Meeting documents

Considered report previously circulated, which provided an update on the projected outturn financial position of the Council for the financial year 2018-19.

The current revenue forecast outturn for the financial year 2018-19 was as follows:-

·         The General Fund Revenue Outturn was forecasting a net underspend of £13,000.

·         The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) was forecasting underspend of £356,000.

The current capital forecast position for 2018-19 was as follows:-

·         The General Fund Capital Account was forecasting spend of £11,762,000 against a total Programme budget of £71,883,000 with £43,462,000 forecast to be spent in future years (£16,659,000 spent in previous years).

·         The Housing Revenues Account Capital Account was forecasting spend of £8,679,000 against a budget of £17,686,000 with £9,007,000 forecast to be spent in future years.

During the discussion of this item, Members made comments and statements and asked questions which included:-

·         Concern was raised on the delay in the implementation of the Pay by Foot parking scheme and that it would introduce variations in the parking charges for each car park for ‘blue badge’ holders.

·         Members queried what factors had contributed to the £356,000 underspend on the HRA.

The main variances were in responsive maintenance and staff vacancies.

·         Concern was raised on the Community Safety budget error of £42,000.

When the previous budget was set, there had been an assumed amount that had been funded from the reserve, which had been carried forward.

·         Members queried whether the budget allocations in Appendix C would be held for the projects listed.

Clarification was given on the allocations and the details of the projects would be distributed to the Committee.

·         Concern was raised on the risk that had been flagged on the DLO Trading Account.

Due to work still being carried out on the account, officers did not have the full details, so were unable to report accurate figures, however, the forecasts were closely monitored and were subject to audit.

·         Members requested clarification on the HRA expenditure and what could be done to help divert money to help with the housing problems.

A written response from the Housing Manager would be distributed to the Committee.

·         Concern was raised that the Council was not meeting its statutory function to provide homes for the homeless.

The Interim Finance Manager would report their concern to the Housing Manager.

·         The Chairman reminded Members that the Homelessness Manager had attended the previous meeting of the Committee and it was suggested that a Members Briefing could be arranged for further detail on the homelessness policy.

·         Members suggested that other officers should attend meetings where financial reports were discussed so that any queries that related to the policies could be answered.

·         Members queried the reasons behind the Car Parks £89,000 overspend.

The Car Parks overspend was a result of the delay in the Pay by Foot scheme, but once the project was implemented, officers expected an increase in income.

·         Members requested assurance that the upturn in parking income would happen once the Pay by Foot scheme was implemented.

Officers had researched other Pay by Foot schemes that had been introduced across the country and found that each scheme had reported an increase in income.  This was due to the nature of the scheme which allowed customers to park for longer without the worry of being fined.

·         Members requested clarification on the additional volume costs of £53,000 on the Somerset Waste Partnership (SWP) contract.

The additional volume costs were based on garden waste and new containers being charged separately to the SWP contract.

·         Concern was raised on the cost of the roll out of smart phones within the Authority and Members queried what the cost related to.

The roll out of smart phones related to the introduction of the 8x8 internet phone system that had replaced the fixed terminal phones in the offices.

·         Members requested clarification on the cost of the Transformation Project.

Full details were due to be published in the agenda for the Shadow Scrutiny meeting scheduled for 26 November 2018, until then, the details had not been finalised.

·         Members queried the significant forecast variance for Planning and whether this was due to the amount of agency staff that were working in the department.

The Head of Strategy anticipated that the costs related to the use of agency staff partly as a result of the Transformation Project.  Fortunately the department had seen an increase in additional income. 

·         Concern was raised on the forecast for the DLO Account and Members requested that an update be brought to Scrutiny in either December 2018 or January 2019.

The Governance and Democracy Specialist would add the item to the Scrutiny Work Programme.

·         Members requested a breakdown of the figures for Insurance and Improvements costs that had been included in sections 7.6 and 8.5 of the report.

The Finance Officer would send out a written answer.

·         Members queried whether the way the DLO department operated would change in the future.

Yes, all departments were due to change their working practices as part of the new structure and Transformation Project.

·         Concern was raised on the amount that had been spent on ICT and that the figures would only increase over the years with the roll out of new equipment.

There would be money set aside from certain budgets to help pay for new equipment in the future.  There had been issues with certain aspects of the roll out, however, there were many benefits linked to the new equipment.  Further ‘drop in’ sessions would be arranged to assist Members with any technical questions.

Resolved that the Scrutiny Committee noted the Council’s forecast financial performance for 2018-19 financial year as at 30 September 2018.