Agenda item

Cabinet will present their revenue budget and council tax proposals to Budget Council on 27^th February 2013. As part of the budget process savings targets have been set for departments and transformation programmes. This report provides an update on how the targets will be met for the services covered by this select committee. An update is also provided on budget growth proposals and proposed changes in fees and charges. 

Hitesh Jolopara presented the Cabinet’s proposals for the Council’s budget and Council Tax for 2013/14. The new funding regime included: the introduction of a local business rates retention scheme; the replacement of formula grant with a lower level of revenue support grant; 10% reduction of funding for Council Tax; and changes in funding streams.

There would be a £6m (8.9%) reduction in funding from Government in 2013/14 with a further £13m reduction forecast for 2014/15. Over a four year period from 2011/12 total cash grant from the Government would have been reduced by £48m. It was thought likely that the Council would lose a further £4.1m from the localisation of business rates, largely due to the high level of ratings appeals at Westfield. The reduction in Council Tax benefit funding would be absorbed within the budget although the affordability of this would have to be kept under review year on year.

£3.1m of growth and £22m of savings had been identified in 2013/14 and the budget for the year was balanced, although there currently remained projected funding gaps of £6m in 2014/15 and £14m in 2015/16. The Council debt was forecast to be reduced to £73m in 2015, down from a peak of £176m in 2004. A reduction of 3% in Council Tax levels would see the Band D charge brought down to £758 in 2013/14, compared with a peak of £917 in 2006.

Mr Jolopara responded to queries that setting of business rates remained outside Council control, and that the reduction in Council Tax had been offset by charging full Council Tax on empty properties.

Rachel Wigley supported by Prakash Daryanani presented the growth and savings proposals for Adult Social Care. A common set of eight outcomes had been developed to achieve the Tri-borough Service vision to support more integrated partnership working. In the long term, and particularly with a growing older population, the most effective approach was to enable people to stay independent for longer.

The 2013/14 budget for Adult Social Care would reduce from £72.7 million to £67.2 million. Savings of £4.6 million were set out in Appendix 1 of the report. Adult Social Care was in line to deliver £25 million of efficiencies between 2009/10 and 2013/14.

The general uplift for fees and charges would be 3.2%, with the exceptions of home care charges, which would remain at £12, and the meals service, which it was proposed to increase from £4.30 to £4.50.

Officers clarified the following points:

·         the 11% staffing spend was in respect of those staff directly employed by the Council, both front line and back office;

·         the savings in residential and nursing care would be found by preventative care to keep people at home for as long as possible, instead of expensive residential and nursing care on which Hammersmith & Fulham was one of the highest spending councils;

·         there would be  a 10% reduction across third sector grants, achieved by commissioning across the three boroughs, and the level of support would remain as one of the highest across London Boroughs;

·         the savings shown for 2015/16 were the cumulative impact of current savings, further savings would be identified and the budget proposals updated monthly; and

·         the savings shown against 2013/14 Day Service Review, Ellerslie did not represent additional savings.

ACTION

The Adult Social Care Business Case, June 21012 to be provided to members.

Action: Rachel Wigley

Mr Webster responded to a query that savings in respect of the integration with Central London Community Healthcare (CLCH) would be achieved through sharing the  management teams and working in a move efficient way to develop integrated services and reduce costs. The agreement would not require the contract to novate to a new organisation, should the CLCH fail to achieve NHS Foundation Trust status.

Councillor Cowan was concerned that the increase in the cost of the meals service had been higher than the rate of inflation for a number of years. Councillor Ginn responded that there was a small group of users for this service, which continued to be subsidised and was provided as part of a care package.

Ms Wigley responded to a query that compared with other boroughs, the prices charged by Hammersmith & Fulham were in the lower end of the top quartile. The Equality Impact Assessment would be taken into account in the tender analysis, when the service was externalised in April 2013.

ACTION

Comparative prices for meals services across London and an analysis of the socio-economic profile of the Hammersmith & Fulham service users to be provided.

Action: Rachel Wigley

Kathleen Corbett presented the growth and savings proposals for Housing and Regeneration. There were savings of £1.3 million, compared with total expenditure of £25 million. In respect of Hamlet gardens, there were £550,000 savings in respect of the phased withdrawal, which would be completed by September 2015.

The key risks related to: maintaining the supply of temporary accommodation to minimise the use of B&B accommodation; and the welfare reform.

ACTION

Councillor Cowan requested projected numbers and costs and the underlying assumptions in respect of temporary accommodation.

Action: Kathleen Morris