Contact: Bevis Ingram, ext 01962 847508

1 Introduction

1.1 This report seeks agreement to the budget for 2002/03 so that the resulting contributions may be requested from the constituent authorities.

1.2 The constitution of the Sir George Staunton Country Park sets out the basis on which the constituent local authorities will meet the net revenue costs of providing the country park.

1.3 The budget for 2002/03 has been prepared to take account of the forecasts and proposals contained in the Business Management Plan.

1.4 The original and revised budgets for 2001/02 and the forward budget for 2002/03 are set out in Appendix A.

1.5 Capital expenditure of the Committee is financed by the local authority partners. The constitution sets out the formula for funding this. Proposals for growth or changes in the planned capital programme priorities must be submitted to each local authority partner for their approval.

2 Revised Budget 2001/02

2.1 A report elsewhere on the agenda covers the budget issues for the current year 2001/02.

3 Forward Budget 2002/03

3.1 The forward budget for 2002/03 has been prepared at outturn prices, and assumes that variations in pay and price levels in the coming year will average 3% and 2.5% respectively.

3.2 The budget has been drawn up to accommodate the following pressures:

· the probable impact on visitor numbers and income in the short-term of the work associated with the lottery project.

· the additional cost of maintaining the new facilities as they come on stream during the year.

3.3 The budget income from entrance charges and sales will rise in line with visitor numbers as outlined in the Business Management Plan. Achieving these targets is crucial to the Park's finances. This will be particularly difficult next year as the restoration work will be ongoing in the Farm complex throughout the Spring and Summer months.

3.4 Overall, the finances of the Park are tighter than they have been for several years. Local Authority subsidies has been frozen (or reduced) since 1997, with the resulting shortfall being picked up by additional funds generated from the Park's operations. For 2002/03 it is proposed to end this freeze on contributions, and to inflate the request to each Local Authority funder by
2½%, the level of inflation likely to be assumed in the EPCS SSA. This will still mean the Park will have a small forecast deficit in 2002/03.

3.5 Appendix A shows the budget for 2001/02 and 2002/03. Assuming Local Authority partner contributions are inflated by 2½%, and assuming East Hampshire District Council continue to fund at below partner contribution level, the budget contributions will be:

3.6 Rowlands Castle's contribution has not been inflated as this is not a formal `partner' contribution under the constitution. However, any additional contribution the Parish Council is able to make would be very welcome.

3.7 Portsmouth City Council have given notice that they intend to withdraw funding from 2002/03. If this intention is confirmed, the JMC will need to consider the future of the Park and of the JMC. Alternative options could include asking the other funding partners to make additional formula contributions to cover the shortfall (appendix B shows the expected level of such an additional request) or for the cuts to be made in the net expenditure of the Park equal to the funding withdrawn (the practicality of this and its effect on the Park's operations has not yet been quantified).

4 Capital Programme

4.1 As explained in the Business Management Plan all current development works at the Park have been rolled up into the lottery bid.

4.2 In order to address the shortfall in the capital contributions' element of the lottery project partnership funding of £78,000 the following programme of capital contributions was agreed at the Joint Management Committee meeting in July 1999:

4.3 The contributions from Hampshire County Council and Havant Borough Council have been confirmed. Portsmouth City Council has stated that they will not be making any contributions.

4.4 In order to meet the shortfall in lottery funding, it is proposed that the same request for contributions is made for 2002/03 as for 2001/02.

Recommendation

1 That the revenue budget and capital contributions for 2002/03 as outlined in paragraph 3.5, 4.4 and appendix A be approved and that the approval of the constituent authorities be sought accordingly.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works.

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE FILE

bi184

Appendix B

Sir George Staunton Country Park

Revised Budget 2001/02

Forward Budget 2002/03

Additional formula contributions to meet shortfall 2002/03 should Portsmouth City Council withdraw: