Decisions

6

North East Local Area Committee budget report

6.1

The Committee considered a report of the Community Services Manager that advised each Local Area Committee had a £100,000 budget to address local priorities, identified within their respective Community Plans.  The report set out details of the spend in respect of the £100,000 that had been authorised by the Community Services Manager, in consultation with the LAC Chair and in accordance with the delegation granted in September 2021. 

The report showed funding allocated to the North East Local Area Committee for 2023/24, and set out proposals for its allocation and expenditure in line with the North East Local Area Committee Community Plan.

The report noted the expenditure made in 2023/24 used to address local priorities, sought approval of the proposed allocated expenditure against the £100,000 budget to address local priorities in the North East LAC in 2023/24, and included the underspend and committed spend from 2022/23, as detailed in the report. 

An additional proposal was outlined in the report which recommended that 50% (£45,000) of the North East LAC’s allocation from the LAC Cost of Living budget (£90,000) was awarded as a grant to Citizens Advice Sheffield to support its advice line.

6.2

RESOLVED: That the North East Local Area Committee:

6.2.1

(i)    Notes the expenditure against the £100,000 budget to address local priorities in the North East LAC in 2022/3 and includes the underspend and committed spend from 2022/23, as detailed in the report; and

(ii)   Agrees that half (£45,000) of the Cost of Living budget allocated to the North East LAC  be given as a grant to Citizen Advice Sheffield to support its advice line as detailed in the report.  

6.3

6.3.1

6.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected 

6.4.1

Decisions on any expenditure to support Community Plan priorities could be delegated to officers, however, this would restrict the LAC’s ability to monitor its delegated budget and delivery of the Community Plan.

All decisions on expenditure to support Community Plan priorities could be delegated to officers.  However, this would restrict the LAC’s ability to monitor its delegated budget and delivery of the Community Plan.

9.1

The report seeks approval of the commissioning strategy, as outlined in this report. This is to operationalise the programme of activity required to further build Sheffield’s reputation as a distinctive and diverse cultural destination, subject to the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) funding being confirmed by South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SY MCA).

9.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Economic Development and Skills Policy Committee:-

Approve the commissioning strategy for up to £538,105, as outlined in this report and to operationalise the programme of activity detailed below, subject to the SPF funding being confirmed by SY MCA to:

·       Support international and community elements of 3 strategic events - £60K (Year 2)

·       Augmented Reality Look Up Project- £20K (Year 2)

·       Brand campaign and content creation - £100K (Years 2 & 3)

·       Media event and hosting- £20K (Years 2)

·       Support Staff - £116k (Years 2 & 3)

·       Cultural Events Programme - £191k (Year 3)

·       Accessibility information linked to visitor economy/cultural provision - £30k (Year 3)

9.3

Reasons for Decision

9.3.1

Shared Prosperity Fund years 2 & 3 funding provides a valuable opportunity to channel welcome additional resources into culture and city marketing, to give benefits to the visitor economy, wellbeing, cohesion and city reputation.

9.3.2

The proposed activities set out above are based on tried and tested methodologies including the previous Arts Council England-funded Cultural Destinations programme 2016-18 (Lush Spectra, Strong Language, Mausoleum of the Giants) and learning from the year 1 SPF. We want to embed innovative and diverse cultural activity and city promotion into the city’s calendar, and SPF years 2 & 3 will allow this to happen at transformative scale.

9.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

9.4.1

Alternative option 1 – SPF funding only applied to city marketing.

SPF years 2 & 3 funding could be applied just to city marketing, without a culture strand being supported. However, this would mean that an opportunity to help support the sector, grow the city’s reputation, give reasons to visit and engage with wider audiences would be missed.

9.4.2

Alternative option 2 – Not applying for further funding.

We could choose not to apply for Arts Council Place Partnerships funding, using SPF Year 3 as match. However, this would mean losing out on the potential to grow our resources for the city and arts sector and will mean that activity can take place during a second year, if successful.

9.1

This report provides details of proposed changes to the existing Capital Programme as brought forward in Month 04 2023/24.

9.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Finance Committee:-

(i)         approves the proposed additions and variations to the Capital Programme listed in Appendix 1;

(ii)        approves in principle the award of grant funding as identified in Appendix 2 and delegates approval of the grant award to the Director of Regeneration and Development. Such approval (and entry into the agreement) is to be subject to the prior completion of a subsidy control principles assessment to demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Regeneration and Development that the above grant award is consistent with the subsidy control principles; and

(iii)      approves the acceptance of grant funding as identified in Appendix 3.

9.3

Reasons for Decision

9.3.1

The proposed changes to the Capital Programme will improve the services to the people of Sheffield.

9.3.2

To formally record changes to the Capital Programme and gain Member approval for changes in line with Financial Regulations and to reset the capital programme in line with latest information.

9.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

9.4.1

A number of alternative courses of action are considered as part of the process undertaken by Officers before decisions are recommended to Members. The recommendations made to Members represent what Officers believe to be the best options available to the Council, in line with Council priorities, given the constraints on funding and the use to which funding is put within the Revenue Budget and the Capital Programme.

8.1

This report brings the Committee up to date with the Council’s outturn position for 2023/24 including the General Fund revenue position, Housing Revenue Account, and Capital Programme Monitoring (Appendix 1). The report also provides an update of the Council’s Treasury Management activity (Appendix 2) and the Collection Fund Account (Appendix 3).

8.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Finance Committee:-

a)    approves the virement of £700k from the Ward Pots (£25k per ward) to the Local Area Committees (LACs);

b)    notes the updated information and management actions provided by this report on the 2023/24 Revenue Budget Outturn as described in this report;

c)     notes the updated information and management actions provided by this report on the Q1 2023/24 Capital Programme Monitoring as described in Appendix 1;

d)    notes the Treasury Management report for Q1 2023/24 as described in Appendix 2; and

e)    notes the Collection Fund monitoring report for Q1 2023/24 as described in Appendix 3.

8.3

Reasons for Decision

8.3.1

To record formally changes to the Revenue Budget and the Capital

Programme.

8.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

8.4.1

The Council is required to both set a balance budget and to ensure that in-year income and expenditure are balanced. No other alternatives were considered.

11.1

Regeneration and Property Services propose the disposal of freehold land at Cotton Mill Row, Kelham Island, Sheffield S3 on a private treaty basis on the terms set out in the attached Appendix for the development of a high-density residential led mixed use scheme.

As the land has not been subject to a competitive marketing process and consideration to be received by the Council exceeds £300,000, this report seeks the approval of the Council’s Finance Committee to dispose of the Land.

11.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Finance Committee approves the freehold sale of the Land on the terms set out in the Appendix 3.

11.3

Reasons for Decision

11.3.1

The intended outcome of the proposal is to deliver new residential accommodation within the city centre and repurpose vacant and redundant commercial sites where older buildings are inefficient and would benefit from redevelopment.

11.3.2

The development proposals will help attract additional footfall which will be of benefit to the city centre. The disposal will also deliver a significant capital receipt, increased Council Tax revenue and CIL contribution for the Council.

11.3.3

The proposals will deliver the economic and financial benefits as outlined within this report.

11.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

11.4.1

The Council could do nothing; this may result in the Land remaining vacant for several more years and would not contribute to the Council’s aspirations to see the Kelham Island area regenerated. This could also have a negative impact on the future use of the Land.

11.4.2

The Council could offer the Land for sale in the open market; this may result in a disposal and subsequent development, but in isolation, due to its small size, the Land would be limited in terms of future development potential, and it is considered that a sale would generate a lower capital receipt for the Council as a result.

10.1

This report provides an overview of progress to deliver the second round of the Economic Recovery Fund (ERF) now that the application and scoring phases are complete. The report lists the outcomes of the scoring process for all applications and provides information about the geographical spread and make-up of the areas that applied for funding. The report marks the point at which ERF moves from the application and scoring phases into the contracting phase, which will enable successful projects to start delivering improvements and activities in their areas.

10.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Finance Committee:-

1.     Approves Sheffield City Council (“SCC”) to allocate funding to areas offered over £50,000 (up to £200,000) and, subject to due diligence and other checks being undertaken to the satisfaction of the Director of Economic Development, Culture and Skills, for SCC to enter into a funding agreement with an appropriate lead organisation for each of the areas listed in the table below:

2.     Notes the areas listed in the table below have been allocated funding of up to £50,000 under the general delegation to officers, subject to due diligence and other checks being satisfied:

10.3

Reasons for Decision

10.3.1

The nature of ERF means that the projects that have been allocated funding have been through a rigorous process, both during the development of the applications and in scoring.  The ERF Steering Group are collectively supportive of the outcomes of this process and in the recommendations presented here. 

10.3.2

The successful projects have been informed of the outcome in principle and are awaiting Committee approval in order to move forward.  Delaying or changing these recommendations may have an impact on the Council’s reputation in these areas and would impact on the delivery of the intended outcomes of the ERF.  

10.3.3

The recommendations here allow the Council to continue its work to engage with and empower local businesses and high streets and support their recovery following the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent cost of living crisis.

10.3.4

The intended outcome is to have a programme that meets the ERF objectives through the successful delivery of the proposals in these 23 projects as well as the Council’s Delivery Plan objectives.

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

Programme

10.4.1

As noted, a range of options for delivering ERF2 were considered over summer and autumn 2022.  Several alternative ways of delivering the second round of funding were considered as part of this process and proposals were made in relation to changing and improving the second round of funding.  These were approved by the EDSP Committee at its meeting on 19^th October 2022.  This approach has subsequently been enacted so the proposals here are the outcome of an agreed process. 

Outcomes

10.4.2

Because the Fund was oversubscribed, Steering Group had to look at ways of managing that and ensuring funding offers were within the available budget and made in a fair way (as described in appendix 1). 

Alternatives to that included the following, but the agreed approach was felt by the Steering Group to be a balanced, individualised and fair way of dealing with the budget pressure that took into account the specific elements within each project and strengths and weaknesses.  It was felt that any blanket measures would cut across these nuances and lead to outcomes unreflective of their scoring judgements.

12.1

The Executive Director Neighbourhood Services submitted a report will seeking  approval to commission security guarding and keyholding services from an external provider. The report sets out the background to the service and explain why this service cannot be delivered in-house. The report also describes how the service is currently being delivered and goes on to set out the type of service desired for the commission.

12.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Strategy and Resources Policy Committee  approves the commission of security guarding and keyholding services from an external provider, for a period of up to 4 years and with an estimated value of £7,600,000, as set out in the report.

12.3

Reasons for Decision

12.3.1

Preferred option – to commission security guarding and keyholding services from an external provider. This will help enable the Council to continue to provide this key service.

12.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

12.4.1

Do nothing – this is not a viable option as the Council has the ongoing requirement for an effective security guarding provider and a legal responsibility to safely manage our properties and the existing contract is due to expire.

12.4.2

Self-Deliver - this is not a viable option; the Council has neither the capacity nor expertise to deliver these services.

12.4.3

Further extend existing contract – this is not a viable option as all available contract extensions have been utilised. As ever, the Council must adhere to the Public Contract Regulations (PCR) 2015 thus further variations (value and duration) are not deemed easily reconcilable with the provisions set out within PCR.

11.1

The Executive Director Neighbourhood Services submitted a report setting out the Council’s statutory duties to maintain and inspect air conditioning and air handling equipment. The report explains how the services have been delivered to date and the importance of service continuity. The report will then set out to justify the commissioning of an external service provider to service, maintain and inspect air conditioning and air handling equipment.

11.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Strategy and Resources Policy Committee  approves the commission of an external service provider to deliver the servicing, inspection, and maintenance of air-conditioning and air-handling equipment, with an estimated value of £390,000, for a period of 3 years, as set out in this report.

11.3

Reasons for Decision

Preferred option – to commission the service in the manner described in section 1 of this report. This will enable the Council to continue to provide essential services to manage and maintain equipment within our properties.

11.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

11.4.1

Do nothing – this is not an option as the Council has the ongoing requirement and legal responsibility to safely manage equipment within our properties. The current contract for this service is due to expire at the end of March 2024.

11.4.2

Self-Deliver - this is not a viable option; the service has neither the capacity or expertise to deliver these goods and services.

11.4.3

Further extend existing contracts – this is not a viable option. As ever, the Council must adhere to the Public Contract Regulations (2015), thus further variations (value and duration) are not deemed easily reconcilable with the provisions set out within PCR.

10.1

The Director of Finance and Commercial Services submitted a report setting out the medium-term financial position for the Council and proposals on how individual policy committee budget targets for 2024/25 are set.  The report also sets out the 2023/24 Q1 budget monitoring position for the general fund and the Strategy and Resources committee budget position.

10.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Strategy and Resources Policy Committee:-

(a) endorses, as a planning assumption, core Council Tax increases of 2.99% for 2024/25 and 2% each year after and the Adult Social Care Precept increases of 2% for 2024/25 and 1% each year after;

(b) notes, that while the Council has taken action to remove reliance on reserves to

balance the budget, the current level of reserves provides a limited amount of time for action to be taken strategically in response to the financial position;

(c) notes, firm action is being taken over the period of the Medium Term Financial Analysis (MTFA) to contain pressures and deliver significant savings and/or mitigations through continued delivery of BIPS and organisational development and transformation. Failure to do so will see the Council’s financial position become unsustainable;

(d) requests, an updated MTFA will be presented in November 2023 to Strategy and Resources Policy Committee following identification of savings by Committees and refinement of pressures in the coming months;

(e) approves the 2024/25 budget targets as set out in this report reflecting the MTFA;

(f) requests that reports are presented to Policy Committees for approval at meetings in November that set out how they will balance their budgets for 2024/25;

(g) notes that a consolidated report based on the individual Policy Committee reports and decisions of the Policy Committees will be brought to the 13 December

meeting of this Committee;

(h) notes the updated information and management actions provided by this report

on the 2023/24 Q1 Revenue Budget.

10.3

Reasons for Decision

The recommendations in this report will formally record the changes to the revenue budget and ensure that the Council has a robust budget process for 2024/25 and that each Policy Committee undertakes any work required to balance their 2024/25 budget.

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

The Council is required to both set a balanced budget and to ensure that in-year income and expenditure are balanced. No other alternatives were considered.