Agenda item

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 6) which set out the draft Revenue Budget for 2020/21 including fees and charges. The report sought approval for the draft budget and the draft fees and charges schedule prior to submission to the three councils in accordance with the Inter-Authority Agreement.

Paul Anstey explained that it was the intention to achieve a common position for the three individual councils. The JPPC needed to recommend a budget to the three councils.

This was discussed by the Joint Management Board and their recommendation was for a standstill budget based on the 2019/20 Revenue Budget but with salary related pressures factored in. No increases in supplies and services or contractual related budgets were proposed.

The total net Revenue budget for 2020/21 was proposed as £3.716M. This took into account:

·         The annual cost of living rise at 2%

·         Incremental rises effective from the 1^st April 2020

·         Increase in West Berkshire and Wokingham pension

·         No inflationary rise had been applied to supplies and services

Clare Lawrence explained that the budget for Wokingham was subject to the final detail on pension deficit payments being confirmed.

Appendix E to the report outlined the proposed budget methodology for localised service disinvestment. This had been put together for future reference should the PPP elect to operate in a different manner. The methodology would operate as a rebate. It would not however impact on agreed budget percentages:

·         Bracknell Forest:           25.76%

·         West Berkshire:             40.00%

·         Wokingham                   34.24%

Councillor Hilary Cole gave her support to the methodology.

Councillor John Halsall felt that further detail was required on the budget, i.e. employee costs and service costs. There should also be clarity on expenditure against the PPP’s objectives.

Sean Murphy explained that approximately 85% of the budget was spent on salaries. This was divided among the three authorities as per the above agreed percentages. The budget was split across ten cost centres. Sean agreed to circulate further detail in advance of the next meeting.

Clare Lawrence added that the standstill budget model was formed at the start of the shared service. The only variation to this had been the saving incorporated into the 2019/20 budget of £145k. No savings were proposed for 2020/21.

Councillor John Harrison queried whether a ‘root and branch’ review was scheduled of the PPP. Paul Anstey explained that a review would be held as per the timeframe set by the Business Plan. The Business Plan, which sat beneath the Inter-Authority Agreement, was a five year document. Performance reports outlined the progress made against the Business Plan. However, a review could be brought forward if Members had concerns over budgeting and/or delivery of the Business Plan.

Councillor Hilary Cole felt that it would be useful, particularly for new Members, to provide a briefing on areas including the background to the PPP and how it operated. She suggested this take place at the next meeting.

Paul Anstey directed Members to the detail of the proposed methodology. He reiterated that the purpose of the methodology was to offer Members a way to operate the PPP differently or resolve issues/make savings should this become necessary. The methodology outlined how costs could be removed if necessary. This covered the potential removal of high level elements of management; removing the cost of the core-offer; and removing contractual commitments, core supplies and consultancy. Assuming that all these costs were removed and the net budget formed the basis for local disinvestment, and assuming that the Committee approved the recommendation for a core standstill budget for 2020/21, then the available net amount for local disinvestment available for 2020/21 would be circa £1.7M. After applying the agreed percentages this would breakdown as follows:

·         Bracknell Forest            :           £450k

·         West Berkshire:             £680k

·         Wokingham:                  £570k

It was clarified that the methodology excluded licensing as the funding for this was ring-fenced.

Paragraph 3.3 of the methodology listed the areas of work that could be lost if savings were sought, i.e. a reduced level of food safety and food standards inspections. However, this also listed areas where activity could increase if funding allowed.

A reallocation of the funding would also be possible within each local authority, i.e. to alter the local offer by redistributing funds to a particular area of activity based on the priorities set within each local authority.

Councillor James Cole queried how the addition of a fourth local authority partner could affect the budget. Paul Anstey explained that, as per the Inter-Authority Agreement, the agreed percentages would need to be amended and a new agreement formed.

Councillor Hilary Cole gave thanks for this useful piece of work. It would likely become necessary to adjust/re-evaluate budgets in the future and the methodology would enable that.

Members then turned to the report’s recommendations. Paul Anstey reiterated that the Committee was being asked to recommend the budget and the fees and charges to the three councils. There would therefore be the opportunity for further discussions.

For the fees and charges, Councillor James Cole noted that the flat cost recovery fee was proposed to be increased to £57.50 per hour for 2020/21. Councillor Halsall felt this was acceptable ‘at the margins’.

The Committee approved the recommendations outlined in the report, subject to an amendment proposed by Councillor Halsall that the outline methodology be approved ‘at the margins’. This amendment was approved by the Committee. The refined report would be issued to the three councils.

RESOLVED that:

·         Consideration had been given to the draft Revenue Budget, including the fees and charges.

·         The contributions set out in the report, along with the fees and charges, would be recommended to the three councils.

·         The outline methodology for calculating rebates would be approved in the event of one or more partner authorities seeking local service reductions as set out in Appendix E, subject to the agreed amendment to be ‘at the margins’.

·         Sean Murphy would circulate further detail on the budget, i.e. employee costs and service costs, in advance of the next meeting.

·         A briefing would be provided to Committee on areas including the background to the PPP and how it operated. Potentially for the next meeting.