A Plea From Dr Packman Of The Broads Authority

[Paladin]

48 minutes ago, JohnK said:

I’m not seeing that ....
I looked here:
http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/965886/Financial-Strategy-2016-17.pdf
And it reads to me that just over 3 million was raised in tolls 2016/2017 and 2/3 of that spent on nav operational costs. A significant amount of the remaining toll income seems to be spent on admin around navigation.
What am I missing?
 

I think you have to look a bit further than just one set of figures. Once upon a time, there was a Navigation Account, into which went all the tolls, and out of which could only be paid navigation expenses. Then that ring-fence was removed and it all went into a general account, so it all became a lot less transparent.

The percentage split of central and shared costs used to be 70% national park, 30% navigation. That got changed to 60% national park, 40% navigation. So more tolls money was being being spent on these shared costs, but the only thing that had changed was the NP grant had been reduced and, rather than make savings in that side of the accounts, the tolls were used to make up the shortfall.

Then there was another piece of creative accounting related to the practical work programme. Costs there were split between national park grant (40%) and navigation (60%). The 40% was sub-divided into 20% conservation, 20% recreation.

In a BA report in 2015, this appeared: "As part of the Financial Strategy setting process to address the reduction in National Park Grant it was agreed that the percentage allocation of practical work time spent between navigation tasks and National Park tasks would change from 2015/16 onwards. This is to reflect the variation in budget availability for these work areas and the need for staff time to adjust accordingly. As well as achieving the required savings to National Park expenditure, a review of the split of NPG resources was also completed, and agreed that conservation work would be the priority area."

The percentages of the split changed to NPG 30%, navigation 70%. The 30% was sub-divided into 20% conservation, 10% recreation.

So the NPG was reduced, the percentage paid by tolls increased by 10%, the amount spent on recreation went down by 10%, but the amount spent on conservation stayed just the same. So there wasn't actually a saving in National Park expenditure, at all. It was maintained by reducing the amount spent on recreation and increasing the amount contributed by the tolls.

I'm no accountant and someone may be able to show me how my reasoning is wrong, but no-one has yet.

 

[JohnK]

That makes sense thank you.
And thank you for taking the time to write it.
I guess you and I are seeing it differently because I see the latest figures and think “they seem fair”. But I’m not comparing it to how things were done in the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paladin]

16 minutes ago, JohnK said:

I guess you and I are seeing it differently because I see the latest figures and think “they seem fair”. But I’m not comparing it to how things were done in the past.
 

That is why I suggested to you that you might need to read up a bit. Those who have watched the shenanigans over the years, and criticise them, are dismissed as 'the usual suspects', but those doing the dismissing rarely come up with any cogent rebuttals.

[JohnK]

That is why I suggested to you that you might need to read up a bit. Those who have watched the shenanigans over the years, and criticise them, are dismissed as 'the usual suspects', but those doing the dismissing rarely come up with any cogent rebuttals.

To be honest I’m comfortable looking at how things are now and look like they’re heading in the future to determine if I’m ok with them.
Because I haven’t been exposed to what’s gone on in the past I’m not really influenced by it.
That said, I have a lot of respect for the people who do compare current practices with past practices. Especially those of you that have taken the time to study in detail what’s happening and has happened.
I’m not sure I’ll ever agree with your group on some of what’s said but I’d be very unhappy if you stopped saying it (except for “it’s not a National Park” )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

But, John, it isn't one!!

[JohnK]

But, John, it isn't one!!

Isn’t it?
Damn, I wish someone had told me, I wouldn’t have ordered all those fleeces


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk