PAPER D
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT AS AT END OF OCTOBER 2003
Members are invited to note
the content of the report.
There is little change in the main
issues to be reported since previous months. With regard to the highway
maintenance budget, currently the budget is showing 85.4% spent and committed
at the end of October. Although it is acknowledged that these figures include
significant cyclical maintenance contracts such as grass cutting and gully
cleaning, in practice it means amounts available for reactive maintenance in
the winter period are likely to be restricted unless a means of making
available additional resources for the purpose can be identified. This includes
winter maintenance, pothole repairs, minor patching and safety sweeping. The
Strategic Director of Environment Services, the Head of Engineering Services
and the Portfolio Holder for Transport are aware of the issue and have been
actively seeking a solution to allow more funds to be made available for
reactive highway maintenance. As a result, a report on proposed adjustments to
the approved highways budget was presented to the Executive on 19 November.
The budget strategy for this year
required a £500,000 increase in the income target for car parks, which is
another area requiring continual monitoring to ensure targets are achieved. At
present, car parking income has achieved some 78.4% of the annual budget and,
whilst there will inevitably be a slow down in the winter months due to closure
of seasonal areas etc, current indications still suggest that the income
generated should at least be equivalent to the increased budget target.
The main area for concern in the
revenue budget continues to be in the public transport budget where there is a
statutory requirement to meet increased costs arising from the Concessionary
Fares Age Equalisation scheme. Whilst those costs, estimated to be £80,000 per
annum, have been accommodated within the budget, implementation of the new
statutory requirement has given rise to a reappraisal of the existing
Concessionary Fares scheme and its method of payments. Potential costs are
still being assessed by the Head of Engineering Services and the Transport
Manager, and it now seems likely that the additional costs arising from the
reappraisal may be as much as £200,000
per annum. This is another budget issue of which the Strategic Director of
Environment Services is aware and to which he is seeking a solution in
conjunction with others.