Agenda item

That the reports be noted.

            The Head of Finance introduced a report to provide Members with the Revenue Budget Monitoring 2013/14 (Month 9) information for the Council Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) which was being submitted to Cabinet on 18 March 2014.  She introduced the Finance Managers and Principal Accountant to the Committee.   

            For the Council fund, the projected net in-year expenditure was reported to be £1.981m less than budget which was an increase of £0.913m on the £1.068m reported at Month 8 and this was reflected in the table at paragraph 3.01.  The main reasons for the change were in Environment, Community Services, Lifelong Learning and Central & Corporate Finance and the details were provided in paragraphs 3.04 to 3.07.  One request for carry forward to 2014/15 of £0.051m to provide resource to ensure the continuity of the operational response team linked to the welfare reform service was being recommended to Cabinet.  Progress of the efficiencies were detailed in paragraph 3.10  which currently indicated that £4.060m of the £5.331m included in the budget (76%) would be achieved, resulting in a net under-achievement of £1.271m; the full details were provided in appendix 9.  Paragraph 5 detailed the monitoring budget assumptions and new risks which included costs involved in relation to the former chemical plant in Sandycroft (Euticals Ltd) which were being monitored monthly. 

In referring to the table on page 26, Councillor Clive Carver queried why some budgets had been reduced which had then resulted in an overspend and he also asked why there was a significant underspend in Finance.  The Head of Finance said that overall the Council’s budget had remained at £259.752m but that approvals of virements between budget heads could result in the revised budget being shown in different services, however, the total would always remain the same for the year.  On the issue of the underspend in Finance of £1.102m, the Head of Finance explained that the service was responsible for the collection of council tax and the better than budgeted for collection rate had resulted in an underspend; the full details were provided in appendix 5. 

Councillor Ian Dunbar welcomed the increased collection rate of council tax.  He queried what was meant by ‘the anticipated number of three year old children attending childcare settings is less than previously anticipated’ referred to in paragraph 3.06.  The Head of Finance responded that she would provide a written response to the Committee following the meeting.  

Councillor Richard Lloyd referred to the lack of work being undertaken on the site of the former Euticals Plant at Sandycroft and said that his request for further clarification at the Committee meeting on 16 January 2014 had not yet been provided.  He asked for a breakdown of costs involved.  The Head of Finance advised that she had provided a response following the meeting but that she would obtain the up to date information and would circulate it to the Committee.  Councillor Haydn Bateman said that he believed that material was being removed from the site and that it was taking time to make the site safe.  Councillor Bateman also asked about the £0.200m income from Deeside Power which was referred to in paragraph 3.04.  The Head of Finance said that it was in connection with the Deeside Power Station and Gaz de France and that the £0.200m income was received each year for them being on the site and that in the past, this had been paid in arrears.  However, following feedback from the Council’s auditors that an accounting adjustment should be reflected in 2013/14 accounts this had resulted in accounting figures for two years being reported in the same year. 

In response to a query from Councillor Paul Shotton about the projected increase in income due to an additional one off amount of £0.243m which had been received from the Welsh Government (WG) in respect of the First Steps Improvement Package, the Finance Manager said that WG had changed the rules in 2010/11 that Councils were only permitted to charge £50 per week for social care.  In 2011/12, an amount was included in the Revenue Support Grant but the full amount had not been paid and at that time this was reflected as a budget pressure to meet the shortfall.  Due to this, Flintshire County Council had lost income but had been compensated by way of a one-off grant payment of £0.243m from WG in 2013/14 which had been counted as windfall income as the pressure had already been recognised within the service area.  

Capital Programme (Month 9)

            The Head of Finance introduced a report to provide Members with the Month 9 (end of December) capital programme information for 2013/14 which would also be submitted to Cabinet on 18 March 2014. 

            The table at paragraph 3.01.1 set how the programme had changed during 2013/14 with the revised figure being £30.960m for Council Fund and £12.126 for HRA.  The changes during this period were reflected in the table at paragraph 3.02.1 and full details were provided in appendix A.  The capital expenditure compared to budget and the rollover to 2014/15 were reported and if approval was given to the rollover request, the total Early Identified Rollover into 2014/15 would stand at £6.006m.                                

On the issue of rollover into 2014/15, Councillor Ian Dunbar asked whether a scheme would be removed from the programme if it had been put forward but not started.  The Head of Finance responded that if the scheme was WG funded and WG were supportive of it being spent in a different year then it could be rolled over but a problem could occur if the funding needed to be spent in a specific year. 

RESOLVED:

That the reports be noted.