Agenda item

A report from the Cabinet Member for Finance and Housing is attached.

Steve Kenyon, Interim Executive Director of Resources and Regulation submitted a report from the Cabinet Member for Finance and Housing.

The report provided Members with the details of:

·        The revenue outturn figures in respect of the last financial year (2017/2018).

·        Major variances between the revised estimate and the outturn;

·        The level of school balances;

·        HRA outturn for the year;

·        The minimum level of balances in the light of risk assessments

Those present were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions and the following points were raised:-

• A Committee Member referred to the estimated £844,000 overspend and explained that although it was less than expected it was still quite a hefty sum.

Councillor O’Brien explained that the £844,000 as set out in the report was a lot better that was forecast at month 9 and was 0.6% of the net budget. It was explained that the Council would be self-reliant by 2020 but will still retain the £9m of demand pressures. It was explained that varied measures were in place year on year to reduce the deficit.

• Councillor Harris referred to the grants and one-off funding and asked what this was in relation to and whether it would be an annual income.

Steve Kenyon explained that this related to the Communities and Wellbeing Improved Better Care Fund. The fund was in place to the financial year 2019/2020 but beyond that it wasn’t known.

• Councillor Hankey referred to non-specific services masking the overspend in demand led services and asked how long the Council could keep relying on Treasury Management.

Steve Kenyon explained that there was a breakdown in the table at 2.3 of the report that highlighted the significant demand pressures. The Council were borrowing at a fixed rate and economic trends were out of their control. The current investment yield was low but this due to the economy nationally.

• Councillor Caserta referred to Children’s Services and how one case could cost the Council a huge amount. This was something that had been happening for as long as he could remember. Councillor Caserta asked what could be done to stop the cycle.

Councillor O’Brien explained that this work was part of the Transformation agenda to prevent as well as intervene. SEN cases had increased in numbers as well as complexity over the past few years. The Council had earmarked half a million pounds from the budget to protect children’s centres in order for the prevent work to continue. It was also explained that Councillor Briggs would be presenting a report to Cabinet promoting Schools’ stronger relationships with families.  There was a lot of work being carried out across Greater Manchester and the Council were benefiting from this.

• Councillor James referred to social care and asked how the Council could achieve the savings required.

It was explained that the Council was working together with the CCG which would allow greater pooling of budgets, more streamlining and better service outcomes. It was also explained that the development of Persona allows for services to expand beyond the Council and be run in a more commercial way.

It should be noted that the CCG also had their own deficit to work with therefore the Council and the CCG were working together jointly to reduce demand.

• Councillor Nicholas Jones referred to the schools’ budgets and asked why the deficit had increased so much.

It was explained that the bottom half of the table outlined the main pressures such as SEN packages. It was also explained that there had been a large cost implication in relation to the move from SEN to EHCPs.

• Councillor Smith referred to the large costs incurred when sending Bury Children out of borough to specialist teaching provision and asked whether this was a priority area.

Councillor O’Brien confirmed that this was a priority area.

It was agreed:

1.That the final outturn for 2017/18, and explanations for major variances (Appendix A, B and C) be noted;

2. That the recommendations of the Interim Executive Director of Resources & Regulation for the minimum level of balances in light of the review of the corporate risk assessments and departmental risk assessments (Section 4) be endorsed.