Agenda item

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 3 as at 31 December 2015, which had been considered by Cabinet on 18 February 2016.

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

Q –      How much of the mitigating actions for the overspend on Directorate budgets were reserve/contingency or trimming revenue budgets and would the budget be brought under control?  What would the reserves be at end of year compared to the previous year?

A –      £1m  welfare reform reserve, £866k social care reserve, £1m corporate items budget and £858k corporate contingency.  The cost of homelessness was a growing concern and whilst funding for welfare reform had been set aside it was not an original budget.  After mitigating action the budget was on line and a balanced budget was anticipated. Table 4 to the report detailed the contingencies and earmarked reserves excluding £10m general reserves and the officers did not anticipate many drawdowns.  Reserves would be examined as the outturn progressed.

Q –      What is the updated position on the end of contract commercial exit negotiations with Capita?

A –      No final agreement had been reached but offers had been made and the aim was to conclude the matter for the end of the financial year.  The Corporate Director Resources would be able to provide an update.

Q –      What action is to be taken to reduce the £535k with a red RAG rating on table 5?

A –      Actions taken included compensatory savings for: car parking charges not being increased, contract renegotiation for gritting not to be undertaken until 2016, and postponed implementation of the £50k occupational health proposals due to delay in the Government Fit for Work Scheme.

Q –      What was the impact on services of the unachieved savings of £353k on the PRISM project and how does this relate to the original saving anticipated in previous MTFS of £0.6m?

A –      The officer would ensure consistency of the saving to be achieved in the following financial year.  The Portfolio Holder stated that the RAGs were part of the overall report and the aim was to come in on budget.

Q –      At what point did the Portfolio Holder become aware of unachievable savings and what steps have been taken?

A –      Quarterly monitoring enabled focus on saving targets, whether savings were being achieved and, if not, what action could be taken.  Each department was to come in on budget.

Q –      Why was the decision taken to postpone the introduction of charges for garden waste for six months and what have been the implementation costs so far?  Was the projected participation rate in the scheme of 35% still valid?  What monitoring was taking place and how confident that the 2016/17 budget savings would be realised?

A –      The Portfolio Holder stated that it had been important to ensure that the scheme was implemented at the most appropriate time and he was in regular discussion with the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Crime and Community Safety with regard to promoting participation.  Discussions on the budget situation had commenced approximately late summer and he was satisfied that the Council’s overall budget was on target. The expansion of the available budget through commercialisation was being implemented.  The officer would inform Members of the implementation costs of the waste collection proposals and the take up of the garden waste collection.

Q –      What was the position with regard to MyCEP Commercialisation?

A –      There was an ongoing procurement process and the business plan, together with an analysis of bids received, would be submitted to Cabinet.

Q –      How likely was it that all the zeros in the forecast and variance for the Environment capital programme at 31 December 2015 would be achieved?  Was there slippage due to Wards not taking up funding for the Neighbourhood Investment Scheme?

A –      Environment had performed very well in the delivery of the capital programme.  The officer would check the position on spend regarding the Neighbourhood Investment Scheme and inform the Sub-Committee.

The Chair suggested that due to time constraints, Members take up any further points at the Scrutiny Leads meeting or as appropriate.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.