Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

Members were presented with a summary of the 2012/13 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for all portfolios, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets highlighted. Explanations had been reported to individual Executive Councillors/Scrutiny Committees.

 

Decision of the Leader

Resolved to:

 

Revenue

(i)             Agree  the  final  carry  forward  requests,  totalling £717,250, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report, be recommended to Council, subject to the final outrun position.

 

Capital

(ii)            Seek  approval  from  Council  to  carry  forward  (net)  capital resources to fund re-phased capital spending of  £11,967,000 as shown in Appendix D - Overview.

 

Reasons for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The committee received a report from the Director of Resources.

 

The committee commented on the report that all Councillors were concerned that slippage was occurring in the delivery of capital projects. The Council needed to deliver projects it undertook to do, and have the necessary funding available to do so.

 

In the discussion the following points and responses were made:

 

(i)             The Director of Resources said actual expenditure on capital schemes and programmes during 2012/13 is £20,237,000 giving an overall under-spend of £13,377,000. Of this net underspend £11,967,000 is due to net slippage.

(ii)            The Director of Resources said the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) has affected the total figure. Variance for the General Fund was similar to the last financial year, but the HRA variance was changeable.

(iii)          The Director of Environment said the aim was to deliver projects in the Capital Plan, but some work was held up whilst the Council sought specialist staff to undertake it.

(iv)         In response to Councillor Ashton’s specific concerns regarding slippage, the Leader said that he was unhappy with slippage and that delivery could have been better. The Council needed to deliver what it promised to do, but needed to plan better so delivery was more in-line with expected timescales.

(v)           Councillor Cantrill said the Council needed to deliver identified projects and feedback progress to Councillors and residents. There were three projects where slippage exceeded £100,000 but were affected by circumstances outside of the Councils’ control such as Clay Farm which was a joint project with other authorities.

(vi)         The Director of Environment said changes to Executive Portfolios led to an apparent duplication of details in P113 and P134 of the Officer’s report. Officers updated the information on a monthly basis as part of a comprehensive monitoring system.

(vii)        In response to Councillor Herbert’s specific concern that smaller project slippage was greater than larger projects, Councillor Cantrill said that some project delivery was delayed by the need to undertake consultation. A faster process would be to drive through projects without seeking views, but this may not be the preferred option. Officers needed to manage expectations to ensure delivery was realistic.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations and endorsed them by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader (and any Dispensations Granted)

Not applicable.