Agenda item

FJump presented the report, noting that this report presented the position for the council as forecast at the end of December. The Committee would see the report forecasted an overall pressure for the council of 3.2 million, but this had been superseded by the Covid update report that had gone to Cabinet earlier in the current month and the figure reported there was around 2.4 million. So in terms of the overall position of the council the 2.4 million was the pressure that the Members should bear in mind. The nature and the value of the pressures that were identified for this particular scrutiny committee area still apply so the information provided was still very much applicable and the position was being driven largely by pressure in waste services against employee transportation costs and a shortfall against income targets on the capital side. For schemes relating to this scrutiny committee’s area an outturn was forecast that was broadly on budget for the end of the financial year, with a relatively small overspend.

Cllr Silwal referred to page 24 point 4.2 and maintenance costs. He asked if the total should be 280k. He asked how long the maintenance costs would take for the vehicles.

FJump said he was correct that the total should be 280k. Also the offset underspend was not included in the narrative so where there was a total of 280k pressure another 30k underspend could be expected. She referred to the vehicle maintenance costs and explained that the Council was incurring maintenance costs as they phase out the aging fleet. This had been happening over a fair period, but those costs should reduce as they move to full implementation of the new vehicles. She could not give a time scale but would ask the service to provide an absolute timescale.

Action Point:  FJump to provide the committee with timetables for maintenance costs.

Cllr Birnie referred to core funding 3.6 covering additional funding which was mainly government grants and asked how the finance department treated this kind of income. He assumed that it went into the general budget and was not apportioned between the different departments as some offsetting of overspends in our area would otherwise be seen.

FJump confirmed that this was correct.  The aim was to present the full picture of the pressures within the service, but additional funding was presented separately and not offset.

Cllr Stevens referred to paragraph 3.4 which noted that additional funding was expected under the Government’s income guarantee scheme and asked when this funding could be expected or whether it had already arrived.

FJump responded that it had already started to arrive in instalments but not the full amount as yet, which would come at the end of the financial year.

Cllr Timmis referred to page 24 item 4.3 which talked about contractors having raised costs during Covid and asked whether they would go down post Covid.

FJump said that her expectation would be that they would but she would like to have the service confirm.

Action Point: FJumpto send a response to the committee re the higher costs due to Covid.

The report was noted