Decision:
It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That subject to any further budget variations that arise during the rest of the financial year, the surplus funds of £176k, referred to in Section 5.8 of report MCa/18/18, be noted.
1.2 That the revised 2018/19 Capital Programme referred to in Appendix C and section 5.15 of report MCa/18/18 be approved.
Reason for Decision: To ensure that Members were kept informed of the current budgetary position for both General Fund Revenue and Capital.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: To transfer surplus funds of £176k to the Growth and Efficiency (GEF) reserve, to transfer surplus funds of £176k to the Business Rates Equalisation reserve, to make no recommendation for the transfer of surplus funds to reserves.
Any Declarations of Interest declared: None
Any Dispensation Granted: Yes
Minutes:
Councillor Whitehead, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Finance, introduced report MCa/18/18 and moved the recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Brewster.
Councillor Whitehead pointed out there had been an error in paragraph 4.3 of the report as it included a reference to Babergh District Council’s New Homes Bonus. Also, that the Business Rate Pilot information had not been included
A concern was raised over paragraph 4.3 as the agenda had been published indicating Mid Suffolk District Council had all but spent their New Homes Bonus, therefore was misleading. The Cabinet Member for Finance explained the figure quoted within the report was in relation to Mid Suffolk District Council but it was unfortunate that the transcript for Babergh District Council had been included. The Assistant Director for Law and Governance acknowledged there had been an unacceptable level of typographical errors in reports in recent months and as such interventions were now in place. This would include a proof reading service.
On page 27, paragraph 5.6a, it was questioned how many staff vacancies were no longer required or were considered essential? The Chief Executive explained there was never a full staff complement due to the time it took from an employee resigning and then filling that vacancy. An employment gap was necessary as otherwise it would mean an overspend on the budget. Members agreed that how the statement read at present was misleading, and as such required re-wording.
Appendix B was also questioned as being up to date as the Joint Local Plan stated August 2017 and should there be a more realistic date? The variance table shown on page 30 in relation to Building Control was questioned as Members had been informed that Building Control had been budgeted for. The Cabinet Member for Finance explained there were time pressures involved as Appendix B included expenditure from April to June. It was felt going forward there would be a cost saving due to the reduction in Councillor numbers. The Chief Executive explained it was a competitive market but Building Control was a statutory function ensuring buildings were safe. The Council was competing for staff but gave reassurance that the service would be maintained.
Page 27, paragraph 5.6 it was questioned whether recruitment commenced on the day the employee gave notice in order to minimise employment gaps. The Chief Executive confirmed this was normal procedure but that managers would look at the role and the process in terms of whether the environment or market had moved on. The importance was on obtaining the right candidate.
There was confusion in terms of the planning income figure shown, as to whether this was destined to become a major liability as it was a considerable sum of money. It was noted it was impossible to accurately forecast but it was regularly reviewed, and interest rates may well fluctuate, so Members should concentrate on the 12 month figure.
Also was recommendation 3.1 required as it was to note only? Historically the figures were noted but it was felt it would be better to say the figures had been considered. It was recognised the financial figures would continue to be reported on a quarterly basis in the future. Therefore, it would go into September Cabinet meetings in 2019, these would also be in line with the Performance report.
By a unanimous vote:
It was RESOLVED:-
(1) That subject to any further budget variations that arise during the rest of the financial year, the surplus funds of £176k, referred to in Section 5.8 of report MCa/18/18, were considered.
(2) That the revised 2018/19 Capital Programme referred to in Appendix C and section 5.15 of report MCa/18/18 be approved.
Reason for Decision: To ensure that Members were kept informed of the current budgetary position for both General Fund Revenue and Capital.
Supporting documents: