Agenda and minutes

Introduction by the Chairman.

Councillor Miller opened the meeting.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Mr Hatch.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature. Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2011 – attached.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2012 be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them.

This report is a brief introduction to:

·         The Revenue Budget and Council Tax setting report for 2012/13 including the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy

·         The Capital Programme Setting Report for 2012/13 to 2016/17

·         The Quarter 3 Corporate Monitoring Report

·         Finance and Corporate Services Budget Report

Report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources attached.

RESOLVED that the reports for agenda items 5A, B, C and D be noted.

This report gives details of the budget strategy and recommends that the Richmond upon Thames element of the Council Tax remain unchanged at £1,287.39.

Report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources attached.

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources and the Director for Finance and Corporate Services were present for this item.

The Director introduced the items A,B, C and D together and, referring to the Capital report, said that the main difference between this report and the one received at the November meeting was the underlying financing assumptions made primarily leading to less borrowing being required   It was reported that there was a minor error on the figure given for a band C property; the amount for this band was one pence higher than was recorded in the report.

Following questions, the committee was advised that:

·         The projected underspend of £3.4m was currently believed to be accurate.

·         The projection made in the report was the best that could be estimated at this time; figures sometimes had to be amended as a result of changes in areas such as income projections from the Environment Directorate and health funding.

·         Projected budget figures were analysed each year.  It was currently more difficult to give more certain figures as efficiencies programmes were starting to deliver savings.

·         The Director could not predict underspend figures in advance of the beginning of the following financial year with a certainty that would allow for inclusion in the budget.

·         The projected underspend was within expected levels for a budget of this size.

·         The 79 full-time equivalent post reduction was accurate. It was as a result of some shared service programmes and staffing reductions across the Council.

·         There was a £200k increase in the budget for homelessness in response to expected demand increase following housing benefits changes.

·         The Council would seek to provide support to families affected by homelessness if it was needed.

·         Richmond upon Thames received one of the lowest government grants.

·         The Director had made various financial projections, some of which accounted for a worse than expected set of grants, some better.

·         Some councils were declining the grant to hold council tax at current levels as their calculations predicted that the reduction in income from a lower tax base in future years would leave them worse off.

·         More money was being spent on preventative services in social care.

·         The aim was to provide a 0% increase in council tax for this year and to keep future potential increases in council tax to a minimum.

·         The national economic projections had been used when considering the longer term position.

·         The All-in-One survey identified highways as a priority for residents, so £1m had been set aside for “potholes and pavements”.

·         Highways and Transport had a sophisticated system in place to prioritise road works.

·         The Deputy Leader expected around 40% of the £1m sum would be made available for residents’ priorities.

·         The Deputy Leader intended to provide £1m for highways in the coming year’s budget, with additional money expected for works in the coming three years.

·         There was no intention to extend additional funding for social services beyond the next year.

·         The revenue budget was being used to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42a

This report considers the five year capital programme (from 2012/13 to 2016/17), provides details of new capital schemes and looks at how the capital programme is funded.

Report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources attached.

Following questions, the committee was advised that:

·         The schemes outlined were spread across a number of years.

·         There was a priority order for roads and highways schemes and this would be provided to committee members.

·         The price per square metre for the construction of the new academy buildings was relatively low and the Council had agreed that Partnership for Schools would manage the Richmond Park Academy project.

·         There had been communication with the Department for Education (DfE) whereby the Council strongly stated that it would not meet the cost of any overspend in the Hampton and Whitton Academy projects.

·         The contingencies set aside by the DfE for all three builds were unusually small when compared to the amounts set aside for projects of their size.

·         July was the earliest expected date by which to complete the purchase of the Clifden Road site.

·         A large percentage of the purchase price had been paid as a deposit.

·         The increase in the number of secondary school paces included the proposed Clifden Road school.

·         Officers in the Council’s property management department sometimes chose to delay property sales until market conditions improved, although sale prices that were currently being achieved were encouraging.

·         Maintenance costs were decreasing as further sites were being disposed of.

·         The building market was currently competitive, which reduced the risk of overspend when tenders were received.

The following motion was carried by majority vote of the committee, having been proposed by Councillor O’Malley and seconded by Councillor Salvoni:

“That the Finance and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee note the proposed budget and recommend it to Cabinet.”

Update on the Council’s revenue and capital budget management.

Report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources attached.

Following questions, the committee was advised that:

·         The current underspend was around £3.4m. It was questioned whether this was not really nearer £8m accounting for one-off items. The Director and Deputy Leader questioned such an interpretation of the figures

·         If the funding for one-off projects had been taken from reserves, it would undermine the purposes for which the reserves had been established.

·         The current figure for the level of parking fine refund claims that had been made was around £700k; all unspent money from the £1m budget was to be spent on other highways projects.

·         The Treasury was being loaned money from Richmond upon Thames’ budget at an interest rate of 0.26%.

·         The Council’s bank account had been successfully moved to the Co-Operative Bank.

·         The increase in the loan rate to elderly residents would have affected only one person last year.

·         The interest on such loans was rarely paid, as most users of the service complied with the terms of the agreement.

This report sets out the detailed revenue budgets for Finance and Corporate Services and Central Items for the financial year 2012/13, highlighting significant changes from the previous year.

Report of the Director of Finance and Corporate Services attached.

Following questions, the committee was advised that:

·         A stipulation for pursuing a joint service was that it should result in a neutral or positive effect in terms of service provision.

·         The shared audit service was a small project, aimed primarily at improving service resilience.

·         There was the possibility of selling the services that are provided jointly, or taking on additional partners if it benefitted the participating councils.

This report gives details of the proposed work programme.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services attached.

RESOLVED that the work programme be noted, subject to updates at future agenda planning meetings.