Agenda item

The Director of Finance submits the final report in the monitoring cycle for 2022/23 and reports performance against budget for the year.

The Committee is recommended to consider the overall position presented within this report and make any observations it sees fit.

The Director of Finance submitted the final report for the monitoring cycle for 2022/23 and reports performance against budget for the year.

The Director of Finance presented the report, it was noted that:

·       The report presented a £4.4m overspend, this was a reduction on the estimate in the previous period.

·       Cost pressures were around increased staff pay, energy costs, and long-term income loss from Covid.

·       The HRA was overspent by £8.2m.

·       All earmarked reserves had been reviewed at the end of the financial year. As part of this a small amount was withdrawn from departmental reserves and would be used as part of the managed reserves strategy.

·       The report included a list of proposed savings.

In response to questions and comments from Members it was noted that:

·       NHS funding for ASC that was unspent went into reserves, this funding was intended to fund joint-NHS projects in future years. Some Government grants had conditions which required a certain amount to be put into reserves to support  future years expenditure.

·       The Council maintained an insurance fund reserve. This was due to the Council self-insuring to a certain amount and this was funded from the reserve. Every 3 years the fund is reviewed which was why a certain amount had been released into the Capital Programme. The insurance fund was currently at £6m.

·       With regards to bringing extra income into the HRA by lowering the number of void properties, there were a significant number of vacancies in Housing Repairs which there was great difficulty in filling. Therefore, to decrease void-time agency workers were being used.

·       Regarding losses in income in parking charges, income had increased in the last few years however still had not returned to pre-Covid levels. 

·       On Sunday parking, it was almost universal across the country to charge for Sunday parking. The concern with free parking was that spaces would be taken up by workers rather than visitors. The Sunday parking charges would be reviewed after being in place for 12 months.

·       ASC income was not separately reported as it was offset by the expenditure for those required to pay for their care.

·       The increase in street lighting costs was caused by increased energy prices. This increase was decreased by now using LED lights.

·       It was advised that grant funding to support homelessness and asylum seekers was for projects that spent more than one financial year and this was why they were transferred to reserves.

·       There was an underspend in concessionary fares, this was because less people were traveling on buses and therefore the Council did not have to cover as much concessionary fare cost.

·       On the future of the Park and Ride service, it was noted it was a partner scheme with the County Council. The service had not yet bounced back from the pandemic, but it was hoped that it would do and that the service would have a future.

·       With regard to options for catering services, City Catering was an in-house provider that schools could chose to use. Charges were considered in light of the amount the Government paid schools for free school meals.

·       In order to attract new market traders, the Market was receiving a major redevelopment which would start soon. 

·       Prices for Active Leicester membership were available to view online. Membership numbers continued to grow.

·       If a ringfenced fund was spent in a given year it could be rolled onto the next year. However, the Designated Schools Grant was currently in a deficit position so work was ongoing with DfE to resolve this.

·       With regard to unaccompanied asylum seeking children, a number were assigned to Leicester Children’s Services by the Home Office.

·       There was a 30% increase in journey costs for SEND children who used taxi services despite only a 10% increase in fare costs. This was due to the nature of journeys changing with typically longer journeys now. Reducing the cost of these journeys remained a major priority for the Council.

It was suggested that budget monitoring reporting could include the initial budget projections alongside the current projections and actuals.

Members commented that as much as an overspend was concerning, an underspend was also equally concerning as it could mean services are not being delivered to residents due to staff vacancies. The City Mayor noted that it was inevitable that there would be overspend and underspend in a budget, however current underspend and overspend levels were a very small percentage of the overall budget. The City Mayor praised Finance Officers for their accurate projections which secured low levels of overspend and underspend.

Outstanding issues that Officers would send responses regarding following the meeting were detail on the additional landfill costs and details on the joint NHS projects.  

AGREED:

That the Committee notes the report and asks Officers and the Executive to consider comments made by the Committee and respond to outstanding questions.