Report to: Council Date

Download 0.72 Mb.
Date conversion21.11.2016
Size0.72 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

Digitally enabled support services
The Council’s objective is to modernise the support service infrastructure and achieve savings of c£5m by reducing internal and external administration capacity; driving customer channel shift and investing in technology.
The vision is that this will involve:

  • digital information and communications management:

    • A single front door to the Council through the web site

    • More and better engagement with our citizens through the web, social media and electronic notifications.

    • All communication electronic by default. All data published on line

    • processes accessed and delivered through web-based customer self-service as far as possible

  • Vulnerable and complex customers supported through a smaller contact centre, as far as practicable through web chat and assisted self-serve

  • Sharp internal processes with minimal administration, primarily delivered on a self-serve basis

  • A smaller team of skilled administrators meeting service-critical needs across the council

This workstream will incorporate a review of all administration-based services. The specific services and teams that have been identified as in scope at this stage are as follows:

  • Every administration post:

    • Generic ie PAs and Business Support

    • Specialist Admin, largely Social Care

    • “Shared Services”: Payroll; Training; Accounts Payable & Receivable; HR and Finance Administrators

  • Contact Centre Services and Back Office functions:

  • Every other service-based post at Grade 7 or below which spends c50% or more of time on administration processes. These posts will be incorporated as part of wider service reviews throughout the budget cycle

The savings from this budget option will largely come from a reduction in number of administration posts, as a result of customer and officer self-service and significantly more channel shift to on-line administration service delivery. It is estimated that around 200 of the c500 posts identified in scope will be reduced and this will be achieved through consensual reductions as far as possible (ie by deleting vacancies, of which there are c100 relevant posts and accepting severance / VER requests, of which c50 applications have been received).
It is likely that there will also be a requirement to re-balance remaining resources across the transformed services, as vacancies are unlikely to be distributed evenly across council services. Again the Council will endeavour to achieve this change in agreement with staff, but some contractual change to achieve more generic working across the council may be required.

The proposed approach to this work is as follows:

  • Systems review and proposals for digital platform

  • Review of all generic and specialist administration functions

  • Review of contact centre processes and associated back office functions

  • Full savings proposals available as a basis for detailed consultation by 2016.

Joint delivery of environmental services with Wigan MBC
It is proposed that the majority of the Council’s Environmental Services department are delivered on a partnership basis with Wigan MBC. Consideration is also being given to the inclusion of the Council’s facilities management services, currently managed by Corporate property Services, into this arrangement. The detail of each service and precise scoping will be subject to further analysis and a more detailed proposal brought forward for consultation in July 2015.
Joint delivery will achieve savings from a combination of:

  • Trading growth

  • Reducing dependency and managing demand

  • Optimisation of staff resources

  • Standardising processes and removing waste

  • Cost savings, eg reductions in combined fleet size, buildings and back office support costs

Indicative savings are as follows:


Indicative Savings (£000s)

New ways of working and optimisation of staffing resources

1,080 - 1,550


35 - 50

Process efficiencies


Trading growth (surplus generated)

75 - 200

Operating cost savings (e.g. reductions in the combined fleet, buildings and back office support costs)

610 – 1,000


2,000 - 3,000

This joint provision will involve:

  • a joint management Board between Bolton and Wigan Borough Councils. The Committee will be equally constituted by Elected Members from each council, supported by a single management team and will be accountable for ensuring that service standards and priorities are upheld by the joint team.

  • The retention of existing contract and employment arrangements for staff within their respective authorities as day to day duties and locations will continue, but an expectation that staff will work across the partnership when reasonably required to do so

  • The Council will seek to manage any change in cases where this is required, eg amended duties or work location, on a voluntary basis through an agreed and non-binding contract variation and/or secondment arrangement. This arrangement will be subject to ongoing monitoring and review.

Subject to the development of the detailed business case over the next few months, the services that are likely to be in scope of the joint working initiative are:


  • Highways Maintenance

  • Street Lighting, signs and road lining

  • Winter Maintenance

  • Gully Cleansing

  • Highways Drainage

  • Highways, Engineering and Drainage Design Services

  • Road Safety and School Crossing Patrols

  • Asset Management

  • Traffic Management including Street works

Neighbourhood and Regulatory Services

  • Street Cleansing and Environmental Enforcement

  • Grounds Maintenance

  • Greenspace Management

  • Pest Control and Dog Warden service

  • Food Control

  • Licensing

  • Trading Standards and Consumer Advice

  • Health and safety

  • Pollution Control

Community Services

  • Waste and Fleet

  • School Meals

  • Building Cleaning

  • Heaton Fold

  • Bereavement Services

  • Social Needs Transport

  • Security and Response

There are also a number of services that do not fall neatly into the responsibilities of both Environment Directorates but are worthy of further consideration of their potential for inclusion in a Joint Working Arrangement. These are:

  • Property Maintenance

  • Parking Services

  • Public Rights of Way

  • Insurance Claims

  • Community Safety

  • Community buildings and neighbourhood centres

  • Area Working and Neighbourhood Management

Finally there are services that are considered to be out of scope. These are:

  • Albert Halls

  • Management of the Borough’s Markets

The services in scope of this option will be phased into the joint delivery model over the two year budget period; the detail of this plan will be subject to the detailed consultation exercise.

Individual service reviews
Indicative timescales for bringing forward all other reviews are as follows:


Earliest date of report for consultation

  • Review of housing services

  • Review of D&R Funding and subsidies

  • Reduction of Highways insurance budget (Final report)

Q1 2015/16

  • Review of subsidies within Community Services

  • Review of area working and neighbourhood management

  • Review of Extra Care (If not part of Adults L:ATC)

  • Review of youth, sport and play services

  • General efficiencies: Children’s Services

  • Income and efficiencies within Planning, Contracts, Skills and Building Control Services

  • Review of Housing strategy, economic development & strategic development services

Q2 2015/16

  • General efficiencies: Adult’s Social Care

  • Review of corporate voluntary sector grants

  • Review of Library and Museum Service

  • Review of waste collection service

  • Review of Children’s Centres

Q3 2015/16

  • Review of corporate support services

Q4 2015/16

The Council consulted stakeholders on the strategic budget options using a range of mechanisms.
The most significant piece of consultation was a statistically valid questionnaire which was issued to a random sample of 10 000 households within the Borough. The structure of this questionnaire and number of responses received give the Council assurance that, within a confidence interval of +/- 3% the survey feedback accurately reflects the views of local people (meaning that we can be 95% certain that the true results, had everyone in the borough completed a survey).
Other consultation mechanisms included:

  • Formal consultation with the Trades Unions through the SLJCC and subsequent Corporate Employee Relations Meetings, supported by DJCCs, for the duration of the consultation period

  • A detailed explanation of the overall budget position and how residents could feed in their views in the November issue of Bolton Scene, the Council’s newspaper which is issued to every house in the borough.

  • Publication of the public consultation survey on-line

  • An organised briefing event for the public which was held in January 2015, to explain the budget and the options put forward and to seek people’s views

  • Target presentations/discussions with specific groups such as the voluntary and community Sector Forum, Business Ratepayers, schools and other groups as appropriate

  • A comprehensive communications campaign for staff to ensure every employee understands the proposals and how to feed in during consultation. This involved a letter to every member of staff from the Chief Executive and briefing sessions held by Directors for every member of staff in each department.

Feedback from the structured sample survey
A detailed piece of analysis of the questionnaire feedback is appended to this report. Feedback on how strongly the public agreed with the Council’s specific proposals or otherwise was as follows:





Deliver savings by examining alternative ways to deliver services such as adult social care and environmental services e.g. arms-length companies, not-for-profit organisations, trusts, working with neighbouring authorities





Reduce reliance on council led services by encouraging and supporting communities and individuals to deliver the activities





Save money by encouraging people to self-serve and contact the council via the web or by telephone rather than face to face





Maintain the frequency of waste collection services and deliver savings by reducing the size of the grey (residual waste) bin





Make savings by reducing subsidies for leisure activities and the removal of some free activities





Protect services for children in most need by reducing services in other areas such as children’s centres, youth, sport & play services





Other key messages from the returns were as follows:

Most respondents agreed with the council’s approach to making the necessary savings: 90% agreed with maximising economic prosperity in Bolton and 87% agreed with ensuring the most vulnerable are impacted least by the budget reductions. Fewer residents agreed that it was important to narrow the gap between the most and least well off (72%) and to minimise the impact on staff and avoid compulsory redundancies (67%).

The majority of respondents also agreed with the set of principles proposed by the council; 93% agreed with maximising proposals that improve efficiency and make savings from management and administration before front line staff, three-quarters (76%) agreed that targeting should take place to protect services to individuals and areas in greatest need and deprivation and two-thirds (66%) agreed that lower levels of savings should be found from children’s and adult’s social care.

When asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with more specific proposals, there was a slightly more mixed response from respondents; just under three-quarters (64%) agreed with examining alternative ways to deliver services e.g. not-for-profit organisations or working with neighbouring authorities, 63% agreed with reducing reliance on council-led services by encouraging and supporting individuals to deliver the activities and 51% agreed with maintaining the frequency of waste collection services by reducing the size of the grey bin.
Respondents were informed that the proposals put forward assumed a 2% increase in council tax and asked to state how strongly they agreed or disagreed with this. Just over half of respondents (51%) agreed with the proposal to increase council tax by 2% as follows:
Q5 Please state how strongly you agree or disagree that the council should raise council tax by 2% to achieve the savings and avoid even more cuts to services

Base: 907 respondents
Over four-fifth’s (83%) said they were aware of the need for the council to change the way it delivers services and over three-quarters (76%) accepted that budget reductions had to be made but only four out of ten felt the council was doing its best under difficult circumstances.
Respondents were asked to state how the proposals would impact on them or their families. Four out of ten said that the proposals would have ‘no’ (or minimal) impact on them. A third said there could be financial implications due to the increase in council tax or job losses and around a fifth commented on the proposed changes to the bin services.
Respondents were asked to suggest alternative solutions; these included cuts to staff / management, other efficiencies such as dimming street lights, increasing revenue / releasing capital, and cutting the costs of councillors and the mayor.
In addition, specific issues that were made at the public meeting, to which c40 people attended, were as follows:

  • concerns were raised about the impact of funding reductions on the work of the voluntary sector

  • the importance of maintaining reasonable terms and conditions within the adults social care company was expressed and general concerns raised about some of the poor practices reported within the private sector

  • the risk of increased fly tipping and contaminated recycling as a result of a potential proposal to reduce the size of wheeled grey bins was highlighted and assurance sought about the council’s strategy for managing this

  • the importance of assessing the equality impact of all of the proposals was discussed, particularly the most vulnerable residents and those in scope of the council’s anti-poverty strategy

  • the risk of reductions in some council services causing an increase in others, particularly those that deal with prevention or early action, was highlighted

  • a specific suggestion was made that levels of reserves should be reduced to offset the immediate savings required.

Feedback from other survey responses
A further 247 responses to the ‘universal survey’ were received from the public. These were mainly from residents (86%) but also from staff members (6%) and from a community or voluntary group (4%)
The results from these respondents were similar to those from the ‘random sample survey’ with the following exceptions:
Respondents were less likely than the random sample respondents to agree…

  • with ensuring the most vulnerable are least impacted by the budget reductions (69% v 87%)

  • that universal services that have already faced substantial reductions should be protected (65% v 80%)

  • that the council should reduce reliance in council led services by encouraging and supporting communities and individuals to deliver the activities (52% v 63%)

  • with the proposal to save money by encouraging people to self-serve and contact the council via the web or telephone rather than face to face (36% v 59%)

and less likely to be aware of the need for the council to change the way it delivers services (74% v 83%)

but they were more likely than the random sample respondents to agree…

  • with the approach to narrow the gap between the most and least well off (83% v 72%)

  • to maintain the frequency of waste collection services and deliver savings by reducing the size of the green bin (59% v 51%)

  • with protecting services for children in most need by reducing services in other areas like children’s centres, youth, sport and play services (61% v 42%)

  • and more likely to accept that budget reductions have to be made (86% v 76%)

  • The respondents to the universal survey were also slightly more likely to agree with a 2% rise in council tax (56% v 51%)

Feedback from the Voluntary and Community Sector
The Voluntary and Community sector have commented, through the CVS, that their view is that proposed reductions will inevitably impact on the work of the sector in Bolton.
The CVS view is that this will be doubly difficult for the people they work with, many of whom are vulnerable and have turned to the sector in search of alternative support in the context of reductions in council services. As Council services diminish, the pressure on voluntary groups grows and yet the resources required to meet additional demand are not easily to be found. For example, other key funders of the voluntary and community sector, such as the National Lottery, are currently heavily over-subscribed for their larger programmes like Reaching Communities.
CVS have commented that it is heartening that the Council is not proposing to make disproportionate reductions in funding to the sector and welcomes the proposal to provide transitional funding so that the pace of reductions will not impact in the near future, to allow groups time to plan ahead and seek the best possible solutions to meet the needs of their service users.
Trade Union Feedback
The Trades Union’s submitted a joint response to the Council’s proposals, which is appended to this report. The key points from the TU submission are

  • a position that the Council should set a one year budget only in order that the position may be reviewed following the outcome of the general election and Council reserves be used to address the funding gap

  • concerns about the perceived allocation of £3m on private sector consultants and increased payments for senior managers

  • a proposal that the detail of shared services with other authorities to be explored ahead of “outsourcing”, in particular with regards the delivery of adults social care

  • serious concerns about the establishment of a trading company for adult social care and operation of a two tier workforce, on the basis that this will undermine industrial relationships generally and specifically the Single Status Agreement

  • a view that the EIA is insufficiently detailed and does not respond to the Council’s duty to further equality as well as mitigate the potential for impact of changes on protected groups

The Council has produced a detailed response to the Trades’ Unions which is appended.

In summary, the Council is grateful to the joint Trade Unions for the detailed response to the budget consultation. The Council is committed to working with the Trade Unions in dealing with a very difficult budget situation and reaffirms that mitigating the impact on the workforce is a key part of the Council’s strategy for the 2015-17 budget. The Council believes that the approach that has been taken over the past four years and for the 2015-17 period in respect of the avoidance of compulsory redundancies, retention of terms and conditions of employment and the continuation of the Council’s polices on redeployment and pay protection etc place the Council among the best local authority employers in the region.
The Council understands and expects that many of the proposals for meeting the budget 2015-17 will be opposed in principle and practice by the Trade Unions given the impact of the budget reductions on Council Services and jobs and the extent of change that many of the options will bring to working arrangements. The Council acknowledges that the extent and amount of change experienced by the workforce has been significant and would want to pay tribute to the ongoing public service commitment that has shown by staff.
The Council is, however, disappointed by the overall tone and content of the Trade Union response as in a number of areas despite efforts to engage and explain the background to proposals and further information being provided this does not appear to have been taken on board and the Council feels misrepresented in a number of important areas. This is explained in more detail in the relevant sections of the response.
The Council would wish to make it clear that the report approved by the Cabinet in November does not seek to move the Council to becoming a commissioning council and the proposals are based upon retaining services in their current form where practical.

Analysis of consultation feedback

The consultation feedback highlights the risks of challenges of making the scale of reductions that are regrettably required in order for the Council to balance the budget. Within this context the feedback does not, however, identify any issues that would preclude the implementation of the proposed strategy or identify any viable alternatives to deliver the scale of savings required.

It is clear that further detail is required on each of the options, however and a period of more detailed consultation on each will be important to resolve the specific issues raised.

On this basis the recommendation is that Members note the issues and concerns raised through consultation but that the Council proceeds with the budget strategy proposed.

It will be a huge challenge to deliver budget reductions of the size and scale required within a two year period. Particular issues around the requirement for one off funding and delivery capacity are set out below.
One-off funding
Significant levels of one-off funding will be required to deliver this budget, with estimates of up to £40m up to 2017, given the following factors:

  • Only a proportion of the £25m required for 2015/16 will be delivered in-year and probably not all of £43m by 1st April 2016/17 because:

  • Consultation and plans for development of budget options will not be complete before summer 2015

  • The process of budget reduction takes at least 6 months to deliver for every option; the creation of alternative service delivery models will take much longer than this, given the legal, financial and employment processes involved

It is therefore estimated that up to £20m one-off will be required to bridge the gap to “cash flow” the organisation until the budget reductions are in place.

Further funding of up to £7 m will also be required to give time for savings to be fully realised and/or mitigation before the full effect is seen. This will include, for example:

  • £2m to purchase the 140l grey bins, to deliver the ongoing saving of £1 250 000

  • £3-4m to support the transition to the full savings estimated for new models in adult social care and environmental services

  • Transitional funding for the voluntary sector

  • Redundancy, Pension and redeployment costs are likely to be significant as jobs are deleted and staffing reductions made. It is estimated that £5 - 10m one-off will be required for this purpose and there is a specific reserve at this level already in place. This reserve will also be required to support future budget rounds

  • Significant investment in the various types of extra capacity that is required will be required. It is estimated that up to £3m over 2015-17 will be required; this is explained further below.

The Council has planned carefully knowing the 2015-18 budget period will be incredibly difficult and will require one-off funding. The position is as follows:

  • Specific reserves exist to meet around 60-70% of the anticipated costs highlighted above, which were created as part of the 2013/14 budget outturn and 2014/15 budget process

  • A further review of reserves is underway to identify whether the remainder of the funding can be found from existing reserves. In the 2017/19 budget this will present a challenge if major reductions continue as a significant proportion of the council’s reserves will have been used to deliver the budget

  • To support this an in-year “squeeze” is taking place in 2014/15 to generate an end of year underspend to help with the 2015-17 budget e.g. not filling vacancies and use of the Airport and Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation dividends

The Council has planned carefully for this budget round and earmarked funds and reviewed reserves to ensure the appropriate level of one-off resources are available. Concern exists that the Council’s ability to generate one-off revenue will become increasingly difficult as budgets become tighter and with reserves being depleted.
Programme Delivery Resources
The programme of work involved in delivering this budget strategy is very significant. The challenge to deliver is further compounded by the fact that there are considerably fewer senior managers than in previous budget rounds to lead and make the change happen and the “day job” is also increasingly complex with a number of other strategic priorities also demanding leadership and capacity, including economic growth, health and social care integration, anti-poverty and community cohesion.
To manage organisational capacity it will be necessary to identify specific delivery arrangements. Proposals are set out below.
Corporate programme management
The Council has operated with a corporate programme office of 4FTE to oversee budget delivery for a number of years. 3FTE of this team are funded from base budgets but 1 post is only funded until the end of 2015. It is proposed that funding for this post is retained until 2017 and, further, that the team is supported through a number of additional staff, who will be seconded from their substantive roles as follows:

  • 4 FTE finance posts

  • 1.5 HR and change experts, to supplement departmental resources

  • 1 FTE (2 part time posts) to lead on systems and data issues

This team will be organised corporately but deployed within departments to deliver individual service reviews.

It is estimated that the posts of around 5 FTE within the expanded team will require backfill over the two year period at an average of grade 7. With the addition of the fourth corporate programme manager the total one-off resources required for the corporate programme team is c£200 000
The programme office will report to the Cabinet formally and informally, under the leadership of the Cabinet Member resources and regeneration, within the corporate performance management portfolio.
Delivery of individual options
Delivery of individual savings options within the overall programme will require significant amounts of time from Chief Officers and senior managers, together with some additional capacity to both backfill other operational priorities and provide additional direct delivery resource. Capacity solutions over the two year period will be multi-faceted and will include:

  • Around 3 fixed term appointments at cGrade 10 to manage the major reviews and a further c6FTE working across all other reviews. Where possible these roles will be filled by existing staff on secondment, with the appropriate backfill in departments. It may be necessary to undertake some fixed term recruitment for a period of 12 months, however. The estimated one-off cost of this capacity is c £250 - 350 000

  • specialist advisors to be retained in respect of legal, finance, procurement, contract specification, commissioning and contract specification. Specific expertise will be required, in particular, to:

  • inform the development of detailed business cases and supporting plans for alternative delivery within adult’s social care and environmental services

  • Secure specialist legal advice

  • Support the delivery of the cross cutting option in some detail, including process and technical advice and skills transfer to Council staff.

It is recommended that a one-off budget of c£250 000 is allocated specifically to progress this work.

  • Additional capacity in the order of one off costs of £100 - 150 000 to be allowed for staff training and development, in areas including process review methodologies, project and programme management

  • investment in IT systems to achieve the cross cutting digital objectives. Early business cases suggest that one-off investment of up to £250 - 500 000 may be necessary to achieve strategic objectives, over a 3 year payback period.

The total estimated requirements for one off delivery resources are c£900 – 1 300 000. The allocation of these resources and overall requirements will be kept under review.

Staff severance / VER applications
The Council has made available the opportunity for staff who wish to leave during this budget period to apply for severance / VER. The intention is to accept as many requests as possible, as savings or redeployment opportunities.
In total, nearly 800 applications have been received and are currently being analysed by Departmental Management Teams.
Decisions on applications will be given to individuals where possible by the end of March 2015, subject to and informed by approval of the final budget options set out in this report.
Community Empowerment Fund
The intention of the Community Empowerment Fund is to provide the opportunity for a small, fixed term investment to community partners in return for levering a greater level of capacity to improve the local area.
The fund is being piloted within areas related to the environment and youth services in the first instance, across the clean, green and safe priorities with the specific objectives of:

  • reducing demand for Council services and/or

  • making improvements to the environment

  • Provision for Young People

The Council has received 13 applications into the fund to date, for investment worth c£500 000. The bids to date cover environment and young people’s provision equally and give a good spread across the borough, with 3 applications covering the whole borough, and the rest focusing on areas including Smithills, Rumworth, Farnworth, Tonge Moor, Johnson Fold, Halliwell, Crompton, Great Lever and Bradshaw.

The bids are currently being analysed with a view to early decisions being reached from February.

The strategic Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) remains unchanged as the recommendation is to proceed with the proposals on which this analysis was completed.
The strategic analysis of the potential impact of each option on groups with protected characteristics has been produced in as much detail as possible at this stage and will be further expanded when more information is available:

  • Individual EIAs on each individual budget option will be produced, including the analysis of impact on citizens and staff by protected characteristic, as part of the approval of individual options over the next two years

  • Information to show how the council is complying with the general equality duty, in relation to its workforce and its services is also published in January of each year in line with our specific public sector equality duties. This includes detailed analysis of the workforce.

The Council is aware that it also has a duty to have regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, to advance equality of opportunity, and to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. The Council has responded to this duty by identifying the strategic priorities that will be maintained despite diminishing resources and by reaffirming the strategic commitment to the work of the Council which underpins the aims of the Bolton Community Strategy, including:

  • To maximise economic prosperity in Bolton ensuring economic growth, development, regeneration and job creation. The Council has also invested in a Borough anti-poverty strategy, to help manage the impact of the economic climate on our most financially vulnerable citizens

  • Narrowing the Gap in respect of key outcomes in health inequalities, children and young people, crime and disorder, the environment, housing etc

  • Ensuring that the most vulnerable are impacted least by budget reductions and the associated implications, as far as possible

  • At a Greater Manchester level contributing to economic growth at a City Region level to create growth and employment

  • Being at the forefront of Public Service Reform within Greater Manchester, which seeks to ensure public services work effectively together to reduce demand and dependency on public services by developing models of early intervention and tackling complex dependency. This work includes the integration of health and social care and making linkages between economic growth and residents who are workless.

Based upon the assumptions set out in this report, the Borough Treasurer considers that the Council’s Budget is robust.
It is recommended that Council approve:-

      • Strategic budget reduction options for 2015-17

      • One-off revenue allocations

      • The Budget for 2015/16

      • The Council Tax for 2015/16

Appendix A Medium Term Financial Strategy

Appendix B Summary of Proposed Savings Options

Appendix C Review of Reserves

Appendix D General Fund Balances/Financial Risks

Appendix E General Fund Summary

Appendix F Subjective Analysis

Appendix G Financial Arrangements Account

Appendix H Collection Fund

Appendix I Council Tax (Non Parish Council Areas)

Appendix J Draft Substantive Council Tax Resolution

Appendix K Report on feedback from public consultation report

Appendix L Business Rates Local Transitional Relief Discounts

Appendix M Trades’ Union feedback and Council response












Previous Year’s Net Budget




Public Health Transfer





Schools DSG




Non School Services













Adults’ & Children’s Growth




National Insurance Change




Loss of Local Welfare Fund Grant




Savings Required







Budget Requirement





Direct Schools Grant




Public Health Funding




Education Services Grant (ESG)




New Homes Bonus




Use of Reserves




Retained Local Business Rates




Business Rates Top-Up




Council Tax Freeze Grant 2015/16




Council Tax Contribution *




Revenue Support Grant







Total Resources




Council Tax Increase (indicative*)





Summary of Proposed Savings Options


Savings Target



Identified potential budget savings



15,900 -17,900

  • Corporate Finance options:

Better Care Fund

3,100 – 5,100

Public Health


Waste Disposal Authority




Council Tax base (Included in Budget)


Business Rates (Included in Budget)






Council Tax benefits


Local Welfare Scheme




Total options identified


Adult Social Care

6,250 – 7,750

  • Review of commissioned activity within former Supporting People grant


  • Review of care delivery



  • General efficiencies and small scale cuts


  • ASDM for adults social care

2,500 – 4,000

Total options identified

6,250 – 7,750

Children’s Services

2,500 – 3,500

  • Review of children’s centres

1,000 – 1,500

  • Review of youth, sport and play services

500 – 1,000

  • General Efficiencies (inc. vol. sector)


Total options identified

2,500 – 3,500

Development & Regeneration-

2,250 – 2,500

  • Review of housing services


  • Income and efficiencies within planning, contracts, skills and building control


  • Review of funding and subsidies


  • Review of housing strategy , economic development and strategic development services



  • Review of Library and Museum Service

300 – 500

Total options identified

2,300 – 2,500


5,300 – 6,300

  • Reduction in Highways insurance budget


  • Review of waste collection service


  • Review of subsidies within Community Services


  • Review of area working and neighbourhood management


  • Joint service provision with another authority

2,000 – 3,000

Total options identified

5,300 – 6,300

Chief Executive’s


  • Review of corporate support services


  • Review of voluntary sector grants


Total options identified


Cross-cutting -

4,000 – 5,000

Corporate support service

4,000 – 5,000


38,500 – 45,200

Total options identified

38,500 – 45,200
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page