Issue - meetings

This report sets out areas for investment in IT that have been identified and put forward by Directors and asks Members to review these proposals and decide which ones they wish to fund.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the order of priorities recommended by the CITSG be agreed in principle, subject to the allocation of resources as part of the 2008/09 budget process.

REASON:      In order to allocate the IT Development Plan funding for 2008/09 to priority projects, to support the delivery of the Council’s corporate priorities.

                        (ii)        That consideration also be given during the budget build process to the appropriate provision to be made in the Medium Term Financial Strategy for spend on the IT Development Plan in 2009/10.

REASON:      To ensure that sufficient resources are identified for future years’ IT Development within the Council’s forward plan, subject to the overall budget position.

                        (iii)       That Officers be asked to refine the proposals further, to identify more specifically the revenue savings that each will deliver over the lifetime of the investment.

REASON:      In order to inform the budget build process.

Members considered a report which asked them to review areas for investment in IT that had been identified and put forward by Directors, and to decide which of these projects should be funded.

The proposals had been evaluated by the Corporate IT Strategy Group (CITSG) and were presented in priority order in Annex A to the report.  A summary of each proposal, with a breakdown of costs, was set out in Annex B.  Those bids that had been rejected by CITSG were summarised in Annex C.

Three options were presented for Members’ consideration:

Option 1 - to fund all the bids recommended by the CITSG (i.e. those listed above the dotted line in Annex A)

Option 2 – to fund more bids than recommended by the CITSG; that is, to include the two bids listed below the dotted line in Annex A.  All of these bids could be funded from the General Fund allocation, although more funding would be required from HRA and Neighbourhood Services.

Option 3 – to fund fewer bids than recommended by the CITSG.

The report highlighted those proposals that would or would not be funded should Members wish to select Options 2 or 3.

Officers circulated additional information at the meeting regarding the potential annual savings to be achieved by each scheme (Annex D).

[Note: Annex D has been attached to the minutes of this meeting, as published on the Council’s website].

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive, it was

RESOLVED: (i)         That the order of priorities recommended by the CITSG be agreed in principle, subject to the allocation of resources as part of the 2008/09 budget process.

REASON:      In order to allocate the IT Development Plan funding for 2008/09 to priority projects, to support the delivery of the Council’s corporate priorities.

                        (ii)        That consideration also be given during the budget build process to the appropriate provision to be made in the Medium Term Financial Strategy for spend on the IT Development Plan in 2009/10.

REASON:      To ensure that sufficient resources are identified for future years’ IT Development within the Council’s forward plan, subject to the overall budget position.

                        (iii)       That Officers be asked to refine the proposals further, to identify more specifically the revenue savings that each will deliver over the lifetime of the investment.

REASON:      In order to inform the budget build process.