Agenda item

Departmental budget allocation - CHL

Minutes:

The Committee agreed to discuss the budget allocation document during the Public session noting that budgetary allocations were routinely discussed in Public sessions, noting that any sensitive matters would be deferred to the non-Public session.

 

The Committee viewed a presentation on the budgetary allocations at the Corporation that included information on the funding sources of City Fund, City Estates, and City Bridge Foundation, noting also the £20.7M allocated to Culture that mostly comes from City Fund.

 

Members also noted these key assumptions agreed in 2024:

 

  1. Increase for Adult & Children’s social care pressures and staff strengthening for HR and internal controls;
  2. 2% inflation uplift in local risk budgets;
  3. No additional resources to be agreed (prioritisation to be made within overall envelopes);
  4. No new bids processes for City Fund/City Estates; and
  5. Continued work on workstreams to improve operational property utilisation and income generation.

 

Members noted the recent challenging budget position for Sculpture in the City (SITC), noting that the Committee, Environment and external partners had supported the SITC programme for the current year.

 

A Member sought clarity on the difference between local and central risk. The meeting heard that local risk references expenditure that is wholly within the responsibility of a Chief Officer, and central risk references the demand-led element of expenditure rendering it more challenging to control and the relevant Chief Officer is not required to make good any deficit.

 

A Member asked for clarity on how the Committee might influence the budget-setting process. The meeting heard that the priorities of the relevant Chief Officer and the Committee would ordinarily be expected to map onto each other so that resources could be prioritised accordingly – but that the CHL Committee currently has more than one Chief Officer which complicates the situation. The meeting heard that the absence of a defined cultural strategy and the absence of a co-ordinating cultural director position meant that the scope, priorities and remit have become unclear but that the development of a clear strategy and the appointment of a cultural director (both imminent) would clarify the Committee’s position and drive resource allocation in line with a cultural strategy. The Committee also noted its approval in January 2022 of structural and resourcing changes resulting in the current organisation.

 

In response to a question on the timeline for strategy-setting and how that fitted in with the budget-setting process for the forthcoming year, the meeting heard that it was unlikely that a cultural strategy would be finalised in time for the 2025-26 budget-setting process though plans may be revised in the light of a defined cultural strategy via mid-year adjustments. 

 

The Committee noted that additional income source and tools should be considered to inform a five-year strategy, and that a Chief Officer would ordinarily be expected to be factoring that in.

 

Members commented on some of the constraints within the budgetary process given the fixed items of expenditure.