Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
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.