Agenda item

Purpose: To consider and recommend to Council the 2025-26 Revenue Budget.

Councillor Iain Cottingham (Executive Portfolio Holder: Finance and Resources) introduced the Revenue Budget 2025/26 (Agenda Item 9).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       Members asked if consideration had been given to adopting a zero base budgeting approach. It was confirmed that this had been done for the capital budget, but activity-based budgeting was used for the revenue budget. Zero base budgeting was difficult to deliver - the Council had 500 services and needed to have fit for purpose, financial systems and proper integration. It was a long-term ambition to have an IT infrastructure that would enable this. It was suggested that greater use of AI technology could enable more real-time statistical financial analysis in future. A key challenge was finding the capital expenditure to spend on back office systems.

·       There was a query about delivery of Adult Social Care Resource Centre Services through alternative providers/delivery methods. Members were told that preliminary conversations had taken place with providers who had indicated that they would be interested in expanding what they delivered. The Council had engaged with staff, service users and their families, but until it was clear what external providers wanted to deliver, it was not possible to say what the final product would look like.

·       Members suggested that contacting service users to inform them that their service would be changing, without being able to tell them what it would look like, could be counterproductive. Officers recognised this, but felt that it was better than reports going into the public domain without those who would be affected being made aware first.

·       Concerns were expressed that at least two family hubs had received letters in December saying that there would be no funding for their service beyond March, and the letters implied that jobs may be at risk. Members asked why this had not been included in the public consultation. It was explained that this related to government funding that was due to end, and that the family hubs had been aware of this. Given that this was outside the revenue budget and the Council was not looking to change funding for the family hubs, there was no need to consult on this.

·       It was noted that there would be a change to the family hub services, with Victoria Park Nursery and (possibly) Hungerford Nursery providing a 0-19 service. Reassurance had been provided that the early years services would not be compromised by expanding it, and the changes would improve the service for families. Previously, funding had been through ring-fenced grants, but some of these had been rolled into the overall funding pot. Confirmation had recently been provided around future funding, which would remain for existing hubs in the coming year. Members expressed concern that they had not been kept informed.

Action: Officers to provide assurance around the future of the family hubs.

·       Members asked about major contracts that would be up for renewal, where the Council could be surprised by increased costs. It was noted that an allowance had been made for inflation at 2.5 - 3%. Some contracts were linked to RPIX (e.g., Veolia). It was acknowledged that the Council was not immune to inflationary pressures, and it was expected that recent national insurance increases would be passed on to the Council by suppliers.

·       Members noted the plans to reduce the frequency of black bin collections and suggested that frequencies may need to be increase for some households (e.g., families with young children), which would have a financial impact.

RESOLVED to note the report.