QUESTIONS are being asked within Derby City Council which will change the shape of the organisation and what it provides to the people of Derby for years to come.

With the national spending cuts, the future appears to indicate fewer and more efficient services.

The authority has admitted it will have to make "difficult choices".

City council leader Councillor Harvey Jennings told the Derby Telegraph: "Things are going to change and I don't think we will be delivering the same services we are today in three years' time."

Mr Jennings and his team are reviewing what services the council provides, whether it should deliver them at all, if it can provide them more cheaply or if the private or voluntary sector should step in instead.

No area will be spared the scrutiny and no decisions have been made but, whatever the end product, the council looks set to have to deliver it with at least 750 fewer staff.

Mr Jennings said: "Cuts to individual departments are not proposed at this stage, and in all service areas opportunities will be explored, but increased staff savings will have to be a part of our process."

Expected Government spending cuts are due to be announced on October 20.

The city council, which has an annual budget of about £200 million, estimates it is likely to have to make £27.97 million of savings by 2014-5.

That is on top of the existing £32 million it budgeted to save over three years, as it realised funds would be tighter in the future. That move included 465 job losses.

Now, to help towards the additional savings of £27.97 million, a further 285 jobs are likely to go – taking the total to 750.

While the council said it could meet the 465 losses without the need for redundancies, the same assurances cannot be given for the extra jobs.

Chief executive Adam Wilkinson said: "When we looked at the job losses of 465, we looked at the age profile of our workforce and said that number could be achieved through natural means.

"What we are saying now is that in the case of the extra 285 we can't guarantee that will all be through natural means, although we are still very keen that they are."

And the job losses may not end there. On top of those, posts which are attached to specific projects could go once those schemes finish if others do not require them.

Unions are critical of the 750 number and expect more job losses.

Charlie Carruth, Unison regional organiser, said: "When Government talks of an average of 25 per cent across departments being cut that means there will be more than that in some areas and we think it could rise above 30 per cent when it comes to local government.

"No one knows yet but we think the job losses will be higher than 750. We think it could be as high as 1,500."

The city council said cutting the 285 extra jobs will save the council about £12 million, leaving it with a further £16 million to find.

And that is where the big questions have to be asked – but as yet there are few answers about where the £16 million will come from.

Council departments are all looking at what services they provide.

Privatisation will be considered. But Mr Wilkinson said services would only be privatised after the council had tried to make them as efficient as possible first.

Departments have already come up with other ways to raise money or make savings.

They include reviewing charges for care services provided by adult social services. Those care charges could increase and they are also considering reviewing the criteria of who is eligible for services. That could mean, in the future, only those with high needs will receive services.

The council will also look at whether museums could be granted trust status. Previously, having such status removes the need for council funding and instead opens up alternative pots of cash. But with Government spending so restricted, the council has yet to see if this would work.

The Conservatives promised to consider trust status for museums before the General Election in May. Mr Jennings said: "We have got to do the work on this to look at how the service should be delivered and how it could be done or whether we should work with partners in the private, public, voluntary or community sector."

The authority is also to review the different partnerships it is a member of, including Derby City Partnership, which promotes economic development, and the Community Safety Partnership, which works with the police to make the city safer.

Mr Wilkinson admitted finding the remaining savings would be "challenging".

"Finding that £16 million is the most difficult part of this," he said.

"All the choices considered will be very difficult and will always have a negative consequence."

But there could also be opportunities to make money by selling on services the council can provide, such as pay roll, property and legal services.

Mr Wilkinson said: "When we are finished we expect other people will look at what we have done and achieved to see what could benefit them and what shared services there could be, but that will be in the longer term."

The council will also have to review its capital programmes which use borrowing to allow big building schemes to go ahead.

Borrowing that money has an impact on its annual budget because of repayments of the loans.

Few guarantees about what will be saved from the axe have been given but Mr Jennings has promised the £50 million proposal to build a velodrome and Olympic-sized swimming pool will go ahead.

"The leisure strategy will happen," he said. "It may need to be rephased because of some technical financial challenges but it will go ahead."

National increases in VAT will be passed on to council customers and the authority is also committed to a council tax freeze next year and a pay freeze for staff earning more than £21,000.

The opposition Labour group said the budget proposals lacked substance.

Labour group leader Paul Bayliss said: "While I have some sympathy with the fact the council doesn't yet know where the national cuts will come until the October spending review, I think this report still lacks the political priorities.

"It doesn't say what they are going to protect and it should at least be able to set out what the Conservatives aren't going to cut."