There was a change of membership for this meeting: Councillor Collett replaced Councillor Greenslade and Councillor Lynch replaced Councillor Aron.

No apologies were received from Councillor Martins.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2014 to be submitted and signed. 

Copies of the minutes of this meeting are usually available seven working days following the meeting.

(All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2014 were submitted and signed.

This report informs the Budget Panel of the reported budgetary variances at the end of September 2014 (period 6).

The Panel received the latest Finance Digest, which covered the period to the end of September.

Detailed Revenue Variances by service areas (Appendix 2)

Councillor Lynch commented on the various references to legal fees for court cases and costs awarded by the courts.  She noted, however, that there was no reference to costs being awarded for the housing cases.  She asked whether officers were able to advise if the Council had lost those cases.

The Chair noted the variance of £37,000 shown under Partnerships and Performance; he asked for further clarification.

The Shared Director of Finance advised that the requested information would be circulated to the Panel.

Salary Analysis (Appendix 3)

Councillor Taylor sought clarification on the reason for the variance in the Community and Customer Services’ salary budget.

The Shared Director of Finance explained that it was likely that the service had carried out a restructure or a post had been regraded.  The funds to cover this increase had been transferred from another budget code for that service.

The Interim Head of Finance confirmed that there had been an underspend on the service’s subscription budget and the required amount for the salary variance had been transferred across.

Key Financial Risk Areas (Appendix 5)

In response to a question from Councillor Taylor about the homelessness net spend, the Shared Director of Finance advised that the Housing Section Head took into account a range of factors when reviewing homelessness cases.  For example, Housing officers worked closely with the Housing Benefits Team.  She assured the Panel that each case was looked at in the round.

Detailed Capital Programme (Appendix 7)

Councillor Dhindsa noted the budgets for the allotment upgrades and the Farm Terrace Allotments.  He commented that the future of Farm Terrace was currently unknown.  He asked for clarification on the expenditure of £6,911 in the current financial year.

The Shared Director of Finance stated that she would circulate the information to the Panel.

Councillor Dhindsa then referred to the ICT programme.  He said that the Council appeared to be putting more and more money into ICT.  He added that it was frustrating.  He asked whether there was a line when the Council would stop putting money into this resource.

The Shared Director of Finance advised that the Council would not stop putting money into ICT.  It continually needed to be updated, similar to how a car needed to be maintained.  She added that the reason the Council was in the current position with ICT was that it had not been maintained in the past.  A proper replacement programme would be put in place.  She informed Members that Capita had attended a recent Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel.  The company had been given until December to make significant improvements. 

The Portfolio Holder added that the Council was not near the end of the journey with ICT.  He agreed that the Council had not spent the money in the past.

Councillor Dhindsa asked if the Panel could be provided with a breakdown of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

This report provides an overview of the current position in relation to property rents in Watford for 2014/15.

The Panel received a report of the Shared Director of Finance and the Regeneration and Property Section Head.  The Regeneration and Property Section Head highlighted some of the key elements of the report.

Following a question from Councillor Collett about incentives, the Regeneration and Property Section Head explained that there were various incentives that may be granted.  A company could be offered a rent free period for a new tenancy or be given capital contributions towards fitting out the premises.  He added that if the Council did not quickly lease premises there would be an impact on business rates. 

The Chair referred to the table setting out occupancy rates for units.  He said that he had understood that the majority of businesses had moved from Cardiff Road, although the table indicated that there were only three vacant units.

The Regeneration and Property Section Head advised that he would check the accuracy of the information and report back to Members.

The Chair noted the risk matrix, paragraph 7.1 of the report, was incorrect.  Councillor Taylor requested further clarification of the final risk in the table and the reference to a disposal strategy.

The Regeneration and Property Section Head informed Members that the Property Review considered how all properties in the Council’s portfolio performed, benchmarking them against national criteria.  Part of the review looked at how intensively properties were managed.  The aim of the disposal strategy would be to consider whether the property portfolio could be improved by replacing properties with more profitable ones.  He stated that a report would be presented to Leadership Team in November.  With operational properties it would be necessary to consider if there were more effective ways of working with the space available. 

The Portfolio Holder suggested that the Council may decide to dispose of those properties which were not high earners.  He noted the risk matrix and considered the ‘likelihood’ should probably be two and not three.  Non-performing properties could be a threat to the Council’s overall budget.

The Regeneration and Property Section Head said that if the Council did sell some properties it would receive a capital receipt.  He did not envisage this being spent immediately and there would be some reduced income received until the receipt was reinvested, however the timing of sales was in the Council’s control. 

The Portfolio Holder considered it to be a positive position if the Council received a capital receipt from any sale.

The Chair informed the Panel that the Property Task Group would be meeting towards the end of November to discuss the consultant’s report.  The Task Group would be able to discuss the issues raised at this meeting. 

Councillor Derbyshire noted the potential sale of lower performing properties and asked how the Council would consider investing its money, for example in property or financial investments.

The Shared Director of Finance responded that the assumption would be to reinvest in property, as this was currently a better investment.  The Council had options where it wished to spend  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

·               Tuesday 2 December 2014

·               Tuesday 15 January 2015

·               Tuesday 24 February 2015

·               Tuesday 2 December 2014

·               Thursday 15 January 2015

·               Tuesday 24 February 2015