Issue - decisions

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.