Cabinet considered the report regarding the proposed new Medium Term Financial Strategy. 

The Cabinet Member for Asset Management and Commercialisation, Finance and

Ascot informed that this was an update on the MTFS published with the budget in February. The most important change was that it now reflected the requirements of the corporate Plan 2021-2026 and importantly took into account increases in energy costs and high levels of inflation.

The Council had a number of risks that we should now know about, low reserves, low levels of income, growing pressure on children’s and adults’ services and others. The pension deficit is an issue but Cabinet will be pleased to learn that in their annual report Pensions and Investment Research Consultants Ltd advise that the pension fund was ranked 5th out of approximately 100 Local Government Pensions funds with a return of 12.5% in 2021/22.

The MTFS shows we need to save £7.3m in 2023/24, an increase of £2.4M from February but after then the numbers have little changed. Over the 4-year period 2023/24 to 2026/27 savings of £15.27m will be required rather than £12.7M reported in the 2022/23 budget papers. This £7.2m is a loss of business rates as a consequence of the critically important regeneration of Maidenhead. 

The Medium-Term Financial Plan is showed in Appendix A which includes the assumptions used and appendix B provided a sensitivity analysis. 

Lastly cabinet should be aware of the risks around Adult Social care changes and particularly a cap on social care costs which could add £3M to ASC costs.

The revised MTFS provided the basis for developing the 2023/24 budget a process that starts this month and will be completed by December 2022.

Mr Bagley addressed Cabinet and said that Maidenhead regeneration had resulted in over £7 million loss in business rates and the Lead Member had said at the scrutiny panel that this was the right thing to do, he asked if this was a mistake from a financial point of view.  He also asked that with regards to Council tax the Head of Finance had contacted the government about a need to increase council tax, he asked if council tax could not ne increased would there be a cut in services. 

The Cabinet Member replied that with regards to business rates it was the right decision to make a year ago based on the MTFS and the benefits that the regeneration would bring to Maidenhead. With regards to council tax they had contacted the government about this, as a low council tax authority they had been disadvantaged compared to higher council tax authorities in being able to meet demand.  The council could increase tax and still be one of the lowest taking authorities in the country.

The Chairman reiterated the importance of regeneration of Maidenhead and the benefits that would come from this.  With regards to council tax we would continue to press government as we wanted to remain one of the lowest taxing council in the surrounding area and the country as well as maintaining excellent service delivery offering value for money.  The administration had made difficult decisions and set a balanced budget.  Next years budget would again be released early and open to scrutiny and open to suggested balanced improvements.  Residents needed to consider if not this budget what were the alternatives.

Cllr Jones mentioned that the report said that there was a need to increase council tax or decrease the budget. She asked if council tax could not be increased or if there were no increase in government grants would there be a need to increase savings.  She also asked if increasing council tax was still a priority and what this burden would mean to residents.

The Chairman said that they were working hard on not increasing the burden on residents during the current financial crises.  They were looking for fairer funding and also welcomed alternative funded suggested during the budget build.

Mr Hill addressed Cabinet and said that what he had heard was the principle 7 had now been removed.as a flexibility to increase council tax.  Looking at table 3 and the savings he asked if the following paragraph meant that there could be £3million added each year, this would mean a £16 million deficit could be a £32 million one that you were not sure yet. He also made reference to the council meting last year where he asked how much money would be lost due to the Nicholsons Shopping Centre in Maidenhead, a figure or £2.5 million has increased to £7 million.  He asked why nearly 10% of income had not been reclaimed.  He asked why when drawing up contracts the loss of business rates had not been included. 

The Director for Resources replied that business rates calculation took place on  regular basis and reflected current potion so the aforementioned figures were not correct as you had to take into account current valuations and reliefs.  With regards to adults social care they had added the figure as an estimate if government did not cover the change in legislation.

Resolved unanimously:  that  Cabinet RECOMMENDS to Full Council:

i) the proposed key themes of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy set out in the report; and

ii) the Medium-Term Financial Plan set out in Appendix A.