Agenda item - Targeted Budget Management (TBM) Provisional Outturn 2010/11

20.1    Councillor Jason Kitcat introduced the reports items 20 and 21. These were the final TBM of the previous administration that showed a provisional underspend of £2.56million that had been allocated into the 2011/2012 budget; and the first TBM of the new Cabinet – Month 2 for 2011/2012 that reflects the new structure of the Council with Commissioners and Delivery Units and shows more detail, for instance with a pie-chart for the Value for Money Programme, he said.

20.2    Councillor Kitcat said the Month 2 report was more open and detailed, and for the first time, helpfully showed the position with regard to corporate critical Capital expenditure as well as Revenue. It showed a £0.94 million overspend at present but this was early in the financial year and action plans were put into place to address areas of concern.

20.3         Noting the additional information that had been published as an addendum, Members asked about the reported overspend on the communications operational budget and how this affected the budget position of other services. 

20.4         At the invitation of the Chair, the Head of Communications John Shewell spoke to OSC and described the findings of a review that had been carried out of all council communications activity and expenditure. He referred to the complexity of cost coding in respect of the councils’ communications activities that had needed detailed analysis and disaggregation, and said a full 160- page report was available on request.

20.5         He answered a question on the pricing levels of the Council’s own Print and Design Unit that were regarded as being relatively high, by stating the Council should be using its own staff and equipment resources to best effect. Consolidating print demand from all areas of the council  would help reduce unit costs.

20.6         The Head of Finance,  Integrated Financial Management & Planning, James Hengeveld, explained that officers were in the process of aggregating the communications spend across the council to one central budget code. This was a complex process that would reveal where savings relating to communications had been made in other service areas.

20.7         Councillor Jason Kitcat answered a question on the predicted shortfall on income from seafront leases (Item 21 Appendix 1 Delivery Unit – Tourism and Leisure.)  He said all commercial leases were under pressure at present and seafront businesses were vulnerable, being generally small independent businesses that may be less able to meet rent increases. The situation was kept under review and any suitable opportunities would be taken.

20.8    Asked what could be done about the advertising shortfall for City News, the Head of Communications informed the meeting that changing from a monthly publication to quarterly had the effect of reducing advertising income while also reducing costs. However, as for communications and the Design and Print Unit, consolidation would help address this shortfall.

20.9    Replying to a question that had been asked at Cabinet, about not reducing waste collection rounds by half a round, Councillor Kitcat said that the Delivery Unit officers were producing a reply and all OSC Members would also receive a copy.

20.10  OSC heard from the Cabinet Member for Finance and Central Services and from the VFM Programme Director, following a query on an anticipated underachievement in the Value for Money (VFM) programme. The third phase of the VFM programme was more complex and ambitious than VFM phases 1 and 2, meaning more uncertainty and longer lead-in times for implementation. For instance, some projects related to complex carbon reduction and energy saving schemes including solar panels. Process efficiencies were also being pursued across services wherever possible but these involve complex methodologies, for example Systems Thinking, to review and improve.

20.11  Councillor G Theobald asked about delays to improvements at Regency Square car park that he said would have a detrimental effect on VFM. Councillor Kitcat referred to the July Cabinet meeting at which Councillor Davey, Cabinet Member had outlined the difficulties of access to the car park from the East and the related junction works that would be costly. The business case was being developed, with the intention of making best use of this council-owned asset.

20.12  Councillor Morgan asked about the complexity and likely future costs and affordability of the Local Development Vehicle (LDV). Councillor Kitcat explained the complexity of the LDV in that it would attract VAT if it were itself to do works on homes, whereas by sub-contracting with the Council, through Mears, VAT could be properly reclaimed. Key risks related for instance to the proportion of homeless people in need to attract the necessary benefits to pay the rents. Detailed modelling and a considerable amount of work had been done already on the LDV.

20.13 Members asked for a written reply to give details of the expenditure to date on the LDV and the number of properties involved so far.

20.14 Councillor K Norman asked the reasons for the potential total deficit in the Collection Fund and how to determine whether this was a one-off or on-going situation. Members heard that there could be a temporary surge in numbers of students or a structural difference in the housing market. These and other possible reasons were being researched. The situation was being monitored and would be reported back under TBM 4.

20.15 RESOLVED:

(1)  that the information be noted

(2) That further information as minuted above at 20.9 and 20.13; on waste collection rounds and the  LDV;  be forwarded to OSC Members