Agenda item

(Director of Resources) to consider the attached report.

The Committee noted that it has within its terms of reference to consider the financial monitoring reports on key areas of income and expenditure. This was the second quarterly report for 2017/18 and covered the period from 1 April 2017 to 30 September 2017. The reports were presented based on which directorate was responsible for delivering the services to which the budgets related and the budgets themselves were the original estimate.

Salaries monitoring data was also presented as it represented a large proportion of the authorities expenditure and was an area where historically large under spends had been seen. The salaries schedule showed an underspend of £153,000 or 1.3%.  At the second quarter last year the underspend was 3.0%.

Investment interest was below the budget. Interest rates were now only a little over 0.1% and money was primarily being held short term because of significant capital commitments coming up.

District Development Control income at Month 6 was down on expectations. Fees and charges were £55,000 lower than the budget to date and pre-application charges were in line with expectations. There had been few major schemes come through so far this year and this may be due to developers awaiting the publishing of the Local Plan.

Building Control income was £64,000 higher than the budgeted figure at the end of the second quarter. The ring-fenced account had assumed a deficit of £129,000 for this year due to the amount of scanning work required, however based on income levels to date it was possible the account may break even.

Income from MOT’s carried out by Fleet Operations was a little above expectations. This service had now been located at Oakwood Hill depot for about a year so the uncertainties experienced previously should now have been overcome.

Car Parking income was a little below expectations at month 6, some additional spaces were being provided at Oakwood Hill and Vere Road though there has been a delay in these becoming operational which accounts for some of this income loss.

The shopping park was included as the first units were now due to pay rent. Income in 2017/18 would be around £200,000 lower than expected as some units were let later than expected and tenants had not been identified for all units when the budget was set. There was additional income from Industrial Estates and Commercial lets which should mitigate this to some extent. Once all units were occupied and rent free periods passed, rental income was expected to be around £2.5 million per annum.

Expenditure and income relating to Bed and Breakfast placements had been on the increase. Most were eligible for Housing Benefit and although some would be re-imbursed by the Department for Work and Pensions it was only around 50%, leaving a similar amount to be funded from the General Fund.

Councillor Jon Whitehouse noted that there were relatively few cars parked on street parking meters. Mr Maddock said that on street parking was a County matter.

Councillor Whitehouse then asked for some clarity around the recycling figures on page 60 of the agenda. He was told that expenditure was down; officers had estimated a higher figure but it was not as high as was expected. He would investigate and get back to him.

Councillor Whitehouse then also asked about the recycling figures on page 62 of the agenda and he was told that the District Council was reliant on the County Council who were always slow in getting figures out and in invoicing us

Mr Maddock went on to enlarge on Business Rates. This was the sixth year of operation for the Business Rates Retention Scheme whereby a proportion of rates collected were retained by the Council. There were proposals that all Business Rates be retained within the local government sector though this actually happening was unlikely to be before the year 2020/21. In any event the proportions retained by each local government tier were likely to change and if additional resources are made available they would no doubt be accompanied by additional responsibilities. He also noted that there were a lot of Business Rate appeals still being assessed.

Mr Maddock went on to note that the report contained detailed commentary on individual Capital schemes. Broadly speaking, a lot of Capital Schemes were slightly under budget.

Councillor Bedford asked if the Council could invest in the HS2 project. Mr Maddock replied that in the near future we would not have a lot to invest as we had a lot of Capital Projects on the go at present and may well have to borrow.

Councillor Sunger asked how many of the Business Rates appeals were historical. Mr Maddock said that there were a lot on an old list; and that there was also a new list. Many were 2 to 3 years old. Councillor Sunger asked if we would be liable for compensation and was told that we probably would be.

Councillor Dorrell noted the comment on the Disabled Facility Grants (page 58 of the agenda) that “demand was rising”. Why was this? He was told that this had been happening over the last few years, possibly because the referral system was better and there was more of a drive to keep people in their own homes.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee reviewed and noted the revenue and capital financial monitoring report for the second quarter of 2017/18.