·
To select appropriate items from the Cabinet agenda for pre-decision
scrutiny (cabinet reports enclosed for Scrutiny Members)
Minutes:
The
Committee chose to scrutinise the following item on the Cabinet agenda:
2023/24
Budget Proposals for Consultation
Members
were provided with information in relation to the sought approval to consult on
the draft budget proposals for 2023/24 from Cabinet. It was noted that due to
the timing of the provisional local government settlement, a short consultation
would take place up until the 10th February 2023. Responses following the
consultation would be reviewed prior to presenting a final budget for 2023/24
at Cabinet and Council on 1st and 2nd March respectively, as detailed within
the circulated report.
Members
queried officers in relation to the following points as detailed within the
report:
·
It was queried whether the 2.8 Million Renewable Energy Transition Fund
was specifically for renewable energy or whether this fund would cover other
areas. Officers explained that the proposal was to put aside 2.8 million as we
need to reach a net zero target over the next 7 years. It was noted that if
this proposal were to be accepted then members would receive further reports in
relation to any utilisation of that fund.
·
It was noted that within the risk register, waste delivery was marked as
a high risk due to fuel inflation costs. Members asked what mitigating measures
were being utilised to support this. Officers explained that fuel had decreased
following this risk being highlighted therefore there is no proposal to amend
waste delivery. Members asked that this risk be amended to reflect this within
the risk register.
·
Members discussed the impact of the pay award. Members required
assurance around the proposal of the schools Pay award. It was noted that
within this year’s budget it was agreed that the gap of 4% would be paid. For
the proposal detailed within next year’s budget it was discussed that the full
5% would be provided through School reserves.
·
Officers discussed the proposal around the saving costs of Cleaning
within schools. It was noted that the proposal was to cut the subsidy for school
cleaning as it was felt that this was a responsibility for the schools
themselves to cover.
·
It was noted that an analysis was being produced to provide detail
around the schools that may have difficulty balancing budgets with upcoming
budget pressures resulting in them being in a potential deficit. Members asked
that the analysis be circulated once completed.
·
Members highlighted their frustration around the lateness of the
consultation document being circulated in a timely manner. Officers apologised
for any inconvenience however, explained that the document that would be
presented to the public would be the main budget report that was attached. It
was also noted that they would maximise public engagement to maximise
consultation responses. It was clear during the discussion that members felt
the importance of ensuring that the report was clear to ensure the public had a
clear understanding of the outcomes of the budget proposals. Therefore officers
also ensured that they would provide explanatory notes with the budget document
when it is taken to consultation.
·
Members also recognised within previous budget reports directorate codes
were listed against each proposals to allow members to monitor and compare
budget proposals. It was requested that these codes be included within the
final document. Officers confirmed that this would be included within the
future document.
·
Members asked when they would receive the Celtic Leisure Business Plan,
as this would help them in determining the budget proposals for leisure.
Officers confirmed that it would be available for them to receive.
·
Members queried the £30,000 that would be required to fund Gnoll Park. Officers explained that they had secured
funding which would better the Gnoll Park and allow
the park to gain a profit which would therefore not require a subsidy in
future.
·
Discussions took place around reserves and utilising reserves. It was
noted that reserves would be used in instances where there had been a pressure,
however, with forward planning it would be required to consider whether this
pressure would be ongoing and if so would require further consideration of
funding to prevent utilising reserves to cover ongoing costs.
·
Members queried the proposal to increase fees and charges by 10%.
Officers explained that this wouldn’t necessarily mean that all fees and charges
would increase by 10% it would be a capped at 10% for those fees and charges.
·
Members queried the proposals around the review of the Buildings and
asked whether this saving would be included within 2023/24. Officers explained
that the review is ultimately trying to be cost effective while trying to
ensure that the public service wasn’t affected and to ensure this was still provided
effectively. Therefore, consideration was being taken around the buildings
themselves and future use of those buildings as well as the generic utility
savings such as, turning off lights etc.
·
It was requested that members, officers and report writers ensure that
they refrain from utilising acronyms to ensure the public has an understanding
of the discussion and any information that is provided within the consultation
process.
Following
scrutiny, the Committee were supportive of the recommendations to Cabinet.
UK
Shared Prosperity Fund – Approval of strategic ‘anchor projects
Members
were informed of the Neath Port Talbot strategic ‘anchor’ projects to be funded
by the UK Shared Prosperity Fund which was subject to approval following
Cabinet, as detailed within the circulated report.
Members
received a power point presentation from officers providing further detail of the
UK Shared Prosperity Fund and the strategic Anchor Projects.
Members
commended officers for the work that had been achieved by officers in relation
to the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.
Following
scrutiny, the committee were supportive of the recommendations to Cabinet.