Agenda item

-           2008/09 Outturn and Outcomes of additional Budget Allocations

-           Progress in 2009/10

Mike Shaw, Finance Manager (Neighbourhoods) presented the Revenue Outturn for 2008/09 together with the latest performance and monitoring against the 2009/10 Revenue Budget as part of the first stage of the budget setting process for 2010/11.

The report highlighted:-

-              General Fund Revenue Outturn position was an overall overspend of £261,000

-              Housing Revenue Account Outturn position was an overall overspend of £287,000

-              Value for Money

o             showed that the relationship between cost and performance of homelessness was excellent with Rotherham being the rank bottom spender

o             100% of Neighbourhoods Key Performance Indicators targets achieved

-              As at August, 2009, projected overspend of £538,000 for the Independent Support Service (Wardens)

-              A number of budget pressures within Safer Neighbourhoods.  The wider Neighbourhoods Service was optimising opportunities to save staff costs through tight vacancy management and had implemented a moratorium on non-essential expenditure with the aim of delivering a balanced position by the end of March, 2010

-              Budget pressures of £53,000 within Business Regulation (£5,000 within the Animal Health Team and £49,000 within Bereavement Services)

-              Projected overspend of £31,000 in Neighbourhood Partnerships – unable to meet the vacancy factor allowed for in the staffing budgets

-              Unachievable vacancy factor within Housing Access but would be offset by a reduction in establishment costs due to maternity leave

Discussion ensued on the report with the following issues highlighted/clarified;-

§               Discussions were taking place with the Police with regard to making meetings much more “visible” i.e. holding them in venues that members of the public could attend, publicity etc.

§               The need to streamline the number of community meetings to avoid duplication which hopefully would increase attendance

§               There were a number of instances in the report where it stated that vacancy management savings would not be achieved.  However, it was a Corporate requirement of the Directorate’s budget setting process that an automatic 5% vacancy allowance was built in.  In small teams it was very difficult to fulfil that commitment.  The Strategic Director undertook to report the Panel’s concerns to the Finance Director and Corporate Management Team

§               Independent Support Service

o             Very sensitive issue which needed to be dealt with appropriately as they were highly valued by members of the public

o             Budget used to be contained within Adult Social Care budget which for this year was £68M.  The Warden Service had never broken even or been self-financing but the difference between the costs recovered and the cost of the Service had been contained within the massive Adult Services budget. 

o             When the budgets were realigned the scale of the difference between the cost of the Service and income recovered became more obvious

o             A review was taking place of the Service which had included consideration given to whether there was scope to integrate some of the Warden Services with Domiciliary Care Services.  The review was still ongoing and far more complicated than envisaged due to the skill set and the geographic community served

o             The charges for the Warden Service were very low compared to many neighbouring authorities but any increase would impact on people’s quality of life.  Options for increasing charges on a scale basis were still being worked up

o             The review was also looking at re-organising the working arrangements for the Wardens which would be done in consultation with the Wardens and residents as to their practicality

o             Given the scale of the problem nationally, some authorities had arrived at a half-way solution

§               The Value For Money document was produced by the Audit Commission.  All Directorates had been instructed to present the report to their respective Scrutiny Panel together with the budget monitoring report.  In some cases it was a useful tool but in others, such as Housing, it gave misleading information.  It should be accompanied by a “health warning”

Resolved:-  (1)  That the report be noted.

(2)  That the proposals for the future of the Warden Service, together with any other proposals for efficiency and savings, be submitted to this Panel for consideration.

(3)  That the comments made by the Scrutiny Panel on the Value For Money document be communicated to the Strategic Director for Finance.