?

Corporate Plan 2011 – 14;

?

Corporate Asset Management Plan 2011 – 15; 

?

2011/12 Revenue and Capital Budget (update to the Indicative Budget approved on 14 December 2010 (minute 83 refers).

(a)

the plan focused on the vision for the city and for the Council, the four shared priorities of the Council and its partners and a range of supporting outcome measures;

(b)

the plan summarised the Council’s financial position and its drive to make efficiencies at a time of reduced public expenditure;

(c)

the importance of transformational change to improve services with fewer resources was a theme throughout;

(d)

the plan also highlighted the public budget consultation, partnership input and overview and scrutiny focus.

(e)

on the updated Corporate Asset Management Plan for which the  timetable had been revised to the end of 2015, due to the effect of the current economic downturn. This would be reviewed during the next twelve months;

(f)

that work was underway to produce a business plan for the accommodation strategy;

(g)

that the plan included the Council community asset transfer strategy which would respond to the new government agenda on devolving more control to communities and also supported  elements of the council’s budgetary delivery plans.  It also showed how the Council was taking forward carbon management;

(h)

that information on the management of assets was detailed in the report, including the provision of a new corporate property database, the ongoing maintenance strategy, statutory compliance, corporate property forum and new developments around the Single Point Of Contact for Corporate Support and Corporate Buyer function;

(i)

that the schools estate was a significant part of the Council’s portfolio and referred to primary schools where there was a basic need issue, requiring a temporary increase of the use of temporary classrooms;

(j)

that the 2011/12 Revenue and Capital Budget updated the funding allocations in the Medium Term Financial Strategy presented to the City Council on 6 December 2010, and detailed both the revenue allocations as a result of the December 2010 Local Government Settlement announcements, and updated the capital programme following funding allocations. As a result of the settlement there was a need to revisit the original budget assumptions;

(k)

whilst the report outlined a balanced budget in the context of resources available, more detailed work would continue during February and any refinement to the budget proposals would be reported to the City Council on 28 February 2011;

.

(l)

approval was sought for increases to various discretionary fees and charges proposed as part of the budget considerations;

(m)

that the report provided an update on how the Council had allocated its revenue and capital resources across departments and priority areas for 2011/12 to improve outcomes for local people and was fully linked and underpinned the Council’s Corporate Plan 2011-14;

(n)

for the Capital Programme, there had been significant reductions in funding areas linked to all government departments, and there was much uncertainty over funding streams post 2011/12. The Council was still planning a significant capital investment and this would increase in years 2012/13 – 2014/15 as more funding streams become available. The revised Medium Term Capital Programme was submitted for approval;

(o)

the Treasury Management Strategy for 2011/12 was subject to scrutiny by the Audit Committee on 21 January 2011. Following the revisions to the capital programme, there was a need to revise the prudential indicators as outlined in the report.

(p)

the delivery plans for adult social care were on target and alternative options were in place in the event of slippage;

(q)

whilst proposing savings on children’s services, a needs analysis had been undertaken at the outset of the process, locality by locality, and focus had been maintained on the impact of proposals on vulnerable families.  The service was proposing to do things differently rather than reduce services and the early intervention grant would be targeted at vulnerable groups;      

(r)

a significant amount of funding had been released to the health authority for social care and the officers were in discussion to secure an agreement on how that money would be allocated between the authorities.  The agreement for 2010/11 would be brought to Cabinet shortly and officers were in discussion on the funding for 2011/12 and 2012/13;

(s)

although capital funding for transport schemes had been cut, the city was still aiming to deliver the growth agenda. The city was one of the few to have seen significant investment in improvements to the infrastructure and, with partners, a bid was being prepared for local sustainable transport funding;

(t)

every effort had been made to ensure that safeguarding had not been compromised during the budget process;  Councillor Mrs Watkins having recently spent time with social workers,  expressed her thanks to them for their commitment to their work;

(u)

there had been a significant investment into libraries, for example at Torbridge High School and St Aubyn’s.  A review was looking at modernisation, opening hours, usage and staffing levels across the management. Officers were also in discussion with other authorities in the peninsula to consider improving technology and distribution of services across the city.  There were no proposals to close libraries next year.

The Chair expressed her thanks to Councillor Brookshaw (Cabinet Member for Community Services (Safer and Stronger Communities and Leisure Culture and Sport) and Carole Burgoyne.  The officers undertook to consider whether St Aubyn’s could be submitted for an Abercrombie award;

(v)

excellent progress had been made at the Life Centre and the works were currently on target.  Final tenders had been received for the leisure management contract and the preferred bidder would be announced in March 2011;

(w)

the Plymouth Translate Service in the Safer Communities Department would be self funding and the City Council was in discussion with the health authority for funding, as the biggest user of the service;

(x)

the reduction of grant funding in the safer communities area, would impact on domestic abuse and sexual assault services.  Investment was being sought from partners and officers were looking at the most efficient use of grants and ways of filling the gap in funding.  The proposals included a reduction in the back office;  

(y)

although bulky waste collection charges were being increased,  fees had not been raised for three years and those on benefits would receive the service free of charge;

(z)

no front line services were affected by these proposals;

(aa)

the transfer of performance and policy staff was being  managed by Assistant Chief Executive, across all departments and officers and Members were confident that the changes would deliver savings and improve the service;

(bb)

comments about the proposals targeting vulnerable people were rejected and fairness in the budget proposals, could be demonstrated.  A risk based approach had been adopted and proposals had been considered under equality impact assessments and the impact of decisions would be kept under review.

(1)

Corporate Plan 2011-14

the Corporate Plan is Recommended to the City Council for adoption, subject to minor amendments and editorial design changes being delegated to the Chief Executive and the relevant portfolio holder;

(2)

Corporate Asset Management Plan 2011-15

the Corporate Asset Management Plan is Recommended to the City Council for adoption, subject to minor amendments and editorial design changes being delegated to the Director for Corporate Support and the relevant portfolio holder;

2011/12 Revenue and Capital Budget Report

(3)

the proposed net revenue budget requirement of £208.237m for 2011/12 and five year Capital Programme (2010/11 – 2014/15) of £192.635m is Recommended to the City Council on 28 February 2011, subject to any final amendments;

(4)

increases to fees and charges as outlined in Appendix C to the report,are Recommended to the City Council for approval;

(5)

the revised Prudential Indicators outlined in Appendix E to the report are Recommended to the City Council for approval.