Agenda item

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.     noted the latest budget forecasts of the General Fund, HRA, and Capital;

2.     approved the list of roles as outlined in the report to support the commencement of phase 1 LGR activity;

3.     approved the budget virements within the HRA to utilise a forecast underspend on Major repairs and external gutter/render cleaning to increase spend on condition surveying and decarbonisation; and

4.     approved net changes to the Capital Programme totalling £154,000.

That Cabinet recommend to Council:

1.     that £1.5 million is transferred from the Budget Equalisation Reserve to the Local Government Reorganisation Reserve, with the previously approved delegation extended to cover this increased balance.

KEY DECISION:

Report to Cabinet and Council

PORTFOLIO:

Finance and Corporate

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED/REJECTED:

As set out in the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:

None

DISCUSSION:

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate reported that the report had been prepared based on the financial performance for the first half of the year and showed that the council was on target with a balanced budget.  There had been a change to the capital programme with a net increase of £154,000, which would enable the acquisition of new vehicles.  The updated capital programme budget was therefore £52.478 million.

The most significant movement was the recommendation that £1.5 million be transferred from the Budget Equalisation Reserve to a Local Government Reorganisation Reserve.  This would enable the council to fund changes in light of LGR.

The Portfolio Holder finally highlighted that the HRA budget had a balanced position.  Additional revenue funding was required in relation to the stock condition surveys and that this corresponded with a reduction in capital expenditure.

The Assistant Director – Finance further confirmed that the General Fund and HRA presented a balanced budget position.  This was due to the additional interest earnings which had offset the additional budget requirements.  There had been an increase in the capital programme.

The most significant recommendation related to the proposal that £1.5 million be added to the LGR reserve.  This would be used to bolster the workforce capacity and resources over the next 2.5 years in order to prepare the authority as much as possible for vesting day of a new Unitary authority.

There were a number of uncertainties in the report around clarity over the waste rollout budget, senior staffing changes and the homelessness temporary accommodation budget which remained under review.

A non-Cabinet member referred to the car parking income which was forecast to be lower than that budgeted for, and recognising that the proposed new charges were expected to address some of this shortfall in the budget.  It was felt that increasing car parking charges would reduce usage and that it has been seen over the last few years where the income received had been lower than the budget.  Concern was expressed that increasing the charges would not make up the loss of income and that a different approach should be considered.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate responded to this and explained that income from the car parks had increased just not quite as high as initially forecast.  Reference was made to the competition and highlighted that there were no national parking companies operating in the district, indicating that they could not provide car parking services for less than the council.  He referred to the short stay car parking clock as the cheapest and most effective method of parking in the district.  The Portfolio Holder felt that those people who did not have a car should be supported.  The car parking charges were insignificant compared to the cost of owning a car, they were reasonable and fair and had been raised by the cost of inflation.