Tight budget controls have enabled Brighton and Hove City Council to reduce its forecast overspend in the current financial year.
In October, the council’s finance chief Nigel Manvell told councillors that “difficult decisions” would be necessary to balance the budget.
But in a report due to be presented to councillors next week, an overspend of £2.8 million is forecast, down from an £11 million prediction in July.
The report said that the council could yet break even by the end of the financial year at the end of March.
But the challenges include rising demand and higher costs for emergency housing, falling parking income and the cost of agency staff.
Since July, a recruitment freeze has been in place across the council, with relatively few exceptions, and stricter controls have limited the use of agency staff.
Other financial controls have included paying suppliers on the due date and not before, with spending not signed off or processed until necessary.
The report said: “The council’s in-year financial position is clearly very challenging but, with the escalating controls now in place and ongoing recovery actions in place across directorates, reaching break-even by year-end is expected to be achievable but there will inevitably be some impacts on service delivery.”
This year’s budget was set in February with a savings target of more than £14 million on top of the previous year’s £10.5 million savings.
The report – to the council’s to Strategy, Finance and City Regeneration Committee – said that over the past 13 years the council had had to make £209 million in savings, with government grant reductions starting in 2009-10.
The report cited “increasing numbers of applicants for emergency accommodation in the first quarter of 2023-24, with an average of 153 households every night … almost three times higher than budgeted”.
The report also said: “This is partly driven by an increase in private property owners selling properties and evicting tenants as a result.
“There is also an increase in the number of households being placed who are fleeing domestic abuse.
“The service is analysing each placement to identify any opportunities to better prevent homelessness and understand the reasons for this.”
The council faces a significant shortfall in parking income – of more than £1 million – while spending more on agency staff for rubbish and recycling rounds and street cleaning.
The council’s Strategy, Finance and City Regeneration Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 4pm next Thursday (7 December). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
Perhaps the council could explain why the following contracts are so overpriced. What is the tendering procedure and who has the authority to sign off these contracts or do they require committee sign off? Where is the business plan to go with each one and why are they not published on the BHCC website as they all should be?
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/896a776a-d95f-4832-8318-0868b4f7c8c4?origin=SearchResults&p=13
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/37345c2e-a48b-4a73-820d-f1b10f382b0d?origin=SearchResults&p=1
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/6bfca157-1e19-45e8-b634-3c3529ded9f8?origin=SearchResults&p=5
It is certainly an interesting question to propose, one that I would love to hear a detailed response about to understand the whole concept of procurement within BHCC. Just seeing large figures without context can easily be perceived in a way that may or may not be accurate.
The first one is very good money for a lengthy contract and will save officer time.
The second doesn’t have a value it’s priced on work done.
The third is what they pay the council and will have had multiple bids for.
Who not contact your councillor(s) and ask them?
Who not contact your councillor(s) and ask them?
Or put in a FOI request.
But once a committee has made a decision to spend money the authority to act to issue and agrees contracts is delegated to officers and the committee would only get involved again if the tenders exceeded the budget allowed.
Why do you consider them to be overpriced, if you don’t know what’s in them or how to tender for them?
If they hadn’t cancelled every active travel project about to break ground I could be saving some money too…
That simply is not true, the A23 is currently progressing and phase 1 will happen next year. A259 extension is looking at better solutions and will progress. Valley Gardens Phase 3 seems like it needs a total scale back, (although technically this was not an active travel plan). Originally only a million was coming from the taxpayer but this is now £7 million and rising, which means the business plan which predicates the grant money from the LEP is looking really shaky, (ie a scheme meant to generate income looks like it will not).
But would you do carry on regardless spend millions we don’t have and end up bankrupt and unable to do any active future plans for the next decade perhaps further? I’m the first to criticise Labour for some poor decisons but prioritizing is necessary in this current economic climate and the budget claw back is to be applauded.
Oh Delenda, and we were getting on so well too. You’re back to being disingenuous again…I’m getting bored of having to use the same word, but you keep saying things that you know are false…
The active travel schemes are mainly funded by government grants and cancelling them won’t actually save any money as the grant would just be withdrawn.
They come from the capital budgets which is separate from the day to day revenue budget.
No that’s not true. All schemes require a degree on investment from the local taxpayer. As mentioned above VG3, (which some consider an active travel scheme), curently requires at least £7 million from the local taxpayer. The original A259 expnsion needed at least £300,000 from the taxpayer and this does not factor in lost revenue from removed parking bays.
I had my drains cleared by the drain man recently. We were chatting and he told me most of his work was for council tenants. He likes it because he can charge the council double what he charged me. BHCC happily and readily payes well over the odds for lots of services and procurement. A staff member I know once showed me their department stationary bill … they pay hugely inflated amounts for basic stationary too.
On the one side, I do like that BHCC are paying good wages for salaries. In this Cost of Greed Crisis, being able to facilitate people like your drain man with a good wage I think is a good thing. On the other, when I see basic goods being brought at a high price point, I think there is more work to be done in being more frugal. Recently challenged something that cost £300 an item when a quick Google search found the same item at £200, and a bit more research found it at a discount at £50.
The BHCC have made a fair bit of work in cutting the fat from services, and the next challenge perhaps for them could be procurement and contract tendering.
Optimisation, perhaps, is the keyword here.
Annoyingly, procurement (especially when quality and delivery timeline are non-negotiable) is a real skillset. However, the staff to mindfully DO such procurement are easy to cut when budgets get tight as “anyone can buy stationery.” I’ve seen this at previous jobs, where someone paid X per year to negotiate with vendors gets chopped, and then management see those vendors’ prices go up 3*X or more in a very short space of time. Absolute false economy.
On the micro scale, if we give more junior staff the ability to buy what they need wherever they want it takes time from their “real job” and causes huge headaches in terms of oversight. Some employees buy from their mates’ companies or use their company cards for nonessential (or even personal) spending unless someone else checks them.
Probably makes up for all the parking tickets he gets doing his job..
Wait a minute, part of the reduction in forecasted deficit is due to paying suppliers on the due date and not before?
Given that the council should be operating a budget on an accrual accounting basis and not a cash accounting basis, this is nonsensical and potentially fraudulent.