Issue - meetings

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

Report of the Head of Financial Services.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Financial Services to provide information on the latest budget position for current and future years, to inform Cabinet’s budget and policy framework proposals and to allow it to make final recommendations to Council regarding council tax levels for 2012/13.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

Options were dependent very much on Members’ views on spending priorities balanced against council tax levels.  As such, a full options analysis could only be undertaken once any alternative proposals were known and it should be noted that Officers may require more time in order to do this.  Outline options were highlighted below, however.

–        Regarding council tax, various options were set out at section 8 of the report attached to the agenda.  In considering these, Members should have regard to the impact on service delivery, the need to make savings or provide for growth, the impact on future years and the likelihood of capping.

-        With regard to considering or developing savings and growth options to produce a budget in line with preferred council tax levels, any proposals put forward by Cabinet should be considered alongside the development of priorities and in light of public engagement.  Emphasis should be very much on the medium to longer term position.

-        In terms of the reassessment of reserves and the initial priorities for allocating surplus balances, given circumstances it was considered that there were no real alternatives.  Cover for such liabilities and risks would need to be made from somewhere.

With regard to the more specific recommendations, options were outlined below:

-        For the revenue growth to support development of the funding bids for the Science Park and Heysham Gateway, Cabinet could choose to consider them as part of their budget proposals or reject them.  If rejected, although it avoids some extra pressure to make savings, it also meant that an opportunity to attract significant investment and deliver against existing priorities was lost.

-        For the Community Capital Fund, Cabinet could choose to confirm or reject the allocation of funding, or defer a final decision and consider it as part of its overall budget proposals.  This allocation would support purely discretional spending and there were no detailed proposals available at this stage.  Members were advised to consider the LSP’s recommendations and assumed commitments, against other potential uses for these funds given the capital position.

Under the Constitution, Cabinet was required to put forward budget proposals for Council’s consideration, in time for them to be referred back as appropriate.  This is why recommendations were required to feed into the Council meeting in early February, prior to the actual Budget Council later that month.  Officer preferred options were reflected in the recommendations.

Councillor Bryning proposed, seconded by Councillor Smith:-

“(1)      That Cabinet notes the current budgetary position and prospects for future years and in particular, the progress  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79