Agenda item

Laura Shipley Financial Services Manager:

a)    presented a report to Performance Scrutiny Committee with a summary of the third quarter’s performance (up to 31 December 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)    referred to paragraph 3.8 and 3.9 of the report and requested that the committee note the proposed carry forward requests and transfers to earmarked reserves

·         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, at Q3 the General Fund Summary is currently projecting a forecast underspend of £289,602 (Appendix A provided a forecast General Fund Summary), resulting in general balance at the year-end of £2,518,341.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  estimated general balances at year-end of £1,125,517, after allowing for the 2023/24 outturn position, at Q3 the HRA is currently projecting a forecast overspend of £13,787, which would result in HRA balances of £1,111,730 as at the end of 2023/24 (Appendix C provided a forecast Housing Revenue Account Summary). Although the forecast position was an overspend there was a number of significant variations in income and 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 3 the HRS was forecasting a deficit of £552,062 in 2023/24. Full details of the main variances were provided at Appendix F

·         General Investment Programme – the revised General Investment Programme (GIP) for 2023/24 amounted to £24.784m  following the quarter 2 report. At quarter 3 the programme had reduced by £9.450m to £15.334m as shown at paragraph 7.2. The overall spending on the General Investment Programme for the third quarter of 23/24 was £8.2m, which was 67.57% of the 2023/24 budget as detailed in Appendix I

·         Housing Investment Programme – the revised programme for 2023/24 amounted to £16.862m following the quarter 2 position. At quarter 3 the programme had been decreased by £0.742m to £16.120m as shown at paragraph 7.10 of the report. The overall expenditure on the Housing Investment Programme at the end of quarter 3 was £7.029m, which was 41.85% of the 2023/24 revised programme. This excluded expenditure relating to Western Growth Corridor, which was currently shown on the GIP, to be apportioned at year end (current forecast outturn £1.97m) as detailed at Appendix J of the report. A further £0.525m had been spent as at the end of January 2024

d)    invited members’ comments and questions.

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

Question: What work was being undertaken to reduce the reliance on using bed and breakfast for temporary accommodation? What other options were there for temporary accommodation aside from using bed and breakfast?

Response: An action plan had been developed which addressed a number of areas including increased information for applicants to help them solve their own housing situation and to access advice at an earlier stage, increased homelessness prevention, staff training and process changes to the way the team worked. Consideration was also being given tovarious options for increasing the number of Temporary Accommodation units we had access to. The options included purchase and repair, leasing, and new build.   Bed and Breakfast was  used as a last resort by the team. Other options were always considered first including prolonging the stay in the current property where it was safe and suitable to do so, staying with family or friends, using the council’s own licensed accommodation and working with partners to access supported or other housing. 

Question: When would the central market open? The table at 3.10 of the report identified that there was a £15,000 carry forward in the Directorate of Major Developments to be used to support non-recurrent costs linked to the launch of the new Central Market. What was this required for?

Response: The budget for the newly refurbished Cornhill Market set out in the MTFS was based on an estimated budget. The extent of the changes to both the physical fabric of the Market building and the operational approach, made it very difficult to accurately predict the running costs of the building. Likewise, the service charges to the new stallholders were also based on estimates, as the service charge was designed to cover the bulk of the running costs of the market during operation. The proposed allocation of the directorate underspend to provide a financial safety net as we entered the first year of operating the new Market was therefore prudent whilst the operating costs stabilised and were established with sufficient accuracy to enable MTFS and service charge review. There would be a report to the Executive on 18 March 2024 on the Market with a further update in 2025 once the operational realities of the Market were clearer. 

Question: Why had businesses still not signed up at this late stage of the project? Was the criteria for business selection too high?

Response: Eighteen businesses had been signed up and five were currently under offer. It was a long process to negotiate the leases with stall holders and there were many legalities to work through. The standards had not been set too high, it was important to have a good spread of stalls to create a dynamic market.  The opening date would be announced in the coming weeks.

Question: The general fund forecast variances showed an increased expenditure of £50,000 for Yarborough Leisure Centre as an anticipated contribution to support Utility inflation pressures. Did this also apply to Birchwood Leisure Centre?

Response: This related to a contractual relationship with Active Nation which included both Yarborough Leisure Centre and Birchwood Leisure Centre. This money had been set aside in the reserves should it be needed. The energy costs had been significantly higher this year.

Question: The externally delivered Town’s deal schemes showed a spend of £814,122 for a project relating to Lincoln City Football Club and Foundation. Could the difference between the two organisations be clarified? What was the money used for?

Response:  The Lincoln City Foundation was a registered charity and was aseparate body to the Lincoln City Football Club. The money had been used to build a community hub and education suite. This owned by the football club but the foundation would run services and activities from the site.

Question: There was a £30,000 carry over in the Directorate of Major Developments to support the Councils Climate Change initiatives. What specifically would this money be used for?

Response: An answer would be provided following the meeting.

Question: The Housing Revenue Account and Housing Repair Service continued to experience a number of variances due to demand pressures and the ongoing recruitment challenges. What was being done to address this?

Response: Recruitment and retention was a national issue caused by a  combination of issues. The Organisational Development Group had been considering these issues and had developed an action plan to address them. This action plan would be brought to a future meeting of Performance Scrutiny Committee.

Question: Where was Windmill View and what would be the final costs for the repair to the retaining wall?
Response: Windmill View was off Yarborough Road, behind Mill Road. 

The Council did not own the land or wall, it was owned by the Crown, however the wall was crumbling and was deemed dangerous to the public and surrounding houses, so as a safety issue this work had to be carried out.  The Executive approved an initial budget of £250k in July 2022, this was further extended to £500k in March 2023. The latest increase, would require approval by Executive, and was for a further £150k which was estimated to cover the final projected cost of remedial works. The increased costs were as a result of more of the wall needing to be replaced as work progressed and the cost of fencing to replace trees from private gardens.  Although the full costs were yet to be finalised they were not expected to exceed the additional £150k requested. The wall was now complete.

Question: Would the Crown be re-paying the cost of the repairs to the Council?

Response: No, the council did challenge this legally, however, there was no owner of the land therefore it fell to the crown who then delegated the repair to the local authority.

RESOLVED that:

1. Relevant responses to questions raised by members be provided by officers following the meeting as requested.
   
   
2. The financial performance for the period 1 April to 31 December 2023 be noted.

3. The underlying impact of the pressures and underspends identified in paragraphs 3.3 (and Appendix B), 4.3 (and Appendix D), and 5.2 (and Appendix F) be noted.

4. The proposed carry forward requests and transfers to earmarked reserves as detailed at paragraph 3.8 and 3.9 be noted.

5.    The changes to the General Investment Programme and Housing Investment Programme as approved by the Chief Finance Officer as detailed in paragraphs 7.6 and 7.13 be noted.

6.    The changes to the General Investment Programme and Housing Investment Programme as detailed in paragraphs 7.3, 7.4, 7.15, 7.11 and 7.12 be noted and be forwarded to Executive for approval.