Agenda item

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Risks

1. Transfer the operation of the Park to complete control of the City Council including dissolution of the company. Continue to review the operation and explore potential of providing an improved visitor attraction destination by seeking funding from other agencies / providers in partnership.

2. Transfer the operation of the park to complete control of the City Council and consider reduction of operation.

This may mean closure of facilities such as Butterfly House, Zoo, Café and/or reduction in standard of grounds maintenance.

3. Transfer the operation of the park to complete control of the City Council, consider reduction of operation and include option to invite companies to tender for various aspects of the current offer.

Officers will be able to utilise the Council systems with regards to financial management (use of general ledger / authority financials) and ‘fit’ with budget monitoring as currently undertaken by the Council.

Clear guidance from the Council’s decision making process regards future operation of the Park with continued close integration with Council Services – effective use of resources.

Officers will have full access to support in respect of HR issues to ensure legal compliance.

Possibility of a revisit to the previously withdrawn heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) bid – based on clearer understanding of the business providing opportunities to address some of the capital funding issues (café roof, condition of butterfly house etc).

Opportunity to integrate the park to a Parks Strategy for the district including stronger links to venues such as Happy Mount Park, Regent Park etc

Reduction in annual grant by the City Council – precise figures would need clarification subject to redundancy costs and maintenance costs associated with closure of buildings and basic health and safety management.

Council could reduce annual grant by receiving income from a third party for operation of part of the Park.

Opportunity to meet with other ‘providers’ and change the current offer of visitor attractions.

Potential for third party to cover building maintenance costs – long term, particularly for café area.

Council may need to consider need for capital support funding to address building condition issues.

Loss of significant revenue income from visitor attractions (cost centres of café, zoo and butterfly house are each profitable).

Reduction in levels of maintenance may effect the Dukes summer seasonal production – relatively high profile event locally and regionally.

In order for current visitor attractions to continue to operate effectively there needs to remain an understanding and cooperative approach from third party ‘concessionaires’ – flexibility may come at a price if not covered within documentation at the outset.

Tendering exercise was undertaken by previous management with few responses and at no financial benefit for the company.

The decision to transfer the company back to City Council management reduces considerably the possibility of continued under performance and enables improved performance management to be implemented.

Due to the potential extra costs of pensions/TUPE, there may be a risk that the net cost of the overall operation is not contained within set budgets particularly in the first year of operation, i.e. during 2010/11, or that the increased need to make savings has an adverse impact on park operations or its ability to improve its visitor offer.

Use of park may reduce and vandalism increase

Poor publicity for the Council in what is considered by many locally as a park with positive recreational purpose.

Relevant Council policies and procedures (tendering, financial evaluation or companies etc) should help minimise risk to Council.

Third party income (rent/management fee) would need to cover costs of current profit on operation and include all costs associated with engaging a third party.