Agenda item

The Overview and Scrutiny Board will receive Budget Awareness presentations as part of the enhanced scrutiny engagement for the 2025/26 budget. The presentations will cover budget, pressures, assumed savings for those areas within the remit of the Board. The Board will have the opportunity to ask questions around the budget and is also asked to consider how it wishes to engage further with the development of the 2025/26 budget.

The Scrutiny Specialist introduced this item and presentations, copies of which appear as Appendix 'B' and Appendix ‘C’ to these Minutes in the Minute Book. As there were a number of different Directorate areas which fell within the remit of the Board it considered three separate budget presentations, from the Resources Directorates, the Operations Directorate and one covering Community Service areas. Each of the presentations outlined the overall budget, the projected outturns and the pressures on services for the Medium-Term Financial Plan. Significant one-off pressures and potential savings and progress on these were also identified.

A number of challenges and opportunities were identified in terms of Budget setting. After considering each of the presentations the Board raised a number of issues, including:

·     Residents card - Issues around this proposal were discussed but it was also welcomed as being a benefit for local council taxpayers.

·     Review of non-statutory services within the Resources Directorate – it was noted that most of what was done within the directorate fulfilled statutory functions but there could be a challenge on the best use of resources and efficiencies for all services including statutory services. It was noted that it was more difficult to see which areas were non-statutory.

·     IT solutions – The Board asked about whether there were any in-house solutions addressed through offers within the Microsoft package. If there were duplicate IT solutions. It was noted that the numbers for IT stood out in terms of expenses whilst it was not necessarily possible to achieve reductions in this area.

·     Commercial Operations Overspend - It was noted that the overspend in was driven by parking services fees and charges and seasonal income not quite hitting expectations in the first quarter.

·     Impact of strict cost controls – It was noted that this had achieved savings, but it was questioned whether this also had an impact on service delivery. The Board was advised that there was a need to ensure that the asset base was maintained in a suitable condition and didn’t go past the point of degradation.

·     Operations Statutory Services – It was noted that many of the service areas within the directorate were already operating at a statutory.

·     Parking Charges – It was noted that the issue of income from parking was skewed by bad weather and a lack of expected income on parking charges increases. A resident’s discount card may encourage more people to use parking and increase income. The overall parking picture was part of a current discussion with the Portfolio Holder and a new parking operations manager was also looking into this. Parking Charges Payments costs were higher than anticipated and it was noted that this needed to be a dialogue with the banks and credit card companies. It was observed that making money out of the parking charges for leisure centre use, e.g. charges at the Dolphin Centre could see a reduction in usage of leisure centres and people not renewing memberships. There was an acknowledgement of this issue, and it was being considered with the Portfolio Holder. Other suggested that all car park users should pay the same regardless of purpose.

·     Information on the PFI contracts – It was a complicated financial arrangement. Eventually the building would come into BCP ownership but at present there was a deficit in the reserve for the payments and more money was being put in to ensure that there was enough in that reserve to pay until the expiry of the PFI in about eight or nine years.

·     RNLI situation – Some beaches only had lifeguards from 10am to 6pm. The Board raised issues around the costs for this and was assured that the Council was receiving good value for money in terms of the contract when considering some of the statistics on this from the summer. It was noted that there was ongoing contract negotiation.

·     Transfer of Russell-Cotes – It was noted that this was still on track and was expected to be completed by 25 October. There was a parliamentary process to be gone through but no reason why this shouldn’t proceed.

·     Community Safety – There was support shown for the proposed funding grants for CCTV, particularly with concerns about growing issues in some areas of BCP. It was noted that CCTV was an important deterrent and there were discussions being had on this issue.

Seasonal Pressures for Police Funding – It was noted that this wasn’t included within the funding formula for the Police and this area was under huge pressure in peak season and this was something which should be addressed.