Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision:

The report set out the overall base revenue and capital budget position for the Strategy Portfolio. The report compares the proposed 2012/13 Revised Budget to the budget as at September 2012 and details the budget proposals for 2013/14 and 2014/15.

 

Decision of the Leader:

 

The Leader resolved to:

 

Review of Charges:

a) Note that there is no proposed review of charges requiring approval for Strategy & Climate Change Portfolio services.

 

Revenue Budgets:

b) Approve, with any amendments, the current year funding requests and savings, (shown in Appendix A of the officer’s report) and the resulting revised revenue budgets for 2012/13 (shown in section 3, Table 1 of the officer’s report) for submission to the Executive.

 

c) Agree proposals for revenue savings and unavoidable bids, as set out in Appendix C of the officer’s report.

 

d) Agree proposals for bids from external or existing funding, as set out in Appendix D of the officer’s report, if applicable.

 

e) Agree proposals for Priority Policy Fund (PPF) bids, as set out in the amended Appendix E as circulated.

 

f) Approve the budget proposals for 2013/14 as shown in Table 2 of the officer’s report, for submission to the Executive.

 

Capital:

g) Approve capital bids, as identified in Appendix H of the officer’s report, for submission to the Executive for inclusion in the Capital & Revenue Projects Plan or addition to the Hold List, as indicated.

 

h) Confirm that there are no items covered by this portfolio to add to the Council’s Hold List, for submission to the Executive.

i) Approve the current Capital & Revenue Projects Plan, as detailed in Appendix J of the officer’s report, to be updated for any amendments detailed in (g) and (h) above.

 

j) Note that there are no project appraisals requiring approval for Strategy Portfolio services.

 

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 Director of Resources, which included the amended Appendix E (Priority Policy Fund (PPF) bids) as circulated.

 

In response to member’s questions the Chief Executive confirmed the following:

 

        i.            £80,000 had been allocated in the budget for maternity costs (RB3157) and this was based on staff currently on maternity leave. However spending against this provision, by its nature, was very difficult to estimate.

      ii.            The Project Facilitation Fund (RB3236) was originally set up to help facilitate the delivery of capital schemes. After speaking further with departments it has now become clear that the full allocation of funding would not be required and a reduction had therefore been identified.

    iii.            The costs associated with the Living Wage (PPF3208) did not include contract-related costs, as these would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.     

 

In response to member’s questions the Leader and the Chief Executive confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Business Improvement Districts (BID’s) had not been set up to allow local authorities to reduce their own services and therefore save money. Whilst the City Council may benefit from additional improvements in things such as the street cleaning, the Council’s core level of service could not be reduced, as this would be unlawful. 

 

 

 

      ii.            As part of the BID the City Council had committed to a core level of funding for street cleaning and would bid to undertake additional work for the BID. Whilst this may allow the service to be managed differently and free up efficiencies elsewhere, this level of funding could not be reduced.

 

To emphasise this point the Director of Environment read out the relevant part of the BID regulations.

 

In response members made the following points:

 

        i.            Emphasised that by improving the city centre the City Council would then potentially benefit from improved business rates.

      ii.            A successful BID could result in there be less irrecoverable debt to write off.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

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

Not applicable.