Agenda and minutes

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were none declared.

The notes of the meeting held on 19^th January 2006 are attached for information.

(Enclosure)

The notes of the meeting held on 19^th January 2006 were noted.

The Scrutiny Officer highlighted the Panel’s previous request that its recommendation concerning appeals under the new Discretionary Rate Relief Scheme, which was not accepted by Cabinet, be raised at Cabinet by the Portfolio Holder. The Portfolio Holder, who had been invited to attend the Panel meeting, explained that the Panel’s recommendation had not deliberately been disregarded by Cabinet, just overlooked. However, the decision of the Cabinet had been made but this will be looked at again in the future.

The DSP to make its final recommendations to Cabinet on the 2006/07 budget and onwards.

The notes from the meetings of the Budget Working Group on 2^nd February 2006 will be circulated at the meeting.

(Documents to Follow)

Members were given report CAB5 to Cabinet by the Finance Portfolio Holder. This gave details on:

·          Budget development

·          Local Government Settlement

·          Capping

·          Interest rates

·          Consultation

·          Budget requirement and use of reserves

·          Housing revenue account

·          Capital programme

·          Use of Resources assessment

·          Recommendations to Cabinet

Appended to the report were the statement by the Responsible Financial Officer, General Fund and Revenue Estimates, Housing Revenue Account, Capital Programme and details on reserves. Staff employment statistics and a summary of service delivery and support services were circulated as requested by the Panel.

The Portfolio Holder presented his report. He emphasised the improved member involvement in the budget preparation; all members had had the opportunity for unobstructed involvement throughout the process. In light of the Government’s Value for Money initiative, service plans had been used to form the base of the forthcoming budget, and a Windows ledger system installed to provide a better reporting mechanism and access to information for members.

He added that the gateway reviews had been good meetings and that these would be started earlier in the next financial year. The service plans would also provide a framework within which money could be spent; councillors and managers would be responsible for any variances. The Budget estimates had incorporated the prioritisation and large increases in priority services (revenue and capital) reflected this. General fund working balances would be maintained at the current level but the Portfolio Holder did reiterate the need to monitor the level of reserves given the ambitious capital programme for 2006/07. 

With regard to the Use of Resources inspection, the Portfolio Holder explained that the Council was striving to achieve the Level 3 standard. Because financial management was now underpinning every service, the Portfolio Holder explained that the financial staff needed further support to have the resources to assist other non-financial senior managers. 

The Portfolio Holder was then questioned on his report. He was asked about various details throughout the report but mainly, his recommendation number 6 on maximum subsidy per Council Taxpayer for the operation of the Arts Centres. The Director of Finance and Strategic Resources also provided clarification on a number of points raised by members.

Conclusion:

(1)  To invite the Portfolio Holder to a future meeting of the Resources DSP to explain further his recommendation on a maximum subsidy per Council Taxpayer for the operation of the Arts Centres.

The Panel, with the other budget working group members, had also recognised the need to look at the level of reserves, given the level of activity in the Capital Programme. It had been recommended by the budget working group that this be scrutinised. The Portfolio Holder did advise that it may be better to wait until the outcome of Large Scale Voluntary Transfer before any detailed scrutiny of funding the capital programme.

Conclusion:

(2)  That the Resources DSP scrutinises superfluous/miscellaneous assets and the financing of future capital projects, prior to consideration by Cabinet.

(3)  That the Resources DSP monitors the Capital Programme as it progresses throughout 2006/07.   

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

(Enclosure)

This was presented by the Scrutiny Officer and noted.

(Enclosure)

The Revenues Manager gave a further update on BVPI no. 10 relating to non-domestic rate collection. Collection was current £440,000 short of the amber target, which the Manager was confident the Council would achieve. He explained that currently, increases in rateable value, which the Council could not control, sometimes only provided a few instalments for the debtor to pay. This did not allow sufficient enforcement time for collection if the debtor failed to pay. This was a major factor in sub-target collection rates.

A statement from the Corporate Manager of Human Resources and Organisational Development in relation to BVPI no. 15 was read by the Scrutiny Officer:

This performance indicator is the percentage of employees retiring on the grounds of ill health as a percentage of total workforce. (Total workforce meaning number of employees by headcount who are also in the Local Government Pension Scheme).

To qualify an employee must be certified by a registered medical practitioner qualified in occupational health that he/she is permanently incapable of performing the duties of their employment or a broadly comparable local government employment because of ill-health or infirmity of mind or body.

We have had one case this financial year. If we have no further cases before end of March 06 our percentage will be 0.2%. The latest figures available for District Councils (year 03/04) gives 0.34% as median for District Councils in England.

These updates were noted.

The meeting closed at 3.35p.m.