(a)

the recommendations of Cabinet, contained in Cabinet minute 134 of 29 March 2011, on the proposals;

(b)

the written report of the Corporate Management Team submitted to Cabinet;

(c)

the recommendation of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board,  contained in minute 126 of 6 April 2011, on the proposals;

(d) 

an amended report of the Corporate Management Team (in accordance with minute 126 of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board). 

(e)

the proposals would address, in part, the pressure on the revenue budget;

(f)

‘invest to save’ would be a core business tool of the City Council going forward;   

(g)

the proposals would be funded subject to a robust business case;  

(h)

he was happy to accept the recommendation of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board and thanked the Board for their work;

(i)

he would provide quarterly monitoring information on the ‘invest to save’ schemes.

?

the established criteria for ‘invest to save’ schemes; 

?

how the projects are scored;

?

details of the running balance and how it was to be funded;

?

the benefit/outcome to be achieved.

‘Add the following (before recommendation (1)) –

Council asks officers to provide information on –

?

the established criteria for invest to save schemes;

?

how the projects are scored;

?

details of the running balance and how it was to be funded;

?

the benefit/outcome to be achieved;

and refers this information for the decisions listed below back to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board for further scrutiny prior to decisions being made.

Delete (10)

Delete (11)’

(j)

the need for criteria for the ‘invest to save’ schemes submitted today;

(k)

the need for accountability on the money from the sale of CityBus; 

(l)

the lack of information presented on schemes which had been rejected;

(m)

the need to measure benefits and outcomes;

(n)

the inability of the Management Board to form an opinion on the information presented; 

(o)

the proposals which could be reconsidered at the provisional meeting of the Management Board on 20 April 2011. 

?

there was inadequate information on savings and evaluation of the proposals;

?

further consideration could be given to the proposals when quarterly monitoring information was presented;

?

any delay in the proposals would increase the costs;

?

the Executive had brought forward the proposals for scrutiny;

?

23 projects had been reduced to those submitted;

?

the savings were identified in the report and that a 10% return was expected. 

?

the need for more pre decision scrutiny with Cabinet Members; 

?

it was essential that savings were evidenced;

?

the lack of cross party working for example on children’s service;

?

Cabinet had set up a reserve for ‘invest to save’ schemes with limited funding, which was the reason for pay back.

(1)

the commencement of the Parent and Child Assessment ‘invest to save’ project and that this be financed from the Council’s revenue ‘invest to save’ reserve £0.073m in 2011/12 and £0.010m in 2012/13; 

(2)

the inclusion of the Autistic Spectrum Disorder ‘invest to save’ project in the 2011/12 capital programme at an estimated cost of £0.657m to be financed from a mixture of general fund reserves and schools balances;

(3)

the continuation of the Carefirst project and to increase the capital programme for this project by £0.831m in 2010/11, £0.832m in 2011/12, £0.106m in 2012/13, £0.177m in 2013/14 and £0.377m in 2014/15. The revenue costs are estimated to be £1.006m in 2010/11, £0.425m in 2011/12, £0.399m in 2012/13, £0.400m in 2013/14 and £0.400m in 2014/15.Officers have now identified costs being incurred in 2010/11 (mentioned above) which could be treated as capital and would therefore allow the Council more flexibility in its financing options. Funding towards the project has been identified from existing revenue and capital budgets, however there will be temporary shortfalls totalling £0.600m which will need to be met from the revenue invest to save reserve;

(4)

the Accommodation Strategy Phase 2 ‘invest to save’ project and to increase the capital programme for this project by £2.106m in 2011/12, £1.008m in 2012/13 and £0.500m in 2013/14 to be financed from capital receipts and temporary unsupported borrowing;

(5)

an increase in the transport capital and revenue allocation (from 2010/11 levels) towards highway maintenance (which includes ‘pot hole’ maintenance) of £1.003m. This will be financed from an estimated increase in revenue government grant of £0.433m and a reallocation within the transport capital programme approved at 28 February 2011 Council from the ‘integrated transport block’ and street lighting maintenance;

(6)

an increase in the development capital programme for 2011/12 of £0.581m towards flood and coastal erosion schemes following the award of external grant funding;

(7)

the amendment of the Minimum Revenue Provision policy for 2010/11 and 2011/12 to reflect option 1 (the regulatory method) for borrowing supported by the government through the revenue support grant mechanism;

(8)

the delaying of changes to fees and charges relating to the adult social care ‘fairer charging’ policy until July 2011. This is due to the review of all clients not being completed until the end of June 2011;

(9)

making the use of Tinside pool free to all users during the summer of 2011;

(10)

the inclusion of the following information in all future ‘invest to save’ schemes –

?

the established criteria for ‘invest to save’ schemes;  

?

how the projects are scored; 

?

details of the running balance and how it was to be funded;

?

the benefit/outcome to be achieved;

(11)

amend the revenue budget to include the procurement ‘invest

to save’ proposal of £758,100.