Agenda item

The Acting Director, Finances, Bromsgrove District Council (BDC) and Redditch Borough Council (RBC), introduced the report and in doing drew Members’ attention to the recommendations, as detailed on pages 63 to 65 of the main agenda report.

Members were informed that, as detailed in the report, that there was a gross expenditure budget of £4,572k and a total income budget of £961k.

The revenue budget and partner percentage allocations for 2024/25 onwards, was detailed in the table at recommendation 1.3, page 63 of the main agenda report.

Members attention was drawn to the WRS Budgets 2024/25 information, as detailed on page 66 of the main agenda report and the following assumptions made in relation to the projections, as follows:-

·         The enhanced pay award for 2023/24 was reserved from 2022/23 surplus.  WRS were not able to fund this increase year on year, therefore an increase in partner funding would be required.

·         3% pay award across all staff for 2024/25, 2% for 2025/26 & 2026/27. 

·         Increase in Rent of £4.6k in 2024/25, a further 4% in 2025/2026 and 2026/2027

·         Increase in ICT Hosting of £4.4k, a further 4% in 2025/26 and 2026/27

·         Increase in Support Hosting of £4.9k in 2024-25, a further 3% in 2025/26 and 2026-27

·         Total partner contribution as included in Appendix 2

·         Income projections as included at Appendix 3.

·         No inflationary increases in supplies and services or transport.

·         Pension back-funding to be paid by all partners.

Members were asked to note that, in addition to the base budget there were three additional technical officers working on income generation, animal activity and gull control.  Officers were unable to include these officers into the base budget as the income generation officer was an additional post on the establishment to bring in additional income agreed by partner councils and the animal activity and gull control officer recharge percentage basis was different to the agreed partner recharge allocations

The Acting Director, Finances, (BDC) and (RBC) further highlighted to the Board that, following discussions, Partner Officers of the Board had agreed to support Worcester City Council to achieve its budgetary requirements for 2024/5; and that the starting point for their contribution before the additions for salary pressures, etc, would be £30K less than the previous year. Officers had identified several areas where work might be varied and the detail of this would be dealt with at officer level in the coming months, ahead of the new financial year.

Following on from this, Councillor T. Onslow, Wyre Forest District Council asked for a further explanation on the reduction of £30k for Worcester City Council; and further highlighted that Wyre Forest District Council had a budget deficit to address and that they would be looking across all service areas for savings.

The Acting Director, Finances, (BDC) and (RBC) explained that Worcester City Council had approached Chief Officers 3 / 4 months previously looking for reductions.  Therefore, the Head of WRS had looked at services to see what WRS could deliver without affecting other partner authorities.

The Head of WRS further explained that officers had discussed the service areas that could be reduced.  Licensing was required by law to be cost neutral so was not included. Other service areas were reviewed to determine if savings could be made for one partner without impacting on the others. Following these discussions, it had become apparent how heavily integrated and interconnected many of the common service areas like food inspection and nuisance investigation were, making it very difficult to segregate for one partner authority.

Officers had looked at the work carried out on behalf of Worcester City Council and the other partners and had identified a small number of areas where work levels might be adjusted downwards for Worcester, without this impacting on work undertaken for the other partner authorities and outside agencies, as this was key to continued income generation.  Members were reassured that there was only a small amount of risk outside of the partnership, and that he was confident that this would not have an impact on any of the other partner authorities.  

Councillor T. Onslow, Wyre Forest District Council, further added that Wyre Forest DC could not sign off the WRS Budgets for 2024/25 – 2026/27 at this stage, as their authority was also looking at savings during this 3-year period, so may have to ask for savings similar to those of Worcester City Council.

The Head of WRS stated that neither he nor the Partner Officers had been made aware that Wyre Forest District Council needed to look for savings in coming year, 2024/25.

The Head of WRS further clarified that, as detailed in the Legal Agreement between the partners and the ‘Proceedings at Meetings’, any recommendations before the Board would be decided by a majority of the Members of the Board present and voting, so if the other authorities were content, their Members could vote in favour and the budgets would pass to their councils for ratification of their relevant contributions.

However, the Head of WRS added that, whilst it was not ideal, the agreement also provided an opportunity for authorities, in this case Wyre Forest, to come back to the Board with an agreed revised budget contribution at the meeting of the Board on 15^th February 2024 so that the budget could be signed off ahead of the March date mentioned in the legal agreement.

The Head of WRS further explained that the WRS Budgets 2024/25 – 2026/27 if agreed by a majority vote of the Board at this stage, would mean that the partners voting in favour could them proceed with the figures agreed for their contribution, presenting them during the decision-making process at their individual budget setting meetings.

Councillor T. Onslow, Wyre Forest District Council, thanked the Head of WRS for his explanation but stated that she could not agree with the recommendations as they stood and would go back to the Cabinet Members, with a view to considering what may be affordable in the coming period. Councillor T. Onslow asked if the Head of WRS would meet with her to explain what savings might be made but also what impacts this might have on residents and businesses in their district.

The Head of WRS noted this and suggested that a separate meeting could be arranged at Wyre Forest House with the Wyre Forest representative of the Partner Officers Group, with this being followed up with the wider Partner Officer members of the Board ahead of the February meeting.

On being put to the vote, with Councillors T. Onslow and P. Harrison, Wyre Forest District Council abstaining, it was

RECOMMENDED that partner authorities approve the following for 2024/25 - 2026/27:-

1.1  Approve the 2024/25 gross expenditure budget of £4,572k as shown at Appendix 1 to the report, 

1.2  Approve the 2024/25 income budget of £991k as shown at Appendix 1, to the report;

1.3  Approve the revenue budget and partner percentage allocations for 2024/25 as follows: -

1.4  Approve the additional partner liabilities for 2024/25 in relation to

      unavoidable salary pressure, as follows: -.

1.5  Approve the additional partner liabilities for 2024/25 in relation to increase in hosting costs, as follows: -

1.6  Approve the additional partner liabilities for 2024/25 in relation to three

     Technical Officers, as follows: -