Agenda item

[To consider the Performance and Budget Monitoring 2022-2023 position as reported to Cabinet on 7 September 2022].

The Director of Strategy introduced the Performance and Budget Monitoring 2022-2023 report.  The report set out the performance against the Our City: Our Plan indicators for quarter 1, 2022-2023.  Some of the indicators were the specific responsibility of the Council whereas others linked more broadly into wider systemic issues which the City were facing.  There were 61 performance indicators within the Our City: Our Plan framework.  Three Quarters of the 57 of the indicators which could be updated in quarter 1, showed improvement or sustained strong performance.  There were also some areas where performance could be improved such as youth employment and Wolves at Work 18-24.  A key part of the approach was to link performance with key financial and budget information. 

The Chief Accountant referred to section 4 of the report.  They were currently forecasting a potential overspend of £5.4 million.  This was predominately down to the proposed pay award, which was out for consultation with the Unions.  When the budget had been set earlier in the year, they had made provision for a 2% rise, whereas the proposed pay award was in excess of the forecast figure and consequently was causing a budget pressure.  There had also been additional costs due to inflation and this pressure was captured in the forecast detailed in appendix 2.  Work was ongoing to see how the Council could address the in year cost pressures.   This would include looking at underspends across the Council and reviewing budgets held corporately, which had been set aside for new initiatives.  The review meant it could lead to new initiatives being delayed or not coming to fruition.  An update to Cabinet would be provided in the Quarter 2 report to Cabinet in November.

A Panel Member remarked that the report stated that the attainment 8 score was average, she asked what the average was.  The Director of Strategy promised to send the information through to the Board. 

The Vice-Chair referred to paragraph 3.2 in the report, which used the word austerity.  He was not aware of any official austerity at the present time and so asked why the word had been used.  He also asked if some of the reserves the Council held, amounting to £70 million could be allocated to areas which were in need of more resource.  The Chief Accountant responded that the £13.7 million in the General Reserves Budget was about 5% of the net budget, which was considered to be good practice.  The other reserves were going to be considered by the Specific Reserves Scrutiny Working Group and so Members would have an opportunity to make recommendations during the course of that meeting.   

A Panel Member commented that paragraph 3.78 of the main report referred to a recent study naming Wolverhampton as one of the top three places in the country to launch a new business.  She asked when the study was undertaken and what metrics the report was based on.   She asked about the establishment of the new businesses support programme which the Council were working on with WMCA, key partners and stakeholders.  She wanted to know when the work would start and be completed and how it would impact on the regeneration plans for the City.  She hoped some information could be presented in the future on MIPIM.  She asked how many leads resulted as a consequence of attendance and the return on the investment in the conference and other conferences the Council attended, which had the aim of attracting investment.

The Director of Strategy responded that the current European Funding ended at the end of the financial year and so a new scheme would naturally commence at the start of the new financial year.  The Cabinet Member stated he could provide some information on the leads from MIPIM to Scrutiny Board Members. 

The Vice-Chair asked for some further information on the communications budget, which was forecasting a 15.5% overspend due to a reduced income within the service.  He asked for Scrutiny Board Members to be provided with information as to what was causing the reduced income.  The Chief Accountant responded that she would send the information to Board Members.

A Panel Member commented that it should be made clear in reports that the i54 was on Staffordshire land rather than Wolverhampton’s.  She understood it was a partnership but the site was not located in the Council’s Local Authority Area.