Prior to the Lead Member for Finance and Ascot introducing the latest financial update report. The Chairman addressed Cabinet.

The Chairman told Cabinet that the administration were committed to delivering value for money for the residents and committed to protecting the most vulnerable in our society.  The council found itself in a challenging financial position but the administration were resolute and determined to address the immediate financial challenge as well as getting the Royal Borough back on a long term sound financial footing.  Cabinet were informed that there would be difficult decisions ahead of them but they would united in meeting their objectives.

The Lead Member informed that the Council had a history of clean financial audits but he had become aware of financial risks and because of these risks the administration and Managing Director felt it was prudent to call in Cipfa to review the financial position.  Their findings have been circulated and work was underway in addressing identified issues.

Cabinet were informed that as there was a projected overspend of £4,179,000 measures were to be undertaken to reduce this such as there would be no more Member capital bid process.  Focus would be on the current position with Members being able to report issues with officers.

The Lead Member informed that the council had not been immune to the national pressures facing adult social care and was facing a projected pressure of  £1,421,000 in this area. There are currently just over 2,000 people receiving services in the borough some with physical disabilities, learning disabilities and or mental health challenges. The cost of placements and the associated complexity of need because people are living longer was creating pressure on the budget.

One of the main areas of pressure was domiciliary care and placements which had already been recognised with associated recovery plans in place. There was evidence that actions taken was having an impact with costs levelling off.  Work would continue with officers and Optalis.

The Deputy Chairman of Cabinet, Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health informed Cabinet that the financial pressures needed to be out in the national context of people living longer, which was good, but also living longer with complex conditions and a rising cost of provision.  The Government was bringing forward a prevention paper.  Within the Royal Borough we had an ageing population that came with a cost to the borough, care provision was improving and the Royal Borough had a high percentage of excellent care homes when compared nationally.  This was a positive challenge with people living longer but tis came at a cost.  The administration would continue to push the Government for a fair funding stream.  Moving to Optalis had been successful and future proofed services. There was a five year transformation programme for social services looking at prevention; there was a need to invest to save in the long term.   

The Chairman reported that we had excellent  children’s and social services teams that were good at identifying vulnerable young people, which was excellent but we had to accept that this would come at a cost.  The main priority had to be the protection of our vulnerable residents.

The Chairman also mentioned that he felt that the recent changes to the parking strategy had not been  handled to the best of our ability but the Lead Member would be looking at the strategic and enforcement framework to resolve the issues. The administration would remain committed to delivering the additional car parking spaces in Maidenhead that would include electric charging points. 

Cllr Price addressed Cabinet and said that the pressures identified within the report were nothing new and should have been known and included within the budget.  She questioned the forecasting when the budget was set.  She welcomed looking after the vulnerable  in society and the excellent work done by officers.

Deputy Chairman of Cabinet, Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health said that the forecast within the report was the worst case scenario.  Forecasting was done when setting  the budget but it only took a few high cost placements to impact on the budget, these could not be predicted.  Investment in adult social care had been undertaken and the benefits were now coming through the system and he was confident the overspend would come down. 

Cllr Davey questioned if the figures within the report were correct as they did not seem to add up and he suggested that the report could be presented better so the public could have a better understanding of the current financial system. He also asked if there were plans to introduce a congestion charge.  The Chairman replied that there were no plans to introduce a congestion charge and the Lead Member for Finance said that the figures were correct but agreed they could have been presented better.

Cllr Werner addressed Cabinet and said it was important to learn from the past so we did not make the same mistakes in the future.  A number of Cllrs had raised concerns about the level of budget being set  and areas, such as parking revenue, being under or overestimated.  The budget pressures should have been predicted but they were not included within the budget build.  He asked for reassurance that lessons would be learnt and how much of the £4 million overspend would be rolled over year on year.   He made comparisons to Northamptonshire County Council cash crises.

The Chairman replied that there would be no Northamptonshire County Council situation with the Royal Borough. He also mentioned that it was well known that with a small population under 25 years old it was difficult to forecast pressures and protect against their impact.  Special cases had a proportional bigger impact then on councils with a larger population. 

The Lead Member for Finance highlighted that the proposed virements with corporate services were not virements but budget movements and should not appear.

Resolved unanimously that: Cabinet notes the report and endorses the actions proposed:

i)     The council’s projected outturn position for 2019-20 and the mitigations proposed

ii)    The virements between corporate and service directorate budgets.

iii)   The projected spend on the capital programme

iv)   The projected cash-balances for the remainder of the financial year