requested feedback on the city centre reopening
since lock down, particularly when public houses, restaurants and cafes opened
the previous weekend.
x.
Asked if there was a local lock down plan. xi.
Queried where the level of business support grants
sat in comparison to other local authorities.
xii.
Cambridge Sustainable Food spending had increased
due to COVID-19. The organisation was quickly spending their council grant to
meet demand. Questioned if it was possible for the council to increase their
funding due to the exceptional circumstances. xiii.
Enquired if steps had been taken to encourage staff
to take leave or was there an option to wait until travel was permitted. xiv.
Queried what could be done to encourage the wearing
of face masks when shopping and in public places. Although not compulsory it
should be supported. The Chief Executive and Strategic Director said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
At the beginning of the furlough scheme the council
had been advised it was not appropriate for local authorities to apply, this
advice quickly changed. At the start, there were service areas where staff
still had work to do, such as Estate and Facilities working on void properties
or staff under Cambridge Live who were dealing with immediate issues such
cancelling shows. They were subsequently furloughed when that work ran out
ii.
The Council began to enquire about the furlough
scheme on 20 April and applications were backdated to 16 March.
iii.
Agreed that working from home did not suit
everyone. Arrangements had been made for staff who required additional
equipment to be delivered. Preparations
were made for staff to work at Mandela House who needed to do so or were
finding working from home a challenge. iv.
Moving forward, the Council would facilitate staff
to work from home as much as possible but recognised it will not be right for
everyone.
v.
Work / life balance was a challenge for some staff
before COVID-19; working in a virtual environment was intense and staff were
encouraged to take regular breaks, physical activity advice, mental health
advice and the counselling service was
regularly shared with staff. vi.
Senior Management enforced the message that working
from home did not mean you were permanently on call and boundaries needed to be
set. vii.
Recognised it was also hard for Members to work
virtually and there would be a time when meetings would take place in the
committee rooms or council chamber but could not say when that would be.
However, there would be an opportunity to continue some meetings and briefings
virtually. viii.
It was an aspiration of the council to work with
businesses to continue to employ furloughed staff as Government funding ended.
Currently the tools available were the council grants available, the council
was also the landlord of commercial tenants and ran the market ix.
Moving forward the council would work with the
Combined Authority and other agencies who had funding available to look at how
businesses could be supported.
x.
The council would continue to support the homeless
and rough sleepers, it was not just about supplying bricks and mortar, but the
right services and support would be given working with various agencies while
looking at individual’s needs. xi.
Following the opening of public houses and
restaurants on 4 July, the Police had acknowledged the hard work of the
Environmental Health Team who had worked closely with licensees to ensure the
correct safeguarding procedures were in place.
Not all the public houses had opened; there would be challenges moving
forward but the Environmental Health Team would continue to work with the
licensees and other external agencies. xii.
The weekend before the meeting, there had been
challenges enforcing social distancing in the parks and open spaces, such as
Midsummer Common and the Police approach had been one of education. xiii.
The council had been involved in developing a local
lock down plan for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough should this be required xiv.
Officers were currently working on specific
arrangements for Cambridge, ensuring the right environmental health response
would be communicated, how to mobilise community groups efficiently and
effectively, and how to support those in quarantine. xv.
At a meeting with the Director of Public Health,
the Chief Executive and Head of Community Services had suggested training for
community leaders such as faith groups and councillors, looking at the different
languages required to spread preventative communication and public health
messages throughout the city. xvi.
Over the last three months the council had awarded
1400 businesses support grants of £21,500,000 funded by central government and
provided rate relief for a year. xvii.
Discretionary grants were available to those
business who did not meet the criteria for the business support grants. Since
these grants became available (three weeks ago) £500,000 had been paid out to
140 business, charities and not for profit organisations. xviii.
Funding had been allocated from central government
based on the business rate relief list, therefore the allocation of funds was
different for each local authority. xix.
Could not answer the question regarding funding for
Cambridge Sustainable Food but would make enquires and respond outside of the
meeting. xx.
Staff were encouraged to take leave by their line
managers. The Chief Executive had reminded staff on the importance of taking
leave during this lockdown period; she had reinforced this mentioning her own
annual leave at the beginning of June in her regular communication to all
staff. xxi.
A certain number of holiday days had been permitted
to be carried over to next year which would help staff and spread the holidays.
xxii.
The council had provided advice about wearing masks
but was not enforcing this as the government had not yet made this compulsory.
This was in line with the current public health messages. Face masks had been
purchased for staff. The Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships spoke of the financial impact Covid-19 had placed on the
council and how some of the issues would be addressed at the next meeting of
full council. He also acknowledged the
phenomenal effort of the council’s response to the pandemic lead by the Chief
Executive and the senior management team and the effect this had had on all
council services. The Committee resolved by 5 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. |
||||||||||
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report
summarised the performance for the 3Cs ICT, Legal Shared Services
and the Greater Cambridge Shared Internal Audit Service during 2019/20. Decision of
Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Noted the content of the
annual reports. ii. Noted the
requirement for renewal of the 3Cs services partnership agreement the principle
variations planned iii. Delegated
authority to the Chief Executive and Strategic Director to finalise and agree
the renewed partnership agreement by September 2020, in consultation with
Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes. 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 Strategic Director. The Committee made
the following comments in response to the report:
i. Asked if consideration had been given to
greater shared scrutiny between the authorities, such as meeting virtually.
There had been recently been a couple of ICT outages and suggested it could
have been resolved more efficiently if all stake holders had been involved.
ii. Enquired why the city council’s consumption
of legal services was higher than South Cambridgeshire District Council and
Huntingdonshire District Council. The Strategic
Director said the following in response to Members’ questions: i.
There had been a previous proposal for a
shared scrutiny committee. However, there were complications for agreeing the
overall decision-making process in line with each authorities’ constitution and
the number of member allocations. Therefore, it had been decided not to pursue
this further. ii.
The level and complexity of the services
delivered by the city council was currently greater than the other two local
authorities therefore more advice and support was required from legal services
when dealing with issues such as commercial portfolios. The Executive
Councillor for Finance and Resources made the following comments: i.
Echoed
the technical difficulties that had occurred when investigating a greater
scrutiny committee; the executive councillor and scrutiny model used by the
City Council was not compatible with the other local authorities. ii.
Officers
across the local authorities had regular debate and communication on the
business plans and services. This worked well and there was no need to change. 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. |
||||||||||
Cambridge City Council Apprenticeship Strategy 2020 PDF 222 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report proposed a new
revised Cambridge City Council ‘Apprenticeship Strategy 2020’ to replace the
existing Apprenticeship Strategy approved at the Strategy and Resources
Scrutiny Committee in March 2017. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources i.
Approved the proposed measures for a revised
Cambridge City Council Apprenticeship Strategy 2020. ii.
Agreed to consider a new provision for the
transference of up to 10% p.a. to local SMEs, charitable and not for profit
organisations as a pilot during 2020/21. This could be achieved by either working
directly with external organisations or through the exiting schemes such as the
Cambridge & Peterborough’s Apprenticeship Levy Pooling Service which
supports local business to take on apprentices. 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 Organisational Development Manager. The Committee made the following comments in
response to the report:
i.
Asked how easy it was to find apprentices for these
schemes particularly at entry level.
ii.
Welcomed the move away from using the levy on
management apprenticeships.
iii.
Apprenticeships were going to be difficult for
people to find, particularly school leavers in the future, especially in the
current conditions. iv.
Believed over the next two years the council’s
focus on the use of apprenticeships should be coupled with recruitment rather
than internal development. The priority for the community at large was for
people to enter the labour market. If there was any levy left the remainder
could be put into the levy pool and provide support for SME business,
charitable and non-profit organisations who had a recruitment plan for
sustainable employment.
v.
Queried when the absolute deadline was to a make a
final decision regarding the apprenticeship strategy? The Organisational Development Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Would expect several applicants for each
apprenticeship, particularly given the current climate of the job market that
COVID-19 had caused.
ii.
The council’s focus was in three parts, the levy
transfer, supporting existing staff and new recruits. No level had been put on
support for new recruits and existing staff.
iii.
The Government allowed 25% of the total levy to be
transferred annually, approximately £30,000 could be transferable. The proposal is to transfer 10% approx.
£12,000 p.a. iv.
The Council pays £120,000 to £100,000 into the
apprenticeship levy annually which lasts two years. This is a rolling programme
with each month’s payment expiring after 24 months.
v.
It would be best to make the decision as soon as
possible so that the funds could be transferred. The Executive
Councillor for Finance and Resources responded with the following comments:
i.
That the
apprenticeship levy was for training and not for apprenticeship themselves.
Recognising this, the committee should think about the impact on the voluntary
sector, SME’s and non-profit organisations who could make use of the levy.
ii.
Consideration
had been given to put 25% immediately into this sector but felt emphasis should
be for the city council to develop its own apprentices first. This would allow
those organisations the opportunity to develop apprenticeship if appropriate or
express an interest. Salary costs would also have to be picked up by the
businesses as the levy did not cover this cost. iii.
Believed
there had an issue in the past in finding the appropriate training scheme for
SME’s. iv.
The work
that the levy had been proposed would see an increase in manual trades that
traditionally had not been offered and was what the apprenticeship scheme was
for. The scheme would be reviewed on a regular basis it could be possible that
the transference of the Council’s apprenticeship levy to local businesses,
charitable and not for profit organisations could be increased in future. Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Dalzell seconded an additional
recommendation: NOTE the report and proposals RECOMMEND a rethink of the proposed strategy applicable to apprentice
starts over the next two years in the light of the post pandemic depression,
with a view to emphasising the use of apprenticeships to improve recruitment
offers, potentially sharing an increased surplus from the council with local
SMEs, charitable and Not For Profit organisations who provide sustainable,
recruitment-based business plans AGREE a modified version of the strategy through the procedure for an
urgent decision The additional
recommendation was lost by 2 votes to 4. The Committee resolved by 4 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. |
||||||||||
Service Review: Revenues and Benefits PDF 430 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The introduction of
Universal Credit meant that new working-age claimants, or claimants who have
certain specified changes in circumstances, no longer claim Housing Benefit
from the Council, but claim Universal Credit (UC) from the Department for Work
and Pensions (DWP), which includes an amount for housing costs. The report brought forward
recommendations following a review of the Revenues and Benefits service in the
light of this change. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources i.
To restructure the Revenues and Benefits service,
as detailed in the officer’s
of the 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 Strategic Director. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Queried what if any impact the changes would have
on staff; would staff be TUPE’d (Transfer of
Undertakings Protection of Employment) across.
ii.
Requested reassurance
that staff would be supported during this period.
iii.
Asked if the council could be sure that standards
would not drop supporting the vulnerable residents in the city.
iv.
Indicated that the
decision was inevitable
v.
Acknowledged the hard
work and dedicated staff that the council had and expressed disappointment that
the changes would have on them. The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Staff would not be TUPE’d
as the Department of Working Pensions (DWP) had hired additional staff to
undertake the additional work. Therefore, there could be potential
redundancies.
ii.
When roles were redundant the council did try to
redeploy staff within the council and would work with staff to look at the
opportunities available.
iii.
Staff would be consulted and supported throughout
the process. iv.
The Council did not have the power to redeploy
staff to external agencies.
v.
The work to support vulnerable people with their
housing cost would be dealt with by the DWP through the universal credit
scheme. vi.
The council had a strategic interest to ensure that
residents had accessed their benefits, offering financial advice through inclusion
workers and council funding to external agencies such as citizens advice
bureau. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
||||||||||
Annual Treasury Management Outturn Report 2019/20 PDF 340 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Council was required by
regulations issued under the Local Government Act 2003, to produce an annual
treasury report reviewing treasury management activities and the actual
prudential and treasury indicators for each financial year. This report met the
requirements of both the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management (the
Code) and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities
(the Prudential Code) in respect of 2018/19. Both these publications have been
revised by CIPFA and references to these documents are to the 2017 Editions. During the 2019/20 the
minimum requirements were that Council should receive: - An annual strategy in
advance of the year - A mid-year treasury
update report and; - An annual review
following the end of the year describing the activity compared to the strategy.
In line with the Code of
Practice on Treasury Management all treasury management reports have been
presented to Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee and to Full Council. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to: i.
Approve
the report with the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for
2019/20 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 Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
||||||||||
2019/20 General Fund Revenue and Capital Outturn, Carry Forwards and Significant Variances PDF 3 MB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report presented a
summary of the 2019/20 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. Specific requests to carry forward funding
from budget underspends in 2019/20 were reported. This
was the first year that one combined General Fund outturn report covering all
portfolios was produced for scrutiny at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny
Committee Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to council to: i.
Approve carry forward
requests totalling £1,070,060 revenue funding from 2019/20 to 2020/21, as
detailed in Appendix C of the officer’s report. ii.
Carry forward requests of £27,634k capital resources
from 2019/20 to 2020/21 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in
Appendix D of the officer’s report. iii.
To fund the overspend of two capital schemes –
Lammas Land Car Parking and Barnwell Business Park remedial projects totalling
£29,757 from reserves. iv. Transfer the
Bateman Street tree replacement underspend of £17k to the Environmental
Improvements programme – South. v.
Transfer the underspend of £24k on Grafton East car
park essential roof repair project to Structural Holding Repairs & Lift
Refurbishment - Queen Anne project which is renamed Car Park Structural Holding
Repairs. 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 Committee made the following comments in response to the report: i.
It was important part to note the carry forwards in
Appendix C, particularly reference 4, tourism cost centre, regarding Visit
Cambridge and Beyond. There was reference to a report being prepared for the
end of June which had not been seen and questioned if there were further
financial costs that the committee should be aware of. ii.
Requested information to the carry forward for the
refit carbon reduction projects and queried if this had been delayed from the
previous year. iii.
Asked for an update on the vacancy for the cycling
and walking officer. iv.
Requested further information on the reason for
large variances for the Crematorium (Appendix A p184) and asked what was
creating the greater loss, the impact of the closure of the A14 or the increase competition in the
general area. v.
Asked if officers would appraise the performance of
Cambridge Live as it was difficult to evaluate the accounts which were no
longer separate now the organisation was back under the remit of the council. vi.
Questioned what the sum of money was the council
had allocated to deal with the original bailout of Cambridge Live and where on
the officer’s report was this shown, vii.
Enquired if an explanation on the significant
overspend regarding Environment Improvements (p136) could be provided. viii.
Asked if the Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources would comment on the 57.5% failure rate to deliver on the capital
programme. ix.
Paid credit to garage services and car parking
services. x.
Welcomed the improvement under the refuse and
recycling collection and the surplus by the Bereavement Services and Town Hall
lettings. xi.
Questioned why there was areas of overspend and
underspend in the open spaces’ portfolio. The Head of Finance and Strategic Director said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
The carry forward for the refit carbon reduction would have been
carried for a purpose.
ii.
A detailed answer would be given outside of the
meeting on the Visit Cambridge and Beyond report and Cycling and Walking
Officer as this could not be provided.
iii.
Referenced p144 of the agenda pack provided a
response to the Environment Improvements question. This confirmed a lack of
recharging income on officer’s time against a budget which required reviewing
as it had been set higher than the potential income that was possible. iv.
Suggested the staff (environment improvements) in
the team were not sufficient to generate the income suggested in the budget.
This was a significant imbalance and would be investigated further in the
budget process.
v.
Under Culture and Communities, p143, the following
headings - Corn Exchange and Guildhall, City Events and Folk festival and
Cambridge Live when added together represented Cambridge Live that was the
external organisation. The variances
added together showed a figure of £100,000 overspend. vi.
Reminded the committee that Cambridge Live was
taken over by the council at the start of the year with a considerable amount
of work required to be done with the organisation. vii.
Work had been undertaken by officers to change the
structure of Cambridge Live which would help to bring down the deficit. The
COVID-19 pandemic had severely impacted on this work and the finances required
additional attention. Officers were wating to find out what funding was
available to support Cambridge Live. viii.
£750,000 had been allocated to cover the cost of
bringing Cambridge Live back into the council.
Dealing with the deficit on the balance sheet which came into the
council and developing structures to improve ways of running the organisation,
legal advice, accountancy advice and audit. The money had almost been spent. ix.
Before COVID-19 the Culture and Community Manager
was confident that Cambridge Live was ‘back on track’.
x.
Noted the request for the breakdown of how the
£750,000 had been spent and what was left and would be given outside of the
meeting. xi.
The crematorium had been significantly impacted by
the upgrade of the A14 which had contributed to three quarters of the loss
revenue. There was an ongoing claim for loss of income regarding the A14
upgrade. xii.
Prior to COVID-19 officers had put together a work
plan to compete with the new competition, offering a low-cost funeral service
and the introduction of a café on site which would increase income and match
the competition. xiii.
£13million of the £27million underspend was in CIP
loans with £2.8million in bonds; all of which was for development and outside
the council’s control. If these figures were taken out of the underspend, the
total was still significant but not as large at first glance. xiv.
There were variables in the open spaces budget each
with a specific reason as referenced on p144 of the agenda pack; different
businesses had been impacted differently by COVID-19. The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resource said the following:
i.
The original budget for Environment Improvements
was higher and there had been an underspend. Could not comment why it had been
reduced as much as it had.
ii.
Further information on Cambridge Live could be read
on p142 of the agenda pack. The folk festival did not have the ticket sales
anticipated when the council took over and the festival would not be taking
place this year.
iii.
Agreed it was not satisfactory that there was an
underspend on capital and this needed to be looked into further.
iv.
Expressed thanks to the finance department for
compiling such a comprehensive report while all working from home. The Committee resolved by 4 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. |
||||||||||
Interim Update to Medium Term Financial Strategy PDF 614 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report presented an overview of the impact of the
Coronavirus emergency in the Spring of 2020 on Cambridge City Council’s budget
for 2020/21. It set out how estimates had been made and the uncertainties
within those estimates. It lists the financial support that central government
has provided to the council and proposes several actions that the council can
take to balance its budget in 2020/21. Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources to recommend to Council to:
i.
Note the
forecast impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the council’s finances.
ii.
Approve
changes to the 2020/21 GF revenue and capital budgets as set out in Section 7
and Appendices 1 and 2 of the officer’s report.
iii.
Approve
the use of earmarked reserves, as set out in Section 7 and Appendix 3 of the
officer’s report.
iv.
Note the
revised savings requirements identified in Section 8 of the officer’s 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 Committee made
the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked
what priorities were being set and what the areas were that the council might
stop spending on.
ii.
Questioned
if the council was looking to make cuts before they were required. What
processes were in place to reverse these cuts if government funding came
through to the council.
iii.
Questioned
what the process for was reviewing the reserve target if required. iv.
Questioned
if funding had been cut in the right areas.
v.
Stated
it was clear why some projects had been cancelled, others had been set as lower
priority or cut and do not need to be completed this year. However, there
needed to be a clear definition between the two as it was not clear for all the
projects referenced, the reason why this decision had been taken and by who.
This information was required to undertake accurate scrutiny before the next
meeting of full council. vi.
It was
important the public sector invested and spent finances to support the local
economy especially as there was a prospect of additional government funding
designed to support local authorities’ loss of income. The council were able to
do just this. vii.
The
council had stopped work at a time when the community and local economy needed
it most, if the projects stopped it could be too late to reverse the decision. viii.
Noted
there was a few partnerships working projects (notably the Greater Cambridge
Partnership) where funding cuts had been made.
Questioned if these projects had been postponed as those partners had
decided they could not be delivered due to COVID-19, or had they been
negotiated with both parties or was it the council’s
decision. ix.
Asked
for the status on the youth liaison officer. The Executive
Councillor for Finance and Resources said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Items
that had been retained in the budget were anti-poverty, climate change,
biodiversity, homelessness to maintain these services during this difficult
time.
ii.
There
had been items which had been deferred until the following year as the work
could not be carried out during the pandemic; other deferred items had been
retained in the budget while others would be considered in the new year if
financially viable.
iii.
The next
round of government funding which had recently been announced amounted to £500
million for local authorities to cover additional expenditure which met certain
criteria. There would not be assistance with property income losses. iv.
With regards to car parking, the council would
have to pay the first 5% of the losses and the government three quarters of the
remainder. This could give approximately £2 million if the council met all
conditions, however, detailed guidance was not yet available.
v.
Funding
from government received on homelessness amounted to £24,750 (additional cost
to the council was £1.2million). vi.
In total
a £1.3million grant had been received to date. vii.
If
government funding were more than anticipated, it would be possible to review
the council’s reserves and adjust the figures again. viii.
Stated
there were far more imponderables on the income side and reminded the committee
there would be no assistance with the commercial property incomes. There was a
variety of fees across the council which needed to be recovered across the
council. It was uncertain if these costs would recover from government and the
council would have to pay the first 5%. ix.
Projects
postponed were capital schemes funded from revenue, therefore these could be
moved back and forth from one year to the next without much issue if the work
could be completed.
x.
Acknowledged
there were some climate change and biodiversity items which had been deferred
but much of these works could not be restarted this year. The doubling of the
wildflower meadows should already be completed. xi.
The
council had planned to spend £100,000 on its tree programme, but this funding
had been spread over a longer period. xii.
As the
government had agreed a further tranche of funding to the GCP and the council
did not have the financial resources available, it seemed sensible the
contribution to the GCP could be reduced without hindering the work they were
undertaking. xiii.
The
amount of money that the council allocated to the GCP was related to the new
homes bonus which had been reduced. xiv.
Could
not provide a response to the query regarding the youth liaison officer but
would ask that this was provided outside of the meeting. The Committee unanimously
resolved to:
i.
Note the
forecast impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the council’s finances. The
Committee resolved 4 votes to 0 to:
ii.
Approve
changes to the 2020/21 GF revenue and capital budgets as set out in Section 7
and Appendices 1 and 2 of the officer’s report. The
Committee unanimously resolved to:
iii.
Approve
the use of earmarked reserves, as set out in Section 7 and Appendix 3 of the
officer’s report. The Committee resolved
4 votes to 0 to:
iv.
Note the
revised savings requirements identified in Section 8 of the officer’s report. 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. |
||||||||||
To Note Record of Urgent Decision Taken by the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources |
||||||||||
Business plans: ICT, Legal and Internal Audit PDF 190 KB Minutes: The decision was noted. |
||||||||||
Minutes: The decision was noted. |
||||||||||
To Note Record of Officer Urgent Decisions |
||||||||||
Amendment of the City Council Tax aggregate amounts PDF 207 KB Minutes: The decision was noted. |
||||||||||
Minutes: The decision was noted. |
||||||||||
Minutes: The decision was noted. |
||||||||||
Action to support commercial tenants PDF 106 KB The briefing paper to the record of decision 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. Additional documents:
Minutes: The decision was noted. |
||||||||||
Land purchase / funding opportunity Abbey Ward 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. Under 9.4 of Part 4B (Access to Information Procedure Rules), the agreement of the Chair has been sought as the taking of the decisions cannot be reasonably be deferred listed for the Executive Councillors for both (i) Finance and Resources and (ii) Housing in Agenda Item 15 . The agenda item seeks approval to acquire a site for development. The final proposals will be brought to a future meeting of the Housing Scrutiny Committee. Minutes: Under 9.4 of Part 4B (Access to Information Procedure Rules), the agreement of the Chair had been sought as the taking of the decisions could not be reasonably be deferred listed for the Executive Councillors for both (i) Finance and Resources and (ii) Housing. The committee unanimously agreed to exclude the press and public from the meeting following a public interest test under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Matter for Decision The confidential report sought approval to acquire a site for development. The final proposals would be brought to a future meeting of the Housing Scrutiny Committee
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships
i. Approved the amended recommendations as outlined in the confidential report and amendment sheet.
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 Strategic Director and tabled amendment sheet on the size and interest rate on a loan.
The committee discussed the report and amendment sheet. The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the amended recommendations. The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources and the Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillors (and any Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor. |