Agenda item

Council is asked to approve the recommendations set out on page xx.

Moved by the City Mayor, seconded by Councillor Cassidy:

That Council

1)         Thanks scrutiny committees who have commented on our draft budget; the comments of the Overview Select Committee on 8 February are attached to the budget report at Item 2b in the agenda pack and the views of other scrutiny committees also appended to the budget report;

2)         Notes the comments made in the City Mayor’s formal Recommendation to Council Notice published on 21 February 2024 and attached as Appendix B to this script;

3)         Approves the recommendations set out in section 3.1 of the report at item 2b of the agenda pack ‘Revenue Budget 2024/25’  without amendment; and

4)         Approve the formal resolutions for the General Fund Budget 2024/25, including the City Mayor’s recommendations, which are attached as Appendix C to this script.

AMENDMENT

Moved by Councillor Kitterick, seconded by Councillor Bajaj

(a)  To amend the Mayor’s budget proposals as follows:

·         To transfer £4m from the capital programme reserve, the balance of which is shown at Appendix 5 to the report;

·         To use the money to set up a new earmarked reserve to fund adventure playgrounds for the next four years, and to provide as much security of funding as we are able to give in the current climate.

(b)  To note that it will require the following changes to the Mayor’s proposed capital programme, which I will move if the amendment passes:

·         To reduce the proposed budget for operational estate maintenance by £500,000 to £2.001m;

·         To reduce the proposed budget for fleet replacement by £500,000 to £3.305m;

·         To reduce the proposed budget for the corporate estate by £250,000 to £1.25m;

·         To reduce the proposed budget for feasibility studies by £250,000 to £880,000;

·         To reduce the proposed programme contingency by £500,000 to £2.5m.

(c)  To reduce the current capital programme funding for Connecting Leicester by £2m, leaving £33.9m;

(d)  To note the Director of Finance’s advice attached.

Attachment

Advice of Director of Finance

When reducing a capital programme there is the potential to have an operational impact on the delivery of service.  Some potential risks/impacts of the proposed reductions are listed below:

·         Operational Estate – there is a risk that the backlog of maintenance across Council buildings will increase, which may cause longer term cost pressures.

·         Corporate Estate – may lead to reductions in the income generated if buildings are not fit for purpose.

·         Fleet – may lead to vehicles having less availability, due to needing more repairs as they age or vehicles ceasing to be functional.

·         Cuts to feasibility studies may prevent Council schemes progressing, or prevent us accessing grant funding due to projects not being scoped.

·         Cuts to Connecting Leicester may lead to schemes that are already promised not being delivered.

·         Having a reduced programme contingency may result in schemes having to be reduced or aborted if actual costs exceed the budget.

We cannot  guarantee funding to the adventure playgrounds for four years, even if the amendment is passed, as the service is discretionary. If I am required to submit a section 114 report at any time because the Council cannot make ends meet, it would undoubtedly force us to use this reserve to support statutory services.

Furthermore it should be noted that:

-          The Scheme of Virement (Appendix 2 to the Revenue Budget Report) contains provisions relating to the spending of earmarked reserves, and the dissolution thereof;

-          Case law (Buck v Doncaster MBC [2013] EWCA Civ 1190) is clear that such reserves cannot act as a direction to the Executive to spend the money so set aside.

Following the debate, the Lord Mayor put the amendment to a vote.

Under Council Procedure Rule 29 of the Council’s Constitution, three Councillors requested a recorded vote.

For the amendment:

Councillors Bajaj, Barnes, Cank, Chauhan, Dave, Gregg, Joshi, Karavadra, Kennedy-Lount, Kitterick, Mahesh, Orton, Osman, Porter, Rae Bhatia, Sahu, Singh Patel, Westley

Against the amendment:

Councillors Aldred, Batool, Bonham, Cassidy, Clarke, Cole, Cutkelvin, Dawood, Dempster, Halford, Kaur Saini, Malik, Mohammed, Moore, O’Neill, Pantling, Pickering, Russell, Singh Johal, Singh Sangha, Sood, Soulsby (City Mayor) Surti, Waddington, Whittle, Zaman

Abstaining on the motion:

Councillors Barton, Joel

The Lord Mayor declared that the amendment was lost.

Following the debate, the Lord Mayor put the original motion to the vote.

Under Council Procedure Rule 29 of the Council’s Constitution, three Councillors requested a recorded vote.

For the motion:

Councillors Aldred, Barton, Batool, Bonham, Cank, Cassidy, Clarke, Cole, Cutkelvin, Dawood, Dempster, Halford, Joel, Kaur Saini, Malik, Mohammed, Moore, O’Neill, Pantling, Pickering, Russell, Singh Johal, Singh Sangha, Sood, Soulsby (City Mayor) Surti, Waddington, Whittle, Zaman

Against the motion:

Councillors Bajaj, Barnes, Chauhan, Dave, Gregg, Joshi, Karavadra, Kennedy-Lount, Kitterick, Mahesh, Orton, Osman, Porter, Rae Bhatia, Sahu, Singh Patel, Westley

The Lord Mayor declared the motion carried.