Agenda item

The report was taken as read, with B Hosier highlighting commercial development KPIs (key performance indicators) of the income targets for garages and parking, which were almost on track for Q2. For procurement, as required from an audit perspective, he identified four contracts awarded during quarter two, each justified without going out to tender as being for the provision or continued provision of agency staff. It was noted that there had been a separate Part Two report presented to Cabinet in October on some housing-related non-compliant spend, but there had been no other non-compliant spend during Q2. From a commercial strategy programme prospective, B Hosier identified a brief update on progress of FBCs moving forward.

M Brookes explained that there were various reviews going on, highlighting a KPI relating to freedom of information (FOI) requests, where there had been a significant improvement in performance over the last quarter following some procedural reviews.

N Howcutt stated that there were two red KPI’s, (1) time taken for debtors to pay, with the KPIs and targets being reassessed to improve the information presented to committee going forward by removing aged debt on payment plan, and (2) variance in terms of performance around capital, with a projected £70,000 overspend on a £10m budget that was relatively minor. He confirmed that he had no major concern in terms of overspend with a significant impact on the organisation.

In terms of the operational risk register for finance and resources, N Howcutt noted the collection rates were ongoing as an amber indicator, and that the average budgeted collection rate across Hertfordshire was 98.6, with Dacorum targeting 99.4 and 0.8% behind, which was only 0.02% off the Hertfordshire average, so performance could be considered strong despite not achieving expectations. It was acknowledged that there were delays to the capital programme, but these were having a beneficial impact due to treasury returns, particularly when the projects delayed were not expected to bring in large amounts of income.

The Chair asked for clarification regarding which debtors were being referred to by the KPI measuring time taken for debtors to pay. N Howcutt explained that there were three sections for debt, council tax and business rates, and HRA which was residents, all of which were reported separately due to different legislation and policies, confirming that the KPI in question was mainly businesses in terms of commercial income and income from other business areas or parking, etc.

Cllr Hannell referred to the fact that the non-procurement compliance process hadn't been needed due to the continued provision of agency staff. B Hosier explained that there was a framework agreement open to all staff or agency staff, however the four contracts in question had been in place before that framework agreement was set up, so the circumstances had justified an extension of the existing agreement. The Chair suggested that it was right to still report the matter in the same way.

Cllr Hannell suggested that with the capital projects, there was a danger of delays leading to inflation causing the building costs to be greater than originally budgeted for, even with any income from interest on the funds. N Howcutt assured the committee that there were no projects in Dacorum that had been delayed in order to make money on cash investments for that exact reason, and delays were not related to cash flow. He added that the debt level was at about 5% of the net cost of services, and probably in the top 10 authorities in the country, with £67 million of HRA new build and capital programme work this year.

Cllr Guest referred to the commercial strategy and programme, paragraph 2.4 on page 24, specifically the planning service, and asked for an update on discussions with neighbouring authorities regarding potential future shared services. B Hosier stated that discussions were ongoing, and he was hopeful that there would be further updates by Q3, but that he wasn't currently involved. Cllr Guest asked if he could confirm the services being considered for sharing from a planning point of view. He admitted that he could not, as he was still waiting for an update from the lead officer. Cllr Tindall explained that the five leaders of the Southwest Herts Authorities and the Chief Executives had met a month ago to discuss how shared services might go forward, with agreement to continue exploring the idea, but currently no detail. Cllr Guest wondered whether decision-making would still be independent within authorities for shared services. Cllr Tindall noted that planning decisions were governed by legislation, and his focus was on services direct to residents, but that the council would be kept up to date. Cllr Guest questioned whether it would be looking at generating savings or efficiencies. Cllr Tindall stated that the focus was on providing services for the benefit of residents, particularly considering the challenges of recruitment.

Cllr Williams asked if a list of portfolios' responsibilities, and what services rested with what portfolio holder could be provided, highlighting page 42 of the risk register said council tax and business rates as a housing and property service. N Howcutt stated that this was a report error, as all the risks should be finance and resources.

Cllr Williams wondered if there was a timeline for the outcome of the informal consultation on car parking that had closed recently. B Hosier explained that there had been an initial review, and he understood that the findings would be coming back to the committee in December.

Cllr Elliot wondered what the process was for businesses while they were appealing new rates. N Howcutt stated that the business rates had been revalued for financial year 2023-2024, with a significant uplift of 20% on average in Dacorum, and that businesses would have to pay the new rate, but could appeal through a check and challenge process, although they would have to pay the uplifted amount during the appeal period. He explained that an appeals provision was set aside on an annual basis each time there was a revaluation. Cllr Gale wondered if there was a way of insuring against such appeals. N Howcutt confirmed that there currently wasn't, and that Dacorum had a very large business rates base without any particular single large payers, reducing the risk, along with the significant appeals provision.

Cllr Stewart referred to the investment income, and wondered what was done with that money. N Howcutt explained that it was helping to balance the bottom line, with treasury supporting some significant financial pressures, particularly around staffing, and that there was a budget to make money on cash balances.

The report was noted.