Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document

Meeting Name:
Adult, Community Services and Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Meeting Date:
12/16/2008 Pick

Meeting Time:


Location:


Sub Committee / User Forum etc (if required):




Members Present:

Non-Members Present:

Confidentiality: Part I


Document Type: Agenda


Document Status: Final

COUNCILLOR MEADOWCROFT (CHAIRMAN)
COUNCILLOR MRS ENDACOTT (VICE-CHAIRMAN)
COUNCILLORS MRS S EVANS, LENTON, MAJEED, MRS NAPIER & MRS PROCTOR

SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
COUNCILLORS HERDSON, MRS KEMP, MRS LUXTON, MRS NEWBOUND, PENFOLD, D. WILSON & MRS YONG

ITEM	SUBJECT	WARD	PAGE NO
1	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence
2	DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive Declarations of Interests from Members of the Panel in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.		-
3	MINUTES To confirm the Part I Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 4 November 2008.	All	i-iv
4	ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF ADULT SOCIAL CARE BY THE COMMISSION FOR SOCIAL CARE INSPECTION (CSCI) To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 18 December 2008 on the Annual Performance Assessment of Adult Social Care Services.	All	1
5	THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET REPORT To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 18 December 2008 on the Preliminary Budget for 2009/2010.	All	11
6	2009/10 FEES AND CHARGES REPORT To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 18 December 2008 on the Fees and Charges for 2009/2010.	All	25
7	SERVICE MONITORING REPORT To consider activity within the Adult Services and Health services during the period to 30 November 2008.	All	56
8	WORK PROGRAMME The following items are scheduled for discussion at the meeting of the Panel to be held on 16 December 2008: Budget – 2009/2010 Service Monitoring Report Update – Minor Injuries Unit, St Mark’s Hospital	All	-
9	LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC To consider passing the following resolution:- “That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on item 10 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"

i) That the report and this year’s Star Rating be noted.
ii) That the Head of Adult Services be asked to put in place an action plan to address those areas of the service deemed to be ‘areas for development’.

What will be different for residents as a result of this decision?

Improved services for older people, those with disabilities and other vulnerable adults. This will impact on their quality of life and provide an improved range of service for some of the most vulnerable in the community.

Ongoing routine business meetings between the Council and the CSCI
An annual self-assessment submitted by the Council
2007/08 performance indicators
An Annual Review Meeting (which was held in July 08) that examined evidence from both the self-assessment and the performance indicators
The subsequent Performance Assessment Notebook (PAN), containing evidence and emerging hypotheses, which was shared with the Council after the Annual Review Meeting
The final performance ratings letter, sent to the Council under embargo in October 2008 (to provide an opportunity to comment before the publication of the final version on 27 November 2008).

Most people receive an assessment in a timely manner and almost all people who have been assessed as needing care, receive it when they need it.
The council has demonstrated that the provision of telecare has increased in order that people can remain more independent within their own homes.
The number of older people helped to live at home has improved to a good level.
The number of people with learning disabilities helped to live at home has improved to a very good level.
The number of people with mental health problems helped to live at home remains at a very good level.
The work to improve carers services has been maintained and is of a good level
More problem drug users are now retained in treatment services and there has been an improvement overall for people who use drug services.
The council has sustained the good range of advocacy services and there is clear evidence of expansion.
RBWM continues to demonstrate consistent leadership and there has been some improvement in the level of performance demonstrated this year.

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. That Members note the report and ask the Head of Adult Services to implement an action plan	We are overall satisfied with the result and indicated improvements and will strive to address the areas identified for improvement, some of which require the assistance of partner agencies such as the Primary Care Trust and the Acute Trust	Any developments will be from within existing resources

Comments from Audit & Performance Review Panel will be included after the meeting on 8 December. Comments from Adult Services & Health Scrutiny Panel on 16 December will be reported verbally to Cabinet.

The following implications have been addressed, where indicated below.

Financial	Legal	Human Rights Act	Planning	Sustainable Development	Diversity & Equality
Yes	Yes	Yes	N/A	N/A	N/A


Background Papers: None

Key strengths	Key areas for development
All people using services
Most people receive an assessment in a timely manner and almost all people who have been assessed as needing care, receive it when they need it. Service delivery remains free from discrimination and there are examples that people from under represented groups are increasingly accessing services. The council has demonstrated that the provision of telecare has increased in order that people can remain more independent within their own homes. Volunteering is an area of continuing priority within the council and has been included as a Local Area Agreement target.	There is evidence that the council has an increased number of people who remain in hospital when their medical needs have been met. The council should work to ensure that fewer people remain in hospital unnecessarily. The number of clients receiving a review has improved, however this has not improved at the same rate as other councils. Performance in most outcome areas has plateaued and whilst there are some improvements reflected by some of the performance indicators (PI’s), this is sufficiently across the whole performance indicator suite.
Older people
The number of older people helped to live at home has improved to a good level.
People with learning disabilities
The number of people with learning disabilities helped to live at home has improved to a very good level.
People with mental health problems
The number of people with mental health problems helped to live at home remains at a very good level.
People with physical and sensory disabilities
Carers
The work to improve carers services has been maintained and is of a good level

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Csci Appx2

Date: 18 December 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Hilton

Contact Officer(s): Andrew Brooker, Head of Finance, 01628 796341
Peter Brown, Chief Accountant, 01628 796207

Wards affected: All

1. SUMMARY

The preliminary budget report sets the scene for discussions to be held in various Council forums in coming weeks prior to setting the Budget for 2009/10 which will go to Cabinet on 12^th February 2009 and Council on 24^th February 2009.

The report discusses the impact of the “credit crunch” on Council service delivery, which at present is marginal. However it is widely acknowledged that the causes of this particular recession are different from any experienced in the past, this means that future impact has to be uncertain. The only certainty is that it is likely to have a negative impact on the Councils financial position.

The report covers Government settlements and reminds members that we are in the middle of a three-year settlement. Whilst this brings a degree of certainty it highlights an ongoing real-term reduction in the level of financial support from the national Government with the consequential impact on Council tax payers

The section under the Medium Term Financial Plan outlines some the assumptions that have been made and issues under consideration in preparing the budget. The section covers inflation, service pressures, capital financing and the challenging efficiency agenda.

The section headed Council Tax Income complements the Council Tax Base report elsewhere on this agenda and reinforces the Councils commitment to keeping Council Tax increases below the level of inflation.

The report concludes with a section on School Funding and rehearses some of the challenges that the Council faces, together with the School’s Forum in agreeing to the distribution of the Dedicated Schools Grant. School Budgets will face some of the challenges facing other Council services with below inflation increases in per capita funding, falling pupil rolls and emerging cost pressures, principally from complex SEN placements.

2. RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet notes the content of the Report

3.1 Background

“CREDIT CRUNCH”

Budgets for the next two years at least will be set against a background that has not been experienced in recent years, significant economic insecurity. There are a number of well-publicised issues impacting the national and global economies that have been well rehearsed in the press over recent weeks. In summary, therefore, we are facing:

Reduction in property values
Rising unemployment
Volatility in stock markets
A significant increase in inflation over the past six months to a figure (5.0% RPI September 2008) well above the Bank of England’s target rate.
Admission from Bank of England that the national economy is entering recession
Inflation likely to show a significant fall in coming months
Interest Rates likely to be subject to further cuts globally in an attempt to reverse the move towards recession
Loss of confidence having an impact on inter bank lending which, in turn, is impacting on availability of credit.

Such a range of challenges leaves few Council services untouched but some of the main risk areas that have been identified include:

Income from Commercial Estates
Income from Leisure Centres
Demand for Housing Support – Bed & Breakfast and Housing Benefit
Car Park income
Investment income
Cost of contracts – a number are driven by September RPI particularly in Adult Social Care
Land Charge and Development Control income.
Level of Developer contributions

At present service monitoring has identified minimal impact: some increase in activity for Housing Policy; one of our commercial estate tenants has gone into liquidation and car park volumes have not reached anticipated levels.

The Council has some challenging decisions to make. At one end of the range of options the Council could establish a provision to reflect all the uncertainties in next years gross budget requirement. However, if council Tax commitments are to be honoured this would have the consequence of reduced spending on services and service reductions would inevitably be required to make room for this provision. At the other end of the range would be to reflect the current healthy levels of reserves and wait for a clearer picture to emerge. A more proactive approach would be to identify one off measures/investments that can be taken to protect, as far as possible, current income/service levels. An example might be to provide additional resources for Housing Policy or CAB so that residents at risk of being made homeless get the necessary advice promptly. These measures, being relatively short term, could be funded from Reserves.

GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENTS

Next year will be the second in the current 3-year settlement so the Council can be relatively confident that it knows what level of support it can expect from Central Government.

The budget report to Council in February 2008 talked at some length about the revision that had been made to Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) funding mechanism, which shifted significant levels of funding away from those authorities it perceived to have the ability to raise additional revenue for themselves. In common with many local authorities in the South East the Borough can expect minimal increases in general grant in coming years whilst the current funding regime is in place. The increases proposed reflect changes in responsibility but no provision is made for increase to the number of service users (demographic pressures) or capital financing costs and minimal allowance is made for price increases (1.75% in 2009/10 and 1.5% in 2010/11). It is clear therefore, with the impact of inflation on Council run services expected to be 4.1% next year, that this alone represents a real term reduction in funding of £600,000, close to 1% on Council Tax.

A technical adjustment to the Formula has been made as reported to Cabinet earlier in the year. As part of the national Government initiative to provide local authorities with greater freedom over the use of grant, a range of previously service specific grants have now been moved into a new category of grant, the Area Based Grant, which can be used for any purpose. These monies have not, at this stage, been allocated through DCLG’s Formula Grant methodology to avoid any redistribution but guidance requires Councils to account for the grant as External Support, as we do Formula Grant, rather than as service specific grants.

	2008/9 £’000		£’000	2009/10 £’000	% Increase	£’000	20010/11 £’000	% Increase
Formula Grant Base				18,257			18,536
Floor Increase			319		1.75	278		1.5
Technical Adjustments			-40	279		-15	263
Formula Grant	18,257			18,536			18,799
Area Based Grant	5,200			7,136	Note 1		6,980	Note 2
Total External Support	23,457			25,672			25,779

Note 2 – Reflects end of Extended Schools Start Up Grant (£341k reduction)

As reported in the Council Budget report the Formula Grant methodology assumes that Councils will deliver 3% cash releasing efficiency measures. Over the last four years since the ‘Gershon’ targets were introduced, the Borough is ahead of its cumulative targets; in common with most other authorities this remains a challenging target going forward. The assumed saving from the ‘programme’ is in excess of £3m each year,

MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN (MTFP)

The MTFP has been under regular review since it was last updated as part of the 2008/9 Budget report. The version shown in Appendix A includes updated inflation and service pressure assumptions.

The MTFP is a planning document which allows ‘what if’ questions to be asked. A number of assumptions have had to be made about some important issues, notably:

Inflation
Pay awards
Pensions increase
Service pressures
Capital financing
Council Tax revenue
Inflation

CSR07 included the assumption that inflation would be 2.7% as it applies to the public sector over the three-year settlement period (2008/9 – 20010/11). This has proved an optimistic assessment. Current assumptions indicate that inflation will impact on Borough Services at 4.1% next year although it is anticipated that this will fall by 2010/11. Whilst current predictions are that inflation, by whatever measure, will fall over coming months it is important to note that a number of the Councils contracts are inflated by measure of inflation taken in September each year, as are State Pensions.

Inflation going forward is clearly difficult to predict but a working assumption has been made of 3% for future years.

Pay Awards

Pay awards nationally are becoming contentious. The settlement negotiations due for implementation in April 08 are currently being mediated through ACAS. An interim award of 2.45% has been agreed by LG Employers. Provision was made for a 2.5% award in the 2008/09 Budget.

A similar provision is currently being proposed in 2009/10. Although RPI is currently at 5% and Union Representatives are already preparing above inflation pay claims it is anticipated that falling inflation and the prospect of economic recession will enable Employers to contain much of this pressure.

It is important to record that provision of an additional 1% for pay (in non-school services) would cost close to £600k. Given the fact that Government support is unlikely to increase and that the Council has a clear commitment regarding Council Tax increases this additional provision would be at the expense of further efficiency measures.

For future years 2.5% pay awards have been allowed for

Pensions Increase

Employer Pension contributions are currently set until April 2011 at their current level 14.7%. There is clearly some concern that the stock market turbulence will require an increase in both employer and employee contribution rates. Between May 2008 and September 2008 the fund lost £209m of its value (14%). However it is important to remember that:

The Berkshire Fund started at a relatively high level of funding
Each month more cash is received from Employers and Employees contributions, which currently exceeds outgoing pension payments. This creates the opportunity to take advantage of some relatively cheap investment opportunities
The current low level of stock market enables, over the long term (30 years), a relatively optimistic view to be taken of future investment growth
The Actuaries and Pension Fund Manager take a long-term view (“40 years rather than 40 days”).

It is currently assumed therefore that there will be no requirement to increase Employer contribution rates in the foreseeable future but this will only be confirmed by the actuarial review in 2010.

Service Pressures

Every effort will be made, as always, to contain service pressures within existing budgets but national issues such as demographic pressures and waste management legislation are largely unavoidable. Allowance is, therefore, made for these additional costs.

Service Pressures identified to date are outlined in the attached Appendix B.

Capital Financing

The Council continues with its long term objective to fund a greater proportion of its capital spend from Revenue. This ambition is reflected in the MTFP in the form of additional annual revenue contributions to the Capital Fund.

Historically, the Council spends £1.3m per annum on ‘short life assets’, Leisure Centre equipment; IT Hardware; Vehicles etc. Looking forward some significant technical investment in IT should enable this sum to be reduced to an average of £1m per annum. The base budget for 2008/09 includes provision for a £900k contribution to the Capital Fund. An increase of £100k would enable the initial objective of funding all short life assets from Revenue.

There remains significant recurring expenditure on Highways, Streetlights and Property that are currently funded from capital resources. It remains an objective of the Council to fund a greater proportion of these costs from revenue, thereby saving financing costs. This ambition is still reflected in the MTFP.

Government Departments announced as part of the 3-year settlement its spending allocations 2010/11. Whilst some of these allocations come to the authority in the form of grants most are in the form of ‘supported Capital Expenditure’, the revenue cost of which is, in theory, reflected in Formula Grant assessments. However, as the Council is below the grant floor, there will be no increase in grant to cover these allocations. Consequently, the impact of all capital financing directly impacts on the Council Tax.

Cabinet received at its October meeting an update on its Asset Management Plan. There will be a continued emphasis on ensuring that maximum benefit is obtained for the Council’s physical assets. Surplus assets will be identified wherever possible and where appropriate those assets will be sold to support the Council’s Capital programme but only where appropriate. Before assets are sold the Council will ensure, especially in the current economic climate, that it is the right time to sell but more importantly whether these assets can be better used to generate revenue for the Council.

In the short term in order to finance priority infrastructure maintenance and development the Council will have little alternative to borrowing funds. Decisions over whether this is funded short term (utilising cash reserves) or longer term (utilising PWLB loans) will be taken by the Head of Finance in conjunction with Lead Members as part of his Treasury Management responsibilities. An assumption, carried forward from previous MTFP’s is that £6m of capital spend will require corporate funding each year.

A significant proportion of the capital programme has over the past few years been funded from s106 contributions. Renewal of this source of finance must be at some risk in the short term given the present economic climate.

Fees & Charges

A report on Fees & Charges appears elsewhere on this agenda but the Medium Term Plan assumes that income from Fees & Charges will keep pace with inflation. It is however part of the Council Financial Strategy to review those fees which carry an element of subsidy for service users.

Efficiency Savings

CSR07 assumes that 3% cashable efficiency savings are available in each of the three years 2008/9 – 2010/11. Para 3.1.9 quantifies this at £3m pa.

In order to meet the cost of emerging service pressures, principally driven by demographic pressures, and the increased cost of services, driven by inflation, without any significant increase in financial support from DCLG, whilst keeping to Council Tax increase commitments means that efficiency savings in excess of those indicated in CSR 07 will be required. Directorates have been asked to identify savings of £4.7m in order to provide the Council with the flexibility to set a Council Tax in line with its public commitments.

April 2004 when the phrase “Gershon Savings” was first introduced into the Local Government Finance vocabulary the Council has identified efficiency savings of £11m, against a target of £10m. However in common with most other local authorities the scope for further efficiencies is becoming more difficult to identify

In recent years the efficiency agenda has been addressed by a combination of wide ranging “corporate initiatives” and smaller scale reviews carried out by individual service managers. If the savings targets going forward are to be delivered it is important for the Council to adopt and resource a new strategy for delivering these efficiencies.

Interest Rates

Interest Rates have an important impact on Council Finances. Current changes to interest rates will have no effect on the cost of borrowing as the Council’s long term loans were taken out at fixed rates.

The more important impact is on the interest that the Council earns on its cash balances. Currently volatility in interest rates makes it difficult to plan ahead. The recent Treasury Management report that Cabinet received showed that the Council could have average cash balances approaching £35m. The reductions in bank base rate, if reflected in reduced investment income, will result in a reduction of £700k in investment income per annum. Many “experts” are predicting that interest rates will rise again in 18 months time but budgeting for that increase is a significant risk.

The decision that the Council will need to make when it sets its budget is to what extent it maintains its longer term approach of making a cautious assessment of its investment income so that in times of higher levels of investment income, “windfall” receipts are taken into reserves, and when interest rates fall the revenue budget is supported from reserves.

COUNCIL TAX INCOME

Council Tax is the most important source of revenue for the Council, and funds a greater proportion of Council spend than most other authorities. In 2008-9 78% of the Councils Gross Budget Requirement (that element funded from Formula Grant and Council Tax) was funded from Council Tax. When compared to all other local authorities this is the 7^th highest of all 388 Local Authorities in England, the average being 43.6%.

Annual increases in Council Tax on individual properties is supplemented by increases in the taxbase (increase in the number of properties on which the tax is levied). It is perhaps this fact that DCLG have recognised (but arguably overcompensated for) in its grant distribution models.

The Council has a very clear commitment to keep its tax increase below RPI as measured in the previous September; this is consistent with the increase in State Pensions and Benefits. RPI increased by 5% in the year to September 2008

The taxbase for 2009-10 is assessed elsewhere on this agenda but suffice it to say it reflects the general slowdown in the housing markets. At present collection rates are being maintained although this is one of the risks that needs to be assessed in the Budget report.

Members should note that, dependent on tax base, 0.5% increase in Council Tax generates approx £340k additional revenue for the Council.

SCHOOL FUNDING

The main source of school funding is the ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). The grant must be used in support of the Schools Budget as defined in regulations, and is supplemented by other sources of funding such as standards fund grants, and Learning and Skills Council funding for sixth forms.

RBWM’s 2008-09 DSG allocation was £73.044 million. The 2009-10 will be determined by pupil numbers in January 2009 but latest estimates suggest a fall in total pupil numbers of around 130 compared with 2008-09. The unit rate on which DSG is calculated is fixed for the period 2008-11 and will increase from £4,040 per pupil in 2008-09 to £4,193 in 2009-10, a rise of 3.8%. This compares with an increase of 4.6% per pupil in the previous year.

The minimum increase schools can expect to receive in their 2009-10 budgets is 2.1% per pupil, as defined by the Minimum Funding Guarantee set by the DCSF. In practice most schools will see increases above the minimum level and in accordance with known inflationary uplifts used to set the Council’s budget. The level of DSG funding available once inflationary and contractual pressures have been met is known as ‘headroom’. In the past headroom has been used to fund new initiatives and priorities both in schools and central services (subject to the Central Expenditure Limit - CEL) as discussed with Schools Forum.

For 2009-10 the level of headroom is likely to be significantly less than in previous years because

a) the per pupil increase in DSG funding in 2009-10 is lower than it has ever been previously

b) the cost of out-of-borough special school placements has risen significantly due to an increase in the number of high cost placements, and is facing a pressure of up to £600k or more in 2009-10. Funding for this can only come from DSG headroom or from a reallocation of existing resources within the Schools Budget. The scale of this budget pressure is such that little or no headroom may be left for other priorities. Any net increase in the out-of-borough SEN budget is likely to impact on the relative balance of resources between the ISB and central DSG expenditure. Schools Forum would need to formally approve this allocation if it resulted in the central expenditure limit being exceeded.

Members will recall that the CEL, determines the minimum amount authorities must delegate to schools. The Council is responsible, in consultation with the Schools Forum, for determining the split of the grant between expenditure on central functions, (e.g. special educational needs, excluded pupils, early years education and childcare in the non-maintained sector) and delegated funding to schools (the

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Accept the report	This report is for information and explains what factors affect the budget making decision	Contained within the report
	2. Reject the report	This is not an option. The Council is required to complete its Council Tax making process

A number of the risks associated with the preparation of the budget are discussed in the body of the report. Individual risk assessments have been made for the detailed proposals being made for inclusion in the Budget for 2009-10.

The biggest single risk to the Council is the impact of the “Credit Crunch” which is outlined in paragraphs 3.1.1 to 3.1.4 above.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Budget proposals are being guided by Manifesto commitments made before the May 2006 elections

Regular meetings are held with both the Windsor and Maidenhead Chambers of Commerce

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

N/A

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

	Legal	Finance	Planning	Property	Procurement	DMT
Name:
Date Approved:

	Directors Group	Lead Member	Ward Cllrs (if Appropriate)	Leader’s Office	Scrutiny Panel
Name:
Date Approved:

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Preliminary Budget Appendixa

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Preliminary Budget Appendixb

Date: 18 December 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Hilton

Contact Officer(s): Andrew Brooker, Head of Finance, 01628 796341
Peter Brown, Chief Accountant, 01628 796207

Wards affected: All

1. SUMMARY

1.1.1 The report considers increases in the Fees and Charges roughly in line with the September 2008 inflation (5%).

2. RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet approve the Fees and Charges contained in Appendix A of the report

Fees and Charges

September RPI sets the level that Government will use in assessing increases in 2009/10 pensions and benefits and at 5% is the baseline chosen for increases in fees and charges.

In setting the charges for 2009/10 the Council has sought to ensure that any change will not adversely impact on its strategy to support recreational activities or affect the trading position of the services it offers generally.

The detailed Fees and charges proposals are contained in Appendix A

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Approve the fees and charges as set out in Appendix A	This is in accordance with the Medium Term Financial Plan and will enable	Revenue: some (-)£1m
	2. Modify the fees and charges proposals	May reduce the Councils ability to restrict Council Tax increases	Revenue: Unknown

The current economic climate may reduce income from areas susceptible to economy changes. Examples include car parks, land charges, planning fees, Leisure income etc. It is difficult to assess the impact of changes in these areas. However, a 1% reduction in income equates to some £260k. As the economic changes are expected to be short term it is possible to utilise balance to cover small shortfalls, However, the Head of Finance will keep this situation under strict review during 2009/10.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

All lead members consulted

Chambers of Commerce will be consulted

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

Awaited.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Fees Charges Appendix1

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Fees Charges Appendix2

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Fees Charges Appendix3

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Fees Charges Appendix4

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Fees Charges Appendix5

60

Date: 18 December 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Hilton

Contact Officer(s): Andrew Brooker, Head of Finance, x6341

Wards affected: All

1. SUMMARY

1.1 This service monitoring report provides a monthly update on service delivery with emphasis on the impact on the council’s financial position.

1.2 Services are currently projecting expenditure £323k (last month: £557k) more than the approved estimate of £86,022k (last month: £85,949k). Balances at year end are projected to be £5.441M (last month £5.280m).

1.3 The approved capital programme has increased by £58k since last month to £37.531m, which is funded by grants and contributions. Variances are -£376k (last month -£434k). Slippage has increased to £4.545m (last month: £2.665m).

2. RECOMMENDATION: That:

i) The provisional revenue and capital outturn figures be noted.

ii) The capital programme variances and slippage identified in Appendix C be approved.

iii) That Directors work with Lead Members to develop proposals to contain expenditure within current budget limits.




What will be different for residents as a result of this decision?

The Council is responsible for ensuring that it has put in place the proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources. If the management of services and their budgets are not regularly reviewed, any and all services for residents could be adversely affected and Council Tax levels may be affected.

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 Background

3.2 As at 30 November 2008, total service expenditure for 2008/9 is expected to be £86,345k (down £161k from last month’s £86,506k).

3.3 Summaries of the Council’s provisional outturn Revenue and Capital financial reports are contained in Appendices A and B respectively. The revenue report includes income and expenditure statements together with a short Directorate report drawing members’ attention to key activities affecting the current and future years.

3.4 The Director of Learning & Care reports that its 2008-9 costs are projected to be overspent by £124k (down £259k from last month) on its approved estimate of £48,457k (last month’s approved estimate was £48,409k).

Children’s Services are expected to be overspent by £483k, an increase of £32k on last month. Home to school transport costs have increased as a travel operator’s contract has been extended to cover an additional route.

Adult Social Care is expecting to underspend by £279k (down £291k from an expected overspend last month of £12k). It is anticipated that the Concessionary Fares scheme will underspend by £200k. Income has increased and spot placement expenditure decreased on elderly and physical disability residential and nursing care.

The approved estimate has been increased by £50k to cover the cost of pension enhancements charged to the in-house homecare budget.

3.5 The Director of Community Services reports a variance of £105k (same as last month) from the approved estimate of £22.810m (last month £22,785k).

Building Control and Planning incomes are lower (£30k), offset by some additional Building Control staff savings (-£10k). Expected loss of rental income on a void property (£45k) has been offset by a potential saving on the delays to a Fire, Health & Safety works project (-£65k).

The Public Protection & Sustainability approved estimate has increased by £25k after Cabinet approved a contribution to the 2M Group costs for a judicial review into BAA’s plans to build an additional runway at Heathrow.

3.6 The Chief Executive reports that Corporate Services expenditure is expected to be £94k higher (last month: £69k higher) than the approved estimate of £14,755k (same as last month).

Projected income levels for the Guildhall have been reduced by £25k. The Guildhall was closed for eight weeks during May and June for repairs, but subsequent income has not compensated for the loss.

The decline in income from Local Land Charges has flattened off slightly since last month, but the impact of the downturn in the housing market continues to be monitored closely.

4. CHANGES TO VALUE-ADDED TAX STANDARD RATE

The Cabinet meeting on 27^th November considered the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement on 24^th November that the rate of VAT would fall to 15% with effect from 1^st December 2008.

Cabinet agreed to implement the changes in VAT rates as soon as possible and that authority be delegated to the Head of Finance, in consultation with the Lead Member for Finance and the Chief Executive, to amend the published Fees and Charges where appropriate. There is a separate report on the impact of the VAT changes.

5. OVERALL POSITION

Appendix A summarises the projected outturn position and shows projected year-end reserves to have increased by £161k to £5.441m from the previous month. This is made up of £73k supplementary estimates, referred to above, and a reduction in variances of £234k.

6. CAPITAL

6.1 Overall Gross Expenditure Budget

Total capital expenditure for 2008/09 is expected to be £32.610m, which is £4.921m below the approved budget. This is made up of £376k variances and £4.545m slippage and is summarised as follows:-

6.2 Approved Capital Budget Changes

The £58k increase in the capital budget is because of S106 claims for Larchfield School (£15k) and Holyport Primary School (£16k), an accounting adjustment for Oak Lodge Day Centre (£16k) and a Travel Plan Grant for Alwyn & Ellington Primary Schools (£11k).

6.3 Projected Variances and Slippage

Community Services report that in comparison to the approved budget, there will be a net under spend of £392k (last month £450k). Learning and Care reports the same expected overspend of £16k as per last month.

The main changes are from Traffic Management Schemes (+£67k), Transport Assessment for Sites (+£35k) and Construction of New Footways (-£48k. See appendix C for further details.

Slippage has increased by £1.880m since last month to £4.545m. The most significant projects to have slipped are the Quality & Access Programme for Early Year (£550k), Children’s Centre Phase 3 (£300k), Council Building Rewiring/Re-Cabling (£250k), Guildhall and Theatre Royal (£179k), Office Accomodation (£157k), Customer Service Centre software (£150k), Modernisation of School Dining Facilities (£100k) and Town Hall Replacement Heating Piperwork (£100k). Full details are in appendix C.

Overall Programme Status

The project statistics show the following position:

Number of Schemes in Programme 466
Yet to Start 8%
In Progress 52%
(Of which Ongoing Annual Programmes 6%
e.g.. Disabled Facilities Grant)
Completed 26%
Devolved Formula Capital Grant schemes 14%
(Data not available on budgets devolved to schools)

7. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

7.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Accept the report	Directors have a responsibility for managing their Services within the Budget approved by Council. Cabinet has limited power to vary those budgets within the overall budget and policy framework or to re-define the priorities agreed when the budget was approved. Cabinet does however have responsibility for considering the impact on future year’s budgets of the decisions taken.	Revenue Capital
	2. Reject the report	This is not an option as The Local Government Act 2003 requires the Royal Borough to monitor its financial position	Revenue Capital

Risk assessments are carried out as a matter of course for the delivery of individual services. The main Financial risks are included on the Council’s Risk Register . paragraphs 3.8 to 3.15 discuss the risks associated with the current economic downturn.

The Councils Financial Strategy outlines the measures available to it in the event of a series of events that lead to significant projected budget variances being reported.

8. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

No specific consultation is carried out as this is a regular monitoring report

9. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

Relevant components of this report will be considered by each of the four scrutiny panels as part of their next round of meetings.

IMPLICATIONS

10. The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Service Monitoring Report Appendix1

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Service Monitoring Report Appendix2

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Service Monitoring Report Appendix3

 Meetings 081216 Ashosp Service Monitoring Report Appendix4