Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
Matter for Decision
The outturn report presented reflects the Executive Portfolios for which
budgets were originally approved (which may have changed since, for example for
any changes in Portfolio responsibilities). Therefore, members of all
committees were asked to consider proposals to carry forward budgets and make
their views known to the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources, for
consideration at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to
recommendations to Council.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to council to:
i. Approve carry forward requests totalling
£658,670 of revenue funding from 2020/21 to 2021/22, as detailed in Appendix C
of the officer’s report.
ii. Approve carry
forward requests of £49,211,000 of capital resources from 2020/21 to 2021/22 to
fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the officer’s
report.
iii. Approve the addition of £85,000 capital
funding in 2021/22 to undertake works to the Council Chamber/Committee Rooms to
stream meetings/enable hybrid meetings.
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 Head of
Finance referred to a budget proposal which had been published in advance of
the meeting regarding additional expenditure to upgrade the Council Chamber and
Committee Rooms with equipment to enable livestreaming and hybrid meetings.
This proposed as an additional recommendation (c).
Additional recommendation (c):
The Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources is requested to recommend to Council the addition of £85,000 capital
funding in 2021/22 to undertaken works to the Council Chamber/Committee Rooms
to stream meetings/enable hybrid meetings.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Asked whether the decision to reduce car parking
charges affected the Council’s ability to reclaim this funding back from the
Covid Pandemic funding from Central Government. Noted that the capital spending
proposed was a lot of money and queried whether the programme could be delivered.
ii.
Commented that the decision to reduce car
parking charges allowed key workers not to have to travel on buses during the
pandemic.
iii.
Asked how big the existing capital programme for
2021/22 was in comparison with the requested carry forward of £49m
The Head of Finance said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
iv.
The decision to reduce car parking charges did
affect the funding the Council was able to claim back from Central Government.
Confirmed following the meeting that the total car parking charges the Council
reclaimed back was £4.1 million of the £5.9 million sales, fees and charges and
that the Council was not able to claim back £1.1million due to the decision to
reduce car parking charges.
v.
A large proportion of the capital programme involved
lending funding (£20 million) to the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP). Or
involved projects that were already in progress, for example Park Street
development (£9 million), which were being managed by external companies.
vi. The
capital plan total for 2021/22 in the Budget Setting Report approved in
February was £40.9m.
vii. There
were processes in place to ensure that capital projects moved forward as
quickly as possible.
viii. Confirmed
that the income compensation the Council applied for was calculated via a
Government formula.
The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the following
recommendations.
ii) Approve carry forward requests of £49,211,000 of
capital resources from 2020/21 to 2021/22 to fund rephased net capital
spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the officer’s report.
The Committee
resolved unanimously to endorse the following recommendation.
iii) Approve the
addition of £85,000 capital funding in 2021/22 to undertaken works to the
Council Chamber/Committee Rooms to stream meetings/enable hybrid meetings.
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.