The Portfolio Holder for Strategy & Performance tabled a copy of the the new Corporate Plan for Members’ information.  He reminded Members that he had informed them at the last meeting that he wanted to look at the way services were delivered and what the community needed more prudential borrowing and investing in assets with greater returns in order to support and sustain services going forward.  He advised that the reason a special purpose vehicle was being investigated by the Monitoring Officer, was to allow ways to invest in property or other projects going forward, all with the vision of the Council becoming self reliant.  Other Councils were looking into similar things.  He advised that he attended a meeting that day where national new Municipal Bonds had been discussed.  The Local Government Association was in discussions as this provided an opportunity for Councils to borrow at a low and reasonable rate in comparison to being able to get a greater return.  There were a number of projects being looked at, government funding had reduced whist council tax was increasing, it was now vital to look at different ways of funding services as going forward.  On 3 December the Council was undertaking the Local Government Association’s Peer Challenge over four days, which was a free assessment service using the expertise of peers and others in the sector to get an overview of the organisation. 

A Member expressed concern on the low interest rate on bonds.  The Portfolio Holder for Strategy & Performance advised that the government’s Chief Economist had given no comfort to savers that evening when asked about interest rates.  If you went to a high street bank on a short or fixed term variable rate basis there was greater risk, bonds offered a fixed rate over a set period.

Another Member queried that the bonds would not help.  The Portfolio Holder responded that the majority of government bonds were against government debt; the beauty of the municipal bond was that it was borrowed against a capital project. 

In response to a Members question on how the capital money could be spent, he replied that it would be good to invest in capital projects, and base decisions around what the community needed.  For example, White Oak Leisure Centre: there was a need to reduce the asset liability; if a replacement was built this would be reduced and there would also be a capital receipt from the sale of any land.  The second strand was that it needed to be put to the community that if they wanted services to continue they needed to find a new way to pay. 

Another Member echoed the voiced concerns about the bonds and current scale of borrowing.  She also added that it had been necessary to employ a leisure company to run the centres, and queried how the Council could continue to run these services and not make an income.  The Portfolio Holder replied that the Council assets mentioned were community assets, the leisure centres were an example of the Council owing an asset and delivering services without the management.  This was another reason why a trading company was being investigated.  It was about the Council’s ability to provide services but someone else manages the commercial ‘arm’.  It needed further investigations and where experts were needed these costs would be factored in and would diminish returns but reduce risks.

A Member stated that Councillors were elected to provide services.  On a small scale the Big Community Fund (BCF) helped services throughout the district, could not some of the money go to this fund as seemed good value for money.  The Portfolio Holder advised that the reality was that that once the money in the fund ran out this would stop, though investigations were undergoing into further investments or a similar fund going forward.  He would like to support the BCF as there had been projects of real value funded this way but the decision had been taken by the Council that it would run until the funding ran out and there was no money to take it forward and therefore he could not give the fund any money. 

The Portfolio Holder for Strategy & Performance added that Members needed to understand the reality of where local government and SDC was.  He had tasked officers with looking forward to after the 10 year plan and to be ready for the potential of no government funding and what would need to be done in order not to just use increasing council tax. 

A Member asked what the Council would do if it achieved greater self sufficiency, and asked his view on the rural Broadband delivery by BDUK.  The Portfolio Holder stated that the Government seemed keen on the idea of self sufficiency and it was likely that a District or Borough would be the first to manage it.  What was not clear was what freedom would be given, his argument to the DCLG was that if not taking any money you should have increased freedom to spend how the community wished to spend it.  With regards to Broadband he had found it interesting that as soon as a community led initiative had found a solution at Underriver, the District had been moved up the BDUK agenda.  Not to say the Council should not continue to look for it’s own solution as by the time the cables were laid technology would have moved on.

The Vice Chairman referred to some questions that had been referred to the Portfolio Holder prior to the meeting concerning members’ allowances and asked whether he would prefer to circulate the answers.  The Portfolio Holder agreed to circulate the questions and answers to all Members of the Council for information.

The Vice Chairman made a comparison to the now self sufficiency of the Stag theatre, and the cost of private gyms, in comparison to the cost of SENCIO.  The Portfolio Holder advised that this was being looked at but care needed to be taken when comparing private suppliers as the model was different.  It was a question of public health and affordability.