To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors K Singh and Wilson.

To receive the minutes of the meetings of Council held on 10 October and 21 November 2023.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

That the minutes of the meetings held on 10 October and 21 November 2023 be approved. 

To receive any declarations of interest

There were none declared.

To receive such communications as the Mayor may desire to place before the Council

As part of the agenda the Mayor had circulated a list of engagements that he or the Deputy Mayor had carried out since the last Council meeting. He advised that images of events were available via social media channels.

The deadline for public questions (which must be directly related to the budget) is midday on Monday 26 February 2024. A supplement listing valid questions received will be added to the agenda after the deadline.

The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with public questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances. The councillor who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before the meeting. The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put a supplementary question at the meeting. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply provided and shall not have the effect of introducing any new subject matter. A councillor responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond.

a)    John Baldwin of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Del Campo, Cabinet member for Adults, Health and Housing Services

What is the 2024/25 assumption for the number of residential placements required by Adult Services, broken down by type, i.e. general needs, sheltered, extra care or whatever terminology is in use?

Written response: The budget process requires the best estimates of numbers to be made in late autumn 2023.  At that time, based on the people receiving care and the historical patterns of length of time people need such support we have built the budget based on 560 Full Year Effect (FYE) places.  Those are split 206 for nursing, 199 for residential, 109 supported living and the rest (46) in a range of community options including Shared Lives.  The FYE places is typically lower than the actual number of people on a given day.

John Baldwin asked what percentage of each category was covered by price control contracts and must the remainder of accommodation and, or care be purchased on the open market.

Councillor Del Campo replied that she was unable to provide the percentage but confirmed that the remainder was purchased on the open market and were called spot placements. She confirmed that she would provide a response as soon as she could.

b)      John Baldwin of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Jones, Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Finance

The Spending Control Panel reviews all spending bids greater than £500. How many spending requests has it reviewed to date, to what aggregate value and how many of those requests were denied and to what value?

Written response: There have been 228 requests totalling £7.9m. There have been 16 requests declined with a value of £56k. 21 requests totalling £3.5m have either been deemed not applicable due to being part of a contractual agreement or requiring further information to inform a decision. A key reason for introducing the SCP was to drive a change in culture across the organisation in relation to budget management and we have seen a culture change within services following its introduction. Within a matter of weeks, the panel saw a reduction in requests coming forward as a result of officers taking a more vigilant approach to spending.  This led to a reduction in denied requests, as those that now tend to come forward are for necessary spending which is backed up by evidence or a business case.

John Baldwin thanked Councillor Jones for the written answer but stated the low refusal rate had shocked him and he did not accept this revealed a change in culture. Since the Panel was announced in September 2023 the financial position had deteriorated and he queried whether it was time to lower the limit from £500.

Councillor Jones replied that she would not want to see officer time taken up for smaller amounts as these were budgeted items and not new items. She considered the limit low enough to ensure there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

To receive any petitions presented by councillors on behalf of residents.

Notice of the petition must be given to the Service Lead – Electoral and Democratic Services no later than noon on the last working day prior to the meeting. A councillor submitting a Petition may speak for no more than 2 minutes to summarise the contents of the Petition.

There were none notified.

To agree the proposed RBWM council tax charges for 2024/25.

To also note the proposed charges by other precepting bodies, including the police and fire authorities, and individual parishes.

The Council considered the proposed RBWM council tax charges for 2024/25. It also set out proposed charges by other precepting bodies, including the police and fire authorities, and individual parishes.

Councillor Jones explained that approximately 85% of funding for the Council was collected from council tax paid by residents and the Council was projecting a collection rate of 98.5%. The overall Council Tax Requirement had been calculated at £89.559m for the 2024/25 financial year. The Government had retained the referendum limit for unitary councils at 2.99% plus 2% Adult Social Care Precept, a total of 4.99%. This equated to a Band D charge for 2024/25 at £1,284.14, which in turn equated to an increase of £61.03 or 4.99%. A legislation change now permitted billing authorities in England to impose an empty dwellings premium after one year instead of two. She advised that the Council intended to apply such a change from 1 April 2024. She explained that currently English billing authorities could only impose an empty dwellings premium on properties that were ‘unoccupied and substantially unfurnished’ and this did not cover unoccupied furnished homes. New legislation would permit billing authorities to apply a premium to second homes if recommendations were accepted. The maximum council tax charge would be 100% charge plus a premium of 100% making a total council tax charge of 200%. The legislation required the decision to be made 12 months before implementation therefore, should it be agreed, it would come into force in April 2025.

Councillor Jones proposed the recommendations as set out within the report which were seconded by Councillor Werner.

Councillor W Da Costa commented on the proposed increase in the precept for Windsor. He queried what the areas of increase were for and how it would be demonstrated to those residents that they were receiving value for money.

Councillor Majeed stated that he would be abstaining from the vote for a Council Tax rise as he believed that there are further savings that could have been made without affecting the services offered to residents.

Councillor Bermange stated his support for not making any amendments to the Council Tax Reduction Scheme in order to support the most vulnerable and economically deprived residents. He concluded that he was very keen to hear proposals for additional savings that could be made.

Councillor Werner responded to the debate stating that he had been surprised by some of the comments as conservative colleagues had voted for a 5% rise in the budget last year as part of the medium-term financial plan. He explained that the plan clearly stated that the Council was going to be increase council tax this year by 4.99%. He recalled that Councillor Majeed’s colleagues had voted in favour of it and recalled that some of them had spoken in favour of it. He stated that they were trying to run a partnership Council, working together to save the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead from bankruptcy. He was disappointed that they were denying the past,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

To consider the Council’s proposed revenue and capital budgets for 2024/25 and the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) through to 2028/29.

The appendices summarised in the report and appended to it provide detailed information in each of the areas and all form part of the plans in the short to medium term:

·       Appendix A Council Plan

·       Appendix B Response to budget consultation

·       Appendix C MTFS & MTFS graph

·       Appendix D Growth

·       Appendix E Efficiencies

·       Appendix F Fees and Charges

·       Appendix G Flexible Use of Capital Receipts

·       Appendix H Capital Strategy

·       Appendix I Capital Bids 2024/25 and Consolidated Capital Programme

·       Appendix J Detail of Highways and Footways capital expenditure

·       Appendix K Treasury Strategy

·       Appendix L Dedicated schools grant

·       Appendix M RBWM Pay Policy

·       Appendix N EQIAs

·       Appendix O Report of the CFO

·       Appendix P Minutes of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny committee

As recommended by Cabinet, Council is asked to consider all the information provided and approve the council’s approach to balancing the budget.

As recommended by Cabinet, Council was asked to consider all the information provided and approve the council’s approach to balancing the budget. The Council considered the proposed revenue and capital budgets for 2024/25 and the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) through to 2028/29. The appendices summarised in the agenda report and appended to it provided detailed information in each of the areas and all form part of the plans in the short to medium term:

·          Appendix A Council Plan

·          Appendix B Response to budget consultation

·          Appendix C MTFS & MTFS graph

·          Appendix D Growth

·          Appendix E Efficiencies

·          Appendix F Fees and Charges

·          Appendix G Flexible Use of Capital Receipts

·          Appendix H Capital Strategy

·          Appendix I Capital Bids 2024/25 and Consolidated Capital Programme

·          Appendix J Detail of Highways and Footways capital expenditure

·          Appendix K Treasury Strategy

·          Appendix L Dedicated schools grant

·          Appendix M RBWM Pay Policy

·          Appendix N EQIAs

·          Appendix O Report of the CFO

·          Appendix P Minutes of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny committee

Councillor Jones, Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Finance was invited to propose the 14 recommendations, as listed on page 32 of the agenda.

Councillor Jones introduced the budget explaining that it would support the vision and aims in the new Corporate Plan which would kick start the transformation of services that would ensure the viability of the Council. She observed that although many councils across the country were setting budgets in a challenging environment of increases in social care demand and costs, interest rates and contract costs this Council also had to deal with the legacy of decisions such as low council tax and capital spending which both had a long-lasting effect on their spending power. She stated that the Council had £322 per resident which meant less to spend on services, lower than the average of comparable councils and this was reflected in the impact on increases to fees and charges in order to support the provision of services.

She reported that the outgoing Section 151 Officer had warned the previous February that due to the levels of savings identified the council needed to “assure itself that there are robust plans and processes to deliver and report on the delivery of savings during 2023/24”. She had been concerned that continual non-achievable savings plans were being presented by the previous administration and this had now been proven to be correct and statutory costs under budgeted which reduced reserves by half in the last year.

She explained that they had taken a different approach to the budget by starting from the bottom up, calculating current demands, costs, income and looking at trends to strengthen their confidence in the numbers used and addressed issues as they were found. Plans were in place to provide growth of nearly £10m and savings of £7.5 and, unlike the budget approved last February, there was appropriate resources to achieve the targets as well as improved procedures to ensure that there was the capability to monitor the budget.

Councillor Jones continued that they were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

The Mayor closed the meeting by issuing an apology to Sarah Walker for the way she was heckled during her submission earlier in the evening noting it was unacceptable and if the Council was going to encourage people to take part in local democracy then they should have behaved better.