Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. One is written once the council publishes the minutes. The agenda and papers are below.
Apologies for absence were received from County Councillors: E. Vaughan, C Kenyon Wade. Cabinet Members: J Gibson Watt, D Selby Officers: Diane Reynolds (Dir. of Economic Development and Growth)
There were no Declarations of Interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda.
Cllr David Thomas requested the sentence, marked in red below, be removed from the Observations and Recommendations made by Finance Panel to Cabinet on the 31st January 2025,under the heading of “Pressures” as follows: “Sickness levels were monitored monthly by the Corporate Leadership Team and included within the quarterly performance reviews with Cabinet. The level of sickness in Powys was below that of many other organisations in Wales. Report to be shared with Finance Panel.” The Chair agreed the amendment request
Background Portfolio Holder gave a high level summary of the report. Director of Corporate Services and S151 Officer added further comment as follows: Pleased to note the reported improvement since Q2, and the additional funding from WG, assurance provided that the effective monitoring would remain in place, to allow for response when required to mitigate any position. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Of the £5.5m additional funding to the ledger, which had led to the improvement of £3.8m overall, was it expected and was this in relation to pensions. An indication had been given of receipt of allocation for teachers’ pension together with the firefighters pension element which amounted to £2.4m. The NJC pay funding was not expected . In addition funding has been baselined into the settlement for the new financial year which helped to bridge the gap and had provided support for a balanced budget for next year. Table 1 projected an underspend of £0.9m, further clarification sought on the almost £3m projected unachieved savings in Table 3, was it hoped that these savings may, in part, be realised or had the previous financial year budget setting been unrealistic. Would Finance Panel be provided with explanation for any unachieved savings and would those lessons be learned. In regard to projected savings when the budget was set, all savings put forward by Services are assessed with assurance sought that they are deliverable. There were very pertinent impacts within Q2, which could mean some savings were now not as deliverable as first assessed. Where this was the case Services had been tasked with reviewing alternative ways to mitigate them to achieve a balanced budget at year end. The Quarter 4 (Outturn) reports would have a complete summary of savings with rationale of any non-delivery from the relevant Head of Service included. In relation to the reported £0.9m underspend, consideration would be given to where the greatest need was for allocation, either to the capital, general or specific reserves. It was noted that 23.1% of the total proposed savings had not yet been achieved. How much of the almost £3m of unachieved savings in Table 3 was accounted for in the next financial year’s budget Where Services had reported unachievable savings there was an expectation those services would find savings elsewhere within the service. Where savings are considered as achievable, albeit with a delay, those would be included for delivery within the following financial year. Where there was no longer the understanding that savings could be achieved, consideration would be given to writing those out of the next year’s budget plan, provided that specified and clear reasoning had been secured by the Service to robust challenge. Undelivered savings which had been approved for write off in next year’s budget plan were £713k across Education (£390k) and HTR (£323k) Request for evidence of the changes made under the Sustainable Powys programme to have assurance as the Council moved forward that there was awareness of where pressures could be reported. There were savings noted within the budget proposals that were directly attributable to workstreams under the Sustainable Powys Programme. A high level confidential Sustainable Powys briefing had been scheduled for Governance and Audit Committee Members, Portfolio Holder suggested this could be expanded to include Finance Panel Members also. There was a considerable release of funds from reserves to both Adult Social Care (ASC) and Children’s Services (CS) this financial year to cover some of the additional pressures that occurred, how much of that £4.7m (£3.2m ASC & £1.5m CS) was due to changed management decisions to claw back some of the forecasted overspend. There has been a significant change from Quarter 2, some of which was attributed to the use of reserves both Specific ASC reserve £948k, with the Risk Budget £626k for ASC and Children £1.56m, which was agreed at Full Council. There was some funding returned in relation to a supported living contract of slightly over £260k ASC and £800k Children’s. £790k income from health was initially planned to fund the new care management system which has been procured but is not now required. The remainder was as a result of changes undertaken by the Service in mitigation of those earlier risks forecasted. Could the impact be noted in respect of the residents or service users of the return of the £250k of supported living funds. This was a credit note for non-delivery and could be brought back at a later date or for discussion at the Health and Care Scrutiny Committee. Actions: - · Finance Panel Members included at the High level confidential Sustainable Powys briefing to GAC on the 26th March 2025. · Chair to discuss the credit note return in relation to impact of non-delivery of supported living service with Chair of Health and Care Scrutiny Committee.
Portfolio Holder gave a high level summary of the report. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Explanation requested on why the capital receipts for the year to date were far lower than the projected target. Portfolio Holder confirmed that £0.6m had been achieved, with sales agreed of £0.8m which gave £1.4m in total. The £10m was a target, the more achieved in capital receipts ensure we maintain a level to help us over future years and reduce the pressure of borrowing costs, the charges of which actually impacted revenue budgets. There were still £5.66m of assets that were in the process of being sold, however these would not impact within the current financial year. The team would continue to attempt to achieve the target figure, but this target was dictated by the market forces. Question posed to the Portfolio Holder of overall satisfaction with spend at present and would there be some roll over. What was the size of the capital programme for next year. The Portfolio Holder responded that he was satisfied and given the reported figures there would be some roll over. The annual spend was between £60m and £70m. The Economy and Climate line stood out in Table 1 as related to the Montgomery Canal Levelling Up Funding, which had received approval to continue into the next financial year. The figure for the next financial year would be provided to Panel in due course. Action: · Panel to be provided with the breakdown figures for the Capital Programme for the financial year 2025-26. The breakdown was provided as follows: Capital programme for 2025/26 is £86.8 million, of which £29.3 million relates to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).
There were no Recommendations made to Cabinet.
Noted.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.