Next week (18th April) Rutland County Council Cabinet is being asked to approve an increase in
the budget of up to £309,000 from CIL contributions for the
Oakham Library refurbishment and the Children’s Centre extension
We were all told this project was the best option as it was providing the best option
for value for money.
I am not convinced this is any longer true, the Children's services is serving
at the most fifteen children and the cost per head is extremely high.
The estimated cost of just building the extension of the library is astonishing
£557,000 a sum of money which could buy quite an attractive property anywhere
in Rutland that could house Children's Services.
A private individual could build a few new houses at the bottom of their own
garden for that sum of money, I wonder is the Council building a palace.
The Council appears to me that it is exercising caution to avoid this matter from
returning to full council by keeping the budget under £1,000,000 by around £11,000
Rutland County Council say
The request is being made in-line with financial procedure rules. Paragraph 5.7 of
the Financial Procedure Rules allows Cabinet to approve an increase in funding
where the total project cost is below £1m and the funding used existed at the time
the budget (Report No 44/2017 ‘Revenue and Capital Budgets 2017/18) was
approved The recommendation meets both of these requirements.
Library refurbishment is estimated to cost £325,000 I guess it will look wonderful
the proposal is that the books will be placed on trolley style shelves which can be moved
away so the main space can be used for events.
The library if not used for event could see the introduction of out of hours access
(Not Staffed) access via library membership cards.
As you would expect from any good council they are anticipating spending
£107,000 on Design Fees (inc. site surveys etc.)
I wonder why nearly all Rutland County Council major projects run over budget
is it because those few Tories who were running most aspects of the council in the
past feared their projects would be rejected if true and honest costing were put to all
our Councillors in the first place?
Surely the 45% extra money now required is not a mistake made by officers again?
