Issue - meetings

Report of the Director of Finance.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)          the revenue and capital forecast positions detailed in the report as at Quarter 2 2015/16 be noted;

(2)          additions to the Capital Programme of externally funded spend in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the report in respect of an addition to the Transport for London (TfL) funded Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and an increase in the budget for Grants to Move be approved.

Reason for Decision:  To report the 2015/16 forecast financial position as at 30 September 2015.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member/Dispensation Granted:  None.

Report of the Director of Finance.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Director of Finance on the revenue and capital monitoring for quarter 2 as at 30 September 2015, which was due to be considered by Cabinet on 10 December 2015.

Following a brief overview of the report by the Director of Finance, Members asked the following questions and received responses from the officer:

Q –      Why was the RAG (red, amber, green) tracker key used in the report different to that used elsewhere in the Council? Could consideration be given to the inclusion of low red, high red and direction of travel to enable more detailed consideration?

A –      The blue rating indicated that the saving had been achieved and banked and therefore further review was not required.  It was noted that direction of travel was discussed in relation to  performance analysis and was not used in quarterly budget monitoring.  The information provided by Finance was in the form of a commentary rather than ‘ups and downs’.

Q –      Why was it necessary to draw from contingency monies, why were there so many contingency funds and how did separate funds help in managing finances?

A –      Contingency funds were created for specific reasons because the use of one general fund could not identify that expenditure complied with the intended use.   Any combination of such funds would defeat this purpose.  The provision of greater detail on the contingency funds aimed to prevent complications at the year end.  The system improved accountability for Corporate Directors.

Q –      As two months had elapsed since the production of the second quarter information, could updates be circulated at the meeting in order to update the information?  Could consideration be given to the circulation of the monthly monitoring reports considered by CSB and viewed by Portfolio Holders, therefore ensuring that the Sub-Committee received up to date information to enable timely scrutiny of problem areas?  The November report would be relevant for this meeting.

A –      The quarterly monitoring process monitored various budgets at various frequencies based on risk.  It was a forecast for the year and had been smoother than previous years.  The comments raised would be discussed.

Q –      What percentage determined whether a saving would be unachievable and therefore flagged as red?  For example, garden waste remained amber despite a reduction of £850,000 in the saving envisaged.

A –      The garden waste saving could have remained amber because mitigating action had been identified.  Delays on the achievement of savings had resulted in one-off in year mitigation.

Q –      What was the timeframe for no draw down until monies were returned to the general fund?

A –      Depending on the type of expenditure, some contingency funds remained until year end at which point it was decided whether transfer to the general contingency fund was appropriate.  Contingency funds could not be transferred to the following financial year.  An annual review was undertaken as to whether a contingency fund was required for the following financial year.  The creation of a number  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51