Issue - meetings

Decision

1.     That the budget monitoring position for each of the detailed accounts be approved; and,

2. That Council be recommended to approve: the supplementary budgets set out below. Details for these supplementary budgets are set out in the body of the Cabinet report and have a net nil impact on the General Fund Working Balance:

· Increase Revenues and Benefits Agency Budget by £70k

· Increase Other Government Grants Budget by £70k

· Decrease the Performance and Projects Employees Budget by £10k

· Decrease use of the Technology Reserve by £10k

· Increase Office Accommodation Budget by £52,500

· Increase use of The Forum Reserve by £52,500

· Decrease the LDF Consultancy budget by £50k

· Decrease use of the LDF reserve by £50k

Reason for Decision

To provide details of the projected outturn for 2015/16 as at Quarter 1 for the:

•  General Fund

•  Housing Revenue Account

•  Capital Programme

Implications

Financial

Financial and Value for Money implications are included within the body of the report.

Risk Implications

Risk implications are included within the body of the report

Equalities Implications

None identified.

Health And Safety Implications

None identified.

Corporate Objectives

Dacorum Delivers

Advice

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources was disappointed about the performance for quarter 1. He noted that there had been an underspend in previous years. He hoped that the overspend forecast would focus managers minds and help them meet targets.

The Assistant Director for Finance and Resources recognised that there were significant variances but the intention is to produce clear action plans to improve this.

He highlighted that there was slippage on the capital spend for the waste fleet replacement, however there was no good reason against procuring these vehicles at present.

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental, Sustainability & Regulatory Services referred to the overspend in Waste Services. She explained that this was work in progress which should improve in the near future; a garden refuse round had already been deleted due to a reorganisation.

It was confirmed that the third party overspend for facilities, set out in paragraph 3.3, page 5 of the agenda did relate to the contract with Serco.

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental, Sustainability & Regulatory Services asked if it was, in part, because Serco would make a repair and then the council would have to pay them the costs.  She asked if any checks were made on the charges, to ensure they were reasonable.

The Corporate Director for Finance and Operations confirmed the charges were checked and scrutinised.

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental, Sustainability & Regulatory Services referred to paragraph 7.3 on page 10 of the agenda and asked if the council budgeted for s106 agreements for other more recent new builds.,.

The Corporate Director Housing and Regeneration confirmed this was the case, but he was unsure as to why it had not been included. He added that the council would take account of predicted s106 agreements in the budget.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing asked if the council had taken this planning permission over from another body.

The Corporate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34