Agenda item

Laura Shipley, Financial Services Manager:

a)    presented a report to Performance Scrutiny Committee with a summary of the first quarter’s performance (up to 30^th June 2023), on the Council’s

·         General Fund

·         Housing Revenue Account

·         Housing Repairs Service

·         Capital Programmes

b)    requested that Performance Scrutiny Committee note the changes to the capital programmes

c)    provided information on the following:

·         General Fund Revenue Account – for 2023/24 the Council’s net General Fund Revenue Budget was set at £14,402,660, including a planned contribution from balances of £191,110 resulting in an estimated level of general balances at the year-end of £2,228,739 (Appendix A provided a forecast General Fund Summary). There were a number of forecast year-end variations in income and expenditure against the approved budget. Full details of the main variances were provided in Appendix B

·         Housing Revenue Account –– for 2023/24 the Council’s Housing Revenue Account (HRA) net revenue budget was set with a planned contribution from balances of £58,930, resulting in an estimated general balances at year-end of £1,125,517, after allowing for the 2022/23 outturn position (Appendix C provided a forecast Housing Revenue Account Summary) Although the forecast position was an underspend there was a number of significant variations in income an expenditure. Full details of the main variances were provided at Appendix D

·         Housing Repairs Service – For 2023/24 the Council’s Housing Repairs Service (HRS) net budget was set at zero, which reflected its full cost recovery nature. At quarter 1 the HRS was forecasting a deficit of £828,671 in 2023/24. Full details of the main variances were provided at Appendix F

·         General Investment Programme – the original General Investment Programme for 2023/24 in the MTFS 2023-28 amounted to £14.1m which was increased to £21.3m following quarter 4 approvals and year end re-profiles from 2022/23. At quarter 1 the programme had been increased by £3.4m to £24.7m as shown at paragraph 7.2

The overall spending on the General Investment Programme for the first quarter of 23/24 was £1.9m, which was 7.3% of the 2022/23 active programme (excluding externally delivered schemes) as detailed in Appendix I

·         Housing Investment Programme – the revised programme for 2023/24 amounted to £22.174m following the 2022/23 outturn report. At quarter 1 the programme had been decreased by £4.205m to £17.969m. As show in paragraph 7.9 of the report. The overall expenditure on the Housing Investment Programme for the first quarter 23/24 was £1,222m, which was 6.80% of the 2023/24 revised budget as detailed at appendix J of the report. A further £1.203m had been spent as at the end of June 2023

d)    invited members’ comments and questions.

The committee discussed the report in detail and asked the following questions, it was agreed that answers would be provided from the relevant officers following the meeting:

·         Why was the £4k moved from LAD3 Green Homes to Home Upgrade Scheme?

·         Why was there an underspend on the grant, and why didn’t we spend this in full helping residents with energy improvements?

·         There was an issue recruiting staff particularly in the trades in housing. Has any thought been given to delaying scheduled work temporarily to see if the situation improved?

·         A huge amount of money was being spent on contractors in the Housing Department. How much would it cost to employ staff instead of contractors?

Members of the committee asked the following questions and received relevant responses from Officers:

Question: What was the total cost of placing people in temporary accommodation?
Response: It varied depending on the accommodation and the availability of property. The Council could claim back an element of the costs through the housing subsidiary system, the amount that could be claimed back was limited to £91.15 per week. It was forecasted that £863k would be spent on Bed and Breakfasts this year.
Question: Did the Bed and Breakfasts charge the Council a good rate?
Response: Market rate was charged. Officers working out of hours needed to place people in accommodation that night and therefore had to book and pay straight away.

Question: Pleased to see that lower paid workers would receive the highest pay award. If the Unions did not accept the pay offer would employees still receive the award?
Response: The pay would not be implemented until an agreement had been reached.

Question: What was the car park system upgrade and what was the additional card payment fees?
Response: This related to the barrier at the Central car park, a new system was installed which incurred fees, these would be offset by the increased income.
Question: Where would the electric charge points be installed and did the Council receive any revenue from them?
Response: They were predominantly being installed in the car parks, there was a range of deals with providers. The customer paid for the car parking as normal and also pay for the charge on the electric charge point. The Council did not lose any income for providing them.

Comment: There was in issue with recruitment. Employing agency staff or paying for overtime was generating a cost to the Council.
Response: This was a national issue particularly in technical services. The Organisational Development Group was undertaking a big piece of work to look at the issue holistically to provide some solutions such as career grading and succession planning. A report could be provided early next year.

RESOLVED that:

1. Relevant responses to questions raised by members be provided by officers following the meeting as requested.

2. The report be noted and forwarded to Executive for approval.