Agenda item

R Baker introduced the report and advised that the final figures are currently being

worked on and any amendments would be taken to Cabinet on the 29 June 2015.

 

Cllr Matthews referred to Item 5.4 on Page 7 and the slippage on the regeneration of the

Town Centre due to inaccurate forecasting and enquired as to what measures were

being taken to ensure more accurate forecasting in the future.

 

R Baker advised that on this particular scheme the forecasting came from contractors

and when they were reviewed in detail it became apparent that we were accounting on

different basis, so we reviewed that and that has been taken forward into the 2015/16

forecast.

J Doe further added that the main Town Centre projects are on track and that what has

been put in place is a whole team of people to review the costs moving forward, the key

appointment being a Costs Manager for the Town Centre, so there are regular monthly

meetings with the contractors to check the costs that are coming in that they are

reasonable and proportionate and that the scheme is on track.

 

The Chairman enquired of J Doe if what he was suggesting was that in future when

contractors give us cash flows, there  may be  more caution now regarding the accuracy

of those figures.

 

J Doe advised that a lot of the Town centre works had only really begun in the last 12

months, so the actual money being spent and committed has only really happened in

the last 12 months, so we are into the details of governance. He further added that

assumptions had been made around when funds would be spent and committed and

that is why there is some slippage showing on the programme.

 

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe commented that she was glad that the problem had been

identified and requested reassurance that this will now be closely monitored.

 

J Doe confirmed it would be.

 

Councillor Ransley offered her congratulations for the underspend on waste and

recycling services, but noted that no money had been spent on Neighbourhood Centre

Improvements.

 

J Doe advised that this referred to Growth Area Funding, a source of capital funding

awarded to many Councils by the previous Government, in growth areas, such as

Hemel Hempstead. He went on to say that around the time the money was awarded in

2008, a whole series of actions had to be put into place, around Hemel Hempstead in

particular, one of which was for improvements to some of the neighbourhood centres.

Some of the works carried out were fairly minor, for example street furniture, and so

what that money is, is a residual from the GAF allocation which is not actually

committed at present and is awaiting allocation.

 

The Chairman advised that committee that you cannot compare revenue with Capital.

 

Councillor Hicks enquired with regards to the slippage if this was revenue not received

this year but expected next year or if it was spending that had not been spent but was

expected next year.

 

R Baker advised it referred to spending that will happen next year.

Councillor Birnie enquired as to what was meant by – Redistributed non domestic rates.

 

R Baker advised that this needed rewording as it should just be Non domestic rates.

 

The Chairman noted the General Fund underspend again of 2.3% and acknowledged

that this was a small amount at about half a million, but when members ask for small

items or works to be done are advised there are no resources, then at the end of the

financial year we find an underspend, can cause frustration. He went on to suggest that

if, instead of bring back ward member budgets, whether there was another way to

capture that underspend, so that rather than members having a set amount each year,

the underspend could be captured in some other way.

 

R Baker advised that the difficulty was that although the underspends are reported they

are not known about in advance. He went onto suggest that if members wanted

something done then the recommendation would be to talk to senior officers who could

then take this forward to Cabinet.

 

Councillor Matthews sought a point of clarity on FRS 17adjustments.

 

R Baker advised that they are an account adjustment to the permission fund.

 

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe referred to Item 3.2 on Page 6 Transport - £50k over budget

and acknowledged the £25k savings due to a reduction in the price of fuel. However

with regards to the overspend of £50k in relation to transportation costs, asked for a little

more detail as this is a new contract and concerns the removal of recyclables to Kent.

 

D Austin confirmed it did relate to the transportation of co-mingled recyclants to Kent. At

the time of the change in the service, it was estimated that there would be some costs

around transportation but they have come out a bit higher, however they have been

offset by some of the savings achieved by the introduction of a new waste system.

 

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe enquired as to whether this was due to a miscalculation in the

fuel or the award of the transportation contract.

 

D Austin advised that the £25k savings were partly due to a drop in fuel prices and also

partly due to the decision to install our own diesel pump at Cupid Green, to assist with

business continuity. He went on to say that the actual transportation contract had been

a complex negotiation, resulting in a three year contract with Viridor for the processing

of the co-mingled recyclets and that the issue of haulage was being revisited as part of

a tendering exercise later this year.

 

Councillor Matthews referred to Item 3.3 on Page 6 and the surplus of £200k in the area

of building control due to large one off applications and enquired how it was envisaged

that trend would go in the next fiscal year.

 

J Doe confirmed that the trend does appear to be increasing, however advised that they

have had to be conservative when budgeting for this year, as we are keen not to set the

provisional income level too high in case the applications don’t come in.

 

Councillor Riddick continued on Item 3.3 and stated that it was very gratifying to see the

over achievement, but enquired as to whether the introduction of CIL is likely to have a

significant impact in the next 12 months.

 

J Doe advised that the introduction of CIL has led to a spike in applications before the

CIL deadline, however it was not thought that it will. He went on to explain that the CIL

charging levels in the schedule, have been discussed extensively, and we are not

looking to depress development demand, but that it would remain to be seen.

 

The Chairman enquired of R Baker what the staff vacancy factor was.

 

R Baker advised that it was a percentage applied across the board, effectively a 5%

reduction in salaries, that allows for staff turnover.

 

The Chairman went on to enquire as to whether there was any holistic analysis of the

staff vacancy levels and any mechanism to review if it is set at the right level.

 

R Baker advised that it is monitored throughout the year and is broadly in line with the

5%. He went on to state that this is not applied to waste services as the agency costs to

keep that service running would be too high.

 

Outcome

 

The Strategic Planning and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee noted the report.