Agenda item - Targeted Budget Management (TBM) 2018/19: Month 7

Report of the Executive Director Finance & Resources (copy attached)

RESOLVED: That the Committee –

(i)            Noted the forecast risk position for the General Fund which

indicates a budget pressure of £1.487m. This includes an overspend of £1.130m on the council’s share of the NHS managed Section 75 services.

(ii)          Noted that the one-off financial risk safety net of £1.500m is available to mitigate the forecast risk if the risks cannot be completely eliminated by the year-end.

(iii)         Noted the forecast for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA),

which is currently an underspend of £0.500m.

(iv)         Noted the forecast position for the Dedicated Schools Grant,

which is an underspend of £0.235m.

(v)          Noted the forecast outturn position on the capital programme

and approved the variations and slippage in Appendix 5 and the new schemes as set out in Appendix 6.

(vi)         Accepted the grant awarded for the South East Museum Development Programme as set out in paragraph 6.3.

78.1    The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Finance & Resources which set out an indication of forecast risks as at Month 7 on the Council’s revenue and capital budgets for the financial year 2018/19.

78.2    Councillor Sykes referred to temporary accommodation and community care. He noted that the cost of temporary accommodation in December 2014 was £1.4m, but was now £3.4m, and the cost of community care in December 2015 was £41m and it was now £61m. He said that there was both demand and unit cost pressure, and accepted that demand couldn’t be controlled but cost could and asked for comments on that. He referred to housing services and temporary accommodation, and said that with the measures in place the impression given was that costs should be coming down, but there was a continued increase. He referred to Section 75 overspend, and asked if we were getting a good deal.  He said that waste disposal costs had increased, and asked how that could happen when there was a fixed contract. He referred to fostering and adoption, and asked about the possibility of golden handshakes to agency suppliers. He said that there had been a 55% increase in unit costs for community care and asked if that was the reason for the overspend.

78.3    The Executive Director Finance & Resources said that the level of demand for temporary accommodation within community care was difficult to influence. With regard to the unit costs, the markets were changing but the council had set up the Sustainable Social Care Project, and a number of measures had been suggested particularly with the Social Care Budget. The 55% increase in costs was something the Council were looking at and something we needed to understand better. The Executive Director Economy Environment & Culture said that the waste disposal costs were known and fixed, but the cost was higher than projected as the tonnage collected was higher than expected. The costs of the service have been reviewed, and that was reported to ETS Committee in October 2018. That committee agreed to introduce a focused dedicated service, which was now being implemented. The Executive Director Families Children & Learning referred to foster carers and confirmed that the Council did not offer golden handshakes. He said 61% of placements were within in-house foster carers, and it was hoped that that would increase to 65% by April 2019. There was no evidence locally of agencies using golden handshakes to attract some of our foster carers, and there was actually an increase of carers coming to the Council from agencies. From speaking to those carers, they moved to the Council because of the level of support offered, rather than for financial reasons.  The Executive Director Health & Adult Social Care said that demand for adult social care was increasing and that was due to an ageing population and the complexity of people who needed more care. With regard to S75 overspend, was due to people with complex issues who needed additional care.

78.3    Councillor Wealls said that Cityclean had overspent by £973k which was more than expected. The Executive Director Economy Environment & Culture said that the budget was being closely looked at, but a lot of work had been done on as part of the city environment modernisation programme, and that had been reported to both this and the ETS Committee. A lot of work had been undertaken with the new Assistant Director, and was confident that were manage the budget more accurately in the future.

78.4    RESOLVED: That the Committee –

(i)            Noted the forecast risk position for the General Fund which

indicates a budget pressure of £1.487m. This includes an overspend of £1.130m on the council’s share of the NHS managed Section 75 services.

(ii)          Noted that the one-off financial risk safety net of £1.500m is available to mitigate the forecast risk if the risks cannot be completely eliminated by the year-end.

(iii)         Noted the forecast for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA),

which is currently an underspend of £0.500m.

(iv)         Noted the forecast position for the Dedicated Schools Grant,

which is an underspend of £0.235m.

(v)          Noted the forecast outturn position on the capital programme

and approved the variations and slippage in Appendix 5 and the new schemes as set out in Appendix 6.

(vi)         Accepted the grant awarded for the South East Museum Development Programme as set out in paragraph 6.3.