Issue - meetings

Report ES13065

The provisional 2012/13 final out-turn for the Environment Portfolio showed a £33k overspend against a controllable budget of £31.655m, representing a 0.1% variation. Background to the variations was outlined.

Report ES13065 also highlighted that £764k had been spent during 2012/13 from £1.15m set aside for Member Priority Initiatives for the Environment Portfolio, leaving a balance of £386k.

In discussion, Councillor Judi Ellis expressed concern at overspends on employee budgets and general running expenses for parking enforcement. She highlighted an overspend of £23k on postage in particular and expected to see more explanation of why there were overspends. She also sought assurance that Members had influence on the movement of funds within the Portfolio e.g. developing policy on under-spends and scrutinising overspends.

Regarding regular scrutiny of the budget spend, the Chairman referred to regular budget monitoring reports coming before the Committee. On parking and enforcement, the Head of Finance (Environment and Leisure) indicated that the major variations were due to the economic climate and less use of the parking service. Measures to offset a shortfall in parking income included management action to reduce parking running costs and the use of surpluses related to enforcement. The Assistant Director (Parking and Customer Services) indicated that the increased number of parking contraventions – which could be difficult to estimate – affected postage costs. The main variations related to a decline in parking use. The baseline budget had since been adjusted and during the first quarter 2013-14, parking income was more in line with the budget. The Chairman indicated that an intended one-off meeting of the Parking Working Group could include parking income and expenditure. 

Councillor David Jefferys highlighted under-spending on graffiti removal at £54k. This indicated a reduced demand for the service and a reduced level of graffiti.

The Chairman noted that within the figures presented was an increased spend on the uncontrollable aspect of the cold winter and included £30k of additional expenditure on repairing the resulting pot holes. Anecdotally, the impression was that the winter service (including snow friends) worked well last winter.

For future reports, Councillor Julian Grainger saw advantages in outlining figures in tabular columns with figures in text “signposted” to figures in the tables. He enquired of the decision making process to determine how under-spends are used and asked if there was a list of Member requests.

For Highways, Members were advised that the variations had primarily arisen during the last two months of the year with the effect of snow and prolonged cold weather. Generally, there were a number of variances and offsetting of variances. Authorisation for small virements was delegated at officer level; larger virements were made via Portfolio Holder approval. Budget monitoring was ongoing and the Portfolio Holder indicated that if a critical position had been reached, the matter would come to Members. He added that under-spends would often return to the corporate centre with a Member decision taken on where the funding was to be spent (which was not restricted to the Environment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6