·
To select appropriate items from the Cabinet agenda for pre-decision
scrutiny (cabinet reports enclosed for Scrutiny Members)
Decision:
Revenue
Budget Proposals 2024/25
Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
Capital
Strategy and Capital Programme 2024/25 to 2026/27
Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
Treasury
Management Strategy, Annual Investment Strategy, and Minimum Revenue Provision
Policy
Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
Minutes:
Revenue Budget Proposals 2024/25
Members
considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack.
Members
queried the difference in net income from the figures in the report that went
out for consultation and the report for consideration at the meeting. It was
noted that the budget gap had reduced by around £230,000 between the two
reports. However, the level of council tax required to close the gap has also
decreased from 10.3% to 7.9%. Members queried how the calculations were
determined in relation to the income set out in both reports and what measures
are being taken to ensure that the forecast for the income is accurate.
Officers
advised that the draft budget proposals noted that the council tax could
increase to approximately 10% however there was no specific proposal given in
the consultation with regards to the figure required to close the gap. The reason
for the significant difference relates to assumptions around the council tax
support scheme. In December a prudent approach was taken with regards to the
figures with a very prudent estimate of net council tax. When the figures then
came forward, these were able to be input as required, which reflected the
significantly less costs of the council tax reduction scheme.
Officer
were confident that the figures in the report were
prudent and that the 7.9% council tax can be met.
Officers
advised that a detailed accurate report would not be possible during December
as the later detailed report required Capita to input the various changes to
benefit figures into their software externally in order to run the required
reports.
Members
asked for the changes between the two reports to be clearly outlined. Officers
agreed to note the points made in relation to clearly outlining where figures
are prudent and where worst-case scenario figures are shown this should be
clearly highlighted within the report with an explanation. Officers will ensure
these ideas are encompassed in next year’s reports.
Members
queried the number of responses received in comparison to the previous year and
if there was a way of increasing participation, by perhaps looking at what
other local authorities are doing.
Officers
advised that last year between paper and online questionnaires there were 581
responses received compared to 556 completed questionnaires this year. There
were 13 responses received by email/letter last year with 6 received this
year. Last year 225 NPT employees
engaged with the consultation compared to 146 this year. Last year 147 people
attended meetings with only 52 attending this year. In terms of working with
other Councils, officers confirmed that they were part of working groups who
were discussing various ways to engage with citizens. Officers confirmed that
the consultation period did not run over Christmas last year. This year it was
out of officers hands in terms of the timing of the
settlement announcement so the consultation being held over Christmas could not
be avoided. Officers also confirmed, if the consultation period allows, in the
future they would try and engage with community events to encourage
participation. There is also currently an ongoing drive to recruit to the
Citizens Panel. Members expressed their keenness to ensure that the younger
generations were suitably engaged with and suggested that perhaps more work
could be done in relation to social media.
Officers
confirmed that the limits for in year virement are up to £100,000 for corporate
directors, £250,000 for Cabinet and £500,000 for Council. There is a £2.8
million revenue fund budget in relation to energy efficiencies for civic
buildings and schools. Members outlined their understanding was that £1.5m had
been allocated to the Environment and Education Directorates. The remaining
funding appears to have been vired to Capital
Programmes. Members queried when the decision was taken and who authorised it.
Officers confirmed that the £2.8m remains in the revenue budget for 23/24 where
it was first authorised and that it was not vired to
other budgets. Officers confirmed that £1.5m of the budget was spent as agreed
within the Environment and Education directorate’s, 700k was used for reserves and
there is a projected underspend of 600k. Officers confirmed that there have
been no virements in year of that £2.8m budget.
As
a result of the one payment, Education received a £721,000 one off payment to
assist with fuel poverty in schools. Energy costs in schools totall £4.7mllion across the borough. Members were
concerned that moving forward the schools will not be funded to a sufficient
level to prevent fuel poverty and this will also result in an inability to
deliver the school development plan, where reserves will be essentially wiped
out.
The
Director of Education shared his concerns around the levels of deficits in some
schools. Every school who is currently in a deficit has a recovery plan.
Officers confirmed in last year’s schools delegated budget, there was an uplift
the budgets of the year before by 50%. Costs of fuel for schools is certainly
higher than was put into the schools delegated budget even with the top up
provided. The shortfall of funding would contribute to the overall overspend of
all schools. Some of the overspend can be attributed to schools still spending
their reserves on covid recovery and some schools are struggling to balance
their budgets as a result of costs in relation to funding additional learning
needs.
Members
advised that they were aware of one school that had started the financial year
in a surplus of £12,000 however had projected to close the financial year at a
deficit of £95,000. Members expressed their concern about this level of debt if
multiplied across the borough throughout various school and noted the concerns
that had been raised by the Director in terms of some elements of the budget
being sustainable for the future.
Members
expressed their concern at possible losses of both teaching and non-teaching
staff as schools may not be able afford to continue to employ them within
projected budgets.
Officers
advised that the issues raised is a pan Walse and
will need to be managed as its moved forward. Schools being in deficit will
pose a risk to the authority. The variation of schools in surplus and deficit
across the authority is quite wide ranging. A lot of these issues will be
considered at a forthcoming sustainability review to be undertaken.
Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
Capital Strategy and Capital Programme 2024/25 to 2026/27
Members
considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack.
Members
noted that the Levelling-up fund does not include the two additional schemes in
Port Talbot which were agreed earlier in the year and queried if there was a
reason why they were currently omitted from the capital programme. Officers
confirmed that the way the Levelling Up Fund is managed by UK Government is
that they advise you if your bid has been successful, and in this case two
projects were successful and confirmation has been
received indicating that the bids were successful. However, the authority has
still not yet received confirmation of the formal funding agreement from UK
Government and until this is received the projects can’t be incorporated into
the capital programme.
Members
sought clarification in relation to some items, in particular relation to the
PDR Network Management and Dock Road Feeder Bridge and also
what is included under Other Regeneration Schemes? Officers confirmed in terms
of the PDR there are repair works being undertaken around the roundabout in
Margam next to the works entrance as there is some damage to the carriage way
at the location. In relation to the bridge there are minor concrete repairs and
improvements/repairs to the barriers there. The works referred to are being
paid for with what is remaining from the PDR money received.
Officers
advised that in relation to the projects which fall under Other Regeneration
Schemes, they will circulate a list following the meeting outlining the
specifics of the projects.
Members
raised queries in reference to the reallocation of money relating to Neath
Transport Hub and that there is a mention of site relocation issues and works
ongoing around this. Members queried if there were any significant changes that
members need to be aware of in relation to the project. Officers confirmed that
there are no significant changes. Currently site investigation work is being
undertaken and this will be completed by the end of March.
With
reference to the former Youth Offending Team building adjacent to the
Magistrates Court, members queried if this was another office
based scheme that the authority were looking to deliver? Officers
confirmed that the building is located within the harbourside area and that the authority are purchasing and refurbishing
the building on a speculative basis as there is a high demand in this area for
office accommodation.
Members
queried if there is any capital allocation for parks and playgrounds? Officers
confirmed the current allocation under the Clean Up Green Up Scheme, and all
works in relation to this on parks and playgrounds will be completed by the end
of March, with the exception of the playground located
at Aberavon beach. However, officers confirmed that there is no specific
allocation under the proposed allocations for improvement to playgrounds the
forthcoming year. It was confirmed by officers that maintenance on current
assets will continue.
Members
asked for officers to clarify the exact location of works being carried out in
relation to the PDR. Officer agreed to clarify and circulate to members.
Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
Treasury Management Strategy, Annual Investment Strategy, and Minimum
Revenue Provision Policy
Members
considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack.
There
were no questions raised during the meeting.
Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.