Agenda item

Financial Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 1

Purpose

A report setting out the first budget monitoring position for the 2025/26 financial year.

Recommendation

That the Committee scrutinises the report and agrees any recommendations it wishes to submit to Cabinet on 4 September 2025.

Minutes:

The purpose of the report was to set out the first budget monitoring position for the 2025/26 financial year.

The Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Patrick Coleman, and the Deputy Chief Executive, David Stanley introduced the report. They raised the following points:

· Cabinet would consider four recommendations, including reviewing and noting Q1 financial performance, which forecasted a £734,000 surplus. Key variations included delayed commercial property rental income (£61,000 adverse), higher development management fees (£249,000 positive), and Treasury management income.

· Risks flagged included the street services review savings and potential variability in development management fees; 50% of additional planning fee income would be set aside to mitigate appeal risks.

· Recommendations 2–4 sought Cabinet endorsement of the budget management approach, strengthened vacancy oversight, and preparing for future financial challenges including local government reorganisation.

· A correction to paragraph 4.36 noted one further interest rate cut was expected in 2025 (to 3.75%), with some risk of delay due to inflation and the energy price cap.

In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted:

· Treasury management income was higher than the budget forecast due to a cautious approach when setting the budget, anticipating interest rate reductions and limited investable cash; first-quarter performance reflected this prudence, with some short-term investments performing differently than expected, and a detailed review of individual funds would be provided.

· Interest rates on investments varied: Bank of England 5%, money market funds slightly lower, and pooled funds 3.5–4%. Prudential borrowing costs currently ranged from 4.5–6.3% depending on term, and borrowing strategies were tailored to the asset’s lifespan, costs, and the capital programme, which included provision for the waste and recycling fleet.

· Heads of service were expected to take action on identified budget variations, with performance management in place to monitor this. Where change was not possible, directors were expected to identify alternative ways to manage the variation.

· The cemeteries service was underperforming last year due to lower demand and historical under-recovery of costs. Fees were reviewed and increased to align with neighbouring authorities. The bereavement manager was reviewing service costs, while comparative data for local crematoria would be provided to the Committee.

· The contract lawyer post remained vacant and was not expected to be filled. The reason and the impact on shared services across the three councils would be shared at a future meeting.

· The financial modelling of public conveniences considered contract, maintenance, and utility costs, but did not assign a value to individual usage. Closing facilities was not expected to significantly reduce usage.

· Town and parish councils were consulted on taking over public conveniences. One council had expressed interest in taking on a facility, while others had been notified that charging has been implemented across facilities. Discussions with interested councils were ongoing.

· The APSE street cleaning review had identified ways to deliver the service more efficiently. Savings may not be fully realised this year, but changes would focus on optimising service delivery rather than reducing quality. Cabinet would consider recommendations and service specifications before taking decisions.

· The APSES review highlighted that waste collection in Bourton-on-the-Water was disproportionately high due to visitor activity and local businesses. A detailed analysis would be undertaken to understand the specific costs and funding sources for this collection, including potential impacts of alternative strategies.

· Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) was expected to create additional workload and pressure on staff, but officers were preparing to manage risks.

· Strengthened oversight of vacancy management would ensure a consistent approach to filling posts. Decisions may include delaying, merging, or approving positions, balancing financial benefits with potential short-term impacts on service delivery.

· The ‘authority to fill’ process assessed whether vacancies should be filled permanently, temporarily, or via agency staff, considering costs, workload impact, and service needs. Agency use was managed through commissioning and procurement to ensure value for money.

· The Low Income Family Tracker (LIFT) project cost the Council around £23,000 per year, largely covered by additional funding from the Integrated Care Board.

· The Bromford joint venture had been delayed due to infrastructure issues with Thames Water.

· The Council was currently storing Second World War artefacts from the Memorial Cottages. A formal cost breakdown would be provided. Members suggested exploring more publicly accessible display options in council buildings, considering insurance, best value, and the future of temporary locations.

Councillor Nick Bridges proposed supporting the recommendations in the Financial Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 1 and submitting the following recommendations to Cabinet. Councillor Joe Harris seconded the proposal.

Recommendation: That consideration is given to putting local social and/or archaeological artefacts on public display at the Council’s offices, including artefacts related to the history of local government in the area.

RESOLVED: to NOTE the Financial Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 1 and submit one recommendation to Cabinet.

Supporting documents:

Agenda item

Financial Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 1

Related Pages