Agenda item

Joint Report of the Corporate Director of Neighbourhoods and the Corporate Director Resources / Treasurer to the Joint Committee.

The Joint Committee considered a joint report of the Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Corporate Director Resources and Treasurer which set out details of income and expenditure for the period 1 April 2013 to 31 December 2013, together with the provisional outturn position for 2013/14, and highlighted areas of over / underspend against revenue budgets at a service expenditure analysis level.

It further set out details of the funds and reserves of the Joint Committee at 1 April 2013 and forecast outturn position of reserves at 31 March 2014, taking into account the provisional financial outturn (for copy see file of minutes).

The Head of Finance (Financial Services) referred to page table on page 22 of the report which detailed the projected outturn and surplus before transfers to reserves and distribution of surpluses to the partner authorities of £186,199 against a budgeted surplus of £254,526, (£68,327) less than the budgeted position. The report provided in detail those significant variances and reasons for those over / underspends.

He advised that there were two key issues to note, one of which was the under achievement of income due to the reduction of cremations. The second was in relation to recent correspondence which had been received in respect of an environmental surcharge for mercury abatement at £50 per cremation. The budget had assumed a £25 charge and therefore based upon 2013/14 projected numbers, the outturn assumed an overspend of £47,118 against the budget.

Moving on the Head of Finance (Financial Services) reported that contributions to the earmarked reserves were forecast to be £68,327 less than budgeted. In addition in line with the reserves policy, a contribution from revenue trading to the Cremator Reserve of £6,309 was included within the outturn position.

Following a transfer from the cremator reserve to the repairs reserve in order to finance capital expenditure for the purchase of a grass cutting machine, the retained reserves therefore at the 31 March 2014 were forecast to be £592,911.

Councillor Temple raised a query regarding the environmental surcharge and commented that he understood that mercury abatement equipment could not be retrofitted to cremators and therefore the only could be installed alongside the fit of new cremators.

Councillor Batey queried whether if mercury abatement equipment was fitted to one cremator would the surcharge be avoided on all cremations or only on those carried out in the new unit. In response the Head of Finance (Financial Services) advised that new cremators were too large to be able to replace existing cremators in their current position, therefore this would only happen following a purpose built extension. It was further reported that this work including the new equipment would cost in the region of £1.25m.

Councillor Batey further queried whether the charge would encourage customers to use alternative facilities who did not impose any charge. In response the Head of Finance (Financial Services) advised that other crematoria were already charging more for services and Mountsett offered the lowest charges in the region.

Resolved:

That the content of the report be noted.