To be considered with Agenda Item 8 (a)

Cllr Fleming proposed and Cllr Ramsay seconded the Cabinet recommendations, drawing Members attention to the amended appendices A, C, D, E, and F.  Councillor Fleming addressed the Council, stating that as the Government took the country out of recession the largest hit was being taken at local authority level and a reduction in the Revenue Support Grant (RSG).  A year ago he had talked of self sufficiency and now it was clearly the path to follow and once again the District was at the top of the curve as other local authorities were now talking of the need for self sufficiency and how this would change the relationship with central government.  To illustrate this issue in the past year 18% had been lost from the RSG,  24% in 2014/15 and 31% in 2015/16.  The grant per head of population had gone from £55.95 in 2010/11 to £27.26 in 2014/15 reduction, a reduction of over 50% in four years.  The 10 year budget had set the Council on a good path and savings were continuing to be found especially through partnership working, renting office space, the new management structure and reduced workforce with changes in staff terms and conditions.  The Peer Review letter had commented that the ten year budgeting approach that the Council had adopted was a powerful tool for planning beyond the immediate 2-3 years and encouraged the political and managerial leadership of the Council to proactively project ahead.  This was coupled with a sensible year on year review so the plan had both aspiration and was grounded. It was an approach that had buy-in right across the Council and created stability.  The letter challenged the Council to be explicit about income generation forecast in the 10 year plan, separating it out from expenditure to help drive commercial focus and once the strategy for self-sufficiency was finalised, to set stretching net income targets; and mapping out how the net income could be delivered, encouraging non-traditional local government thinking.  Work on this had started and would come before Members.  The 10 year budget; savings; sharing of services; self sufficiency; Council Tax; none of these individually would see the Council through, only the combination of them with a balance between quality and value for money. 

A Member agreed with much of what was said and that the increase seemed reasonable in the circumstances.  However he was concerned at the extra burden for poorer working class families who were also being hit with council tax support reductions and thought that more mitigation should be done to help these families.  He was also concerned by the position at the end of the 10 year budget.  He was not happy with the idea of denying any council tax support funding to the Town and Parish Councils.  He congratulated staff for achieving savings, but warned that due diligence was needed to make sure there was no reduction in quality of frontline services.  With regards to the recent flooding he advised that he had received complaints that drains were blocked because of a reduction in the street cleaning. 

Another Member thought that the failure to pass on any council tax support funding to the Town and Parish Councils was deplorable and would cause a great loss of trust.  He also queried how he could agree to money for ‘corporate projects’ which did not specify any detail.

In response, Councillor Fleming stated that both points were a mixed message.  For the District’s part of the Council Tax it was only going to be an average increase of 7 pence a week, only just above £3 a year.  18% of that 7 pence is what the poorer income families would be paying.  Food costs, utility bill rises, public transport were all well ahead of inflation, and this was a council tax increase well below.

With regards to drainage he had not heard any complaints from Edenbridge.  The Council had performed and reacted well.  Over 2000 sandbags had been delivered.  Street cleansing services had not been cut and were not responsible for the flooding. 

In relation to the Council Tax support funding for Town and Parish Council’s, Councillor Fleming stated that when the money within the RSG had been clearly identified last year, for the Town and Parish Councils, that money had been passed to them.  However it had been made clear at that stage that if it were not identified the following year it would not be passed on and Town and Parish Councils had been warned to make provision when setting their own precepts.

The money for corporate projects was to enable the move towards self sufficiency looking into things such as a special purpose vehicle to become more commercial and reduce financial pressure.

Resolved:  That

a)        the Summary of Council Expenditure and Council Tax set out in Appendix E to the report, adjusted for the Business Development Manager proposal, be approved;

b)        the 10-year budget 2013/14 to 2023/24 which was the guiding framework for the detailed approval of future years’ budgets as set out in Appendix A as amended, adjusted for the Business Development Manager proposal, including the growth and savings proposals set out in Appendix B-D as amended, and that where possible any variations during and between years be met from the Budget Stabilisation Reserve,  be approved;

c)         the changes to reserves set out in Appendix H to the report, be approved;

d)        no Council Tax Support funding for Town and Parish Councils be issued as no money had been ring-fenced for this purpose in the Government Grant Settlement, and the approach be agreed and adopted; and

e)        the Officer proposals in agenda item 8 (a) (Minute 37 (a)) for the amount of council tax charge for 2014/15, in line with the 10-year budget and Government guidance, be noted.