Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision: The Budget-Setting Report (BSR) provided an overview of the review of the key assumptions. It included the detailed revenue bids and savings and set out the key parameters for the detailed recommendations and budget finalisation to be considered at the meeting of The Executive on 22 January 2015. The Executive would make final budget recommendations to Council, for consideration at its meeting on 26 February 2015.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

General Fund Revenue Budgets: [Section 5, page 28 of the BSR refers]

 

       i.          Agree any recommendations for submission to the Executive in respect of:

 

-        Revenue Pressures shown in Appendix B(a) and Savings shown in Appendix B(b).

 

-        Priority Policy Fund (PPF) Bids as shown in Appendix B(c) of the BSR.

 

-        Bids to be funded from External or Earmarked Funds as shown in Appendix B(d) of the BSR.

 

-        Non Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix B(e) of the BSR

 

       ii          Formally confirm 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) as set out in Appendix A(a) of the BSR.

 

     iii          Recommend to Council the level of Council Tax for 2015/16 as set out in Section 4 [page 26 of the BSR refers].

 

Note that the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel will meet on 28 January 2015 to consider the precept proposed by the Police and Crime Commissioner, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority will meet on 12 February 2015 and Cambridgeshire County Council will meet on 17 February 2015 to consider the amounts in precepts to be issued to the City Council for the year 2015/16.

 

Treasury Management (see separate report).

 

Other Revenue:

 

       ii          Delegate to the Head of Finance authority 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).

 

     iii          Approve an amendment to the remit for the “Sharing Prosperity Fund” so that the revised remit (changes are underlined) is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital: [Section 7, page 35 of the BSR refers]

 

Capital Plan:

 

       ii          Agree any recommendations to the Executive in respect of the proposals outlined in Appendix D(a) of the BSR for approval to include in the Capital Plan, or put on the Projects Under Development or Hold Lists, including any additional use of revenue resources required.

     iii          Agree the revised Capital Plan as set out in Appendix D(c) of the BSR, the Projects Under Development and Hold lists set out in Appendices D(d) and D(e) respectively and the Funding as set out in Section 7, page 41 of the BSR for the General Fund.

General Fund Reserves:

 

    iiii          Note the impact of revenue and capital budget approvals and approve the resulting level of reserves to be used to support the budget proposals as set out in the table [Section 6, report page 34 and Section 8, page 46 of the BSR refers].

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Finance said the following:

 

     ii.          With regard to the process for non-vehicular repair and renewal (R&R) bids:

 

-        Revenue R&R would be funded from the Revenue Repairs Budget

-        Capital R&R would be funded via a capital bid through the budget setting process.

 

It was noted that the current Capital process was very complex and officers were working to simplify and standardise it.

 

   iii.          Commitments against the New Homes Bonus (NHB), as shown on page 31 of the BSR, are the same headings as in last year’s budget, and the priority order would be dependent on City Deal arrangements. It was unlikely, with current allocations, that homelessness prevention would be affected.

   iv.          Car park income was very difficult to accurately estimate. Whilst the Council used consultants to help predict the income this was not an exact science and was affected by many variables. 

 

The Director of Environment added that, whilst there were many variables, there were also many constants i.e. growth of the City and surrounding areas which could help estimate car park income. It was confirmed that the Transport Strategy took account of the Park and Ride sites. 

 

   iiv          Budget Reference NCL3716 (New Homes Bonus - additional): This represented income being put into projections for future years.

     iv          Budget Reference NCL3716 (New Homes Bonus - unallocated): This was the balance of unallocated income which would go into the NHB reserve fund.

   ivi          Agreed to provide capital bid documentation prepared in line with existing procedures for new projects to Councillor Bick prior to the meeting of The Executive, if required.

 ivii          A new prioritisation process was being developed by officers. Whilst the old style paperwork would still be used during this transition period officers were looking in more detail at projects during the prioritisation stage.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources added that, in the past many projects had been added with little or no business case and the new prioritisation process would address this. Park Street Car Park and the public convenience project were examples of this.

 

iviii          Options for Park Street Car Park had been consulted on but they had very different costings and timings. Until a preferred option had been agreed upon the project was therefore placed on the Projects Under Development (PUD) list.

   iix          Whilst the Council needed to be aware of projects upcoming for the Capital Plan, there was no need to allocate the money before a Business case had been developed.

 

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources added that more efficiency with the Capital Plan process was needed. Placing items on the Plan that had not been fully costed simply tied up money that could be used elsewhere.        

 

In response to member’s questions the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the following:

 

    v.          The funding for public conveniences would be released pending the outcome of the review of provision. The funding had therefore been placed on the Projects Under Development section (PUD) list.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations and endorsed them by 5 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

 

Not applicable.