To receive Cabinet Report No.03/2020 from the Strategic Director for Resources.

·         The above report was presented to Cabinet on 21 January 2020 and the recommendations within the report were approved.

·         Cabinet has requested that Scrutiny review and comment on the proposals before the Cabinet meeting on 18 February 2020 so as to inform the decision making process.

·         The report and its proposals may be amended following the outcome of the Scrutiny Committee. Scrutiny is therefore asked to consider the report and provide feedback to the Portfolio Holder and Director.

Report No.03/2020 was received from the Strategic Director for Resources.

Sav Della Rocca, Strategic Director for Resources, introduced the report the purpose of which was to present a draft budget for consultation prior to the budget being formally set by Council in February 2020. 

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         RCC had received a 17% increase in spending power since 2015/16 which, given inflation and the increasing demands that the Council was facing, was deemed to be inadequate.   

·         Although funding overall had gone up, the majority of increased income was from Council Tax as Government funding, as a proportion of overall funding continued to reduce.

·         Council tax revenue did not include business rates. The Government allowed the Council to keep some of its business rates revenue and currently from the £11 million collected the Council kept c£5 million. Legislation was currently going through to allow Councils to keep up to 75% of the income but this would not necessarily mean the Council’s funding would increase as additional business rates retained was expected to be offset by loss of grants.

·         Rutland received less government funding per head than other unitary authorities with the same responsibilities because of the way the funding formula was applied. Hopefully the new formula would be much simpler and fairer and the Council was lobbying Government to ensure their concerns were heard.

·         It was not known with certainty when the new formula would be in place as the fairer funding review had already been going on for some time. The Government had promised it would release some details over the next few weeks.

·         The Rutland MP, Alicia Kearns, along with other rural East Midlands MPs was making it clear to the Ministry for Housing, Community and Local Government (MHCLG) that they were unhappy with current funding levels and would be lobbying for change. The Council’s representative on the rural networks forum was also applying pressure on the Government.

·         The report on Social Care had now been delayed several times and the new fairer funding review did not refer to it in any way even though it was likely to have a significant impact.

·         In the future, it was possible that limits on Council tax caps could be removed. Currently Councils had to hold a referendum to increase council tax beyond the limits set and the costs of doing so often outweighed any benefits even if residents voted in favour of a raise.

·         Officers had made preparations for an emergency budget in case the Council suddenly faced a massive shortfall of funds. This looked at which funding in which areas could be ‘turned off’ quickly if the need arose. This was work being done behind the scenes as part of sound financial management practices but ultimately any decision on what to cut in that situation would be down to Members. It was suggested that looking at services in this context could be a considered as part of a future scrutiny agenda item.

·         Although Rutland had the second highest council tax in the country this was not because the Council had been profligate and on the contrary, many felt that the RCC budget did in fact, represent very good value for money.

·         £10m had been set aside for capital investments that could deliver ongoing revenue savings or income.

·         Some Members had asked questions directly of the Section 151 officer before the meeting and had given permission that these questions and their answers could be appended to the minutes.

·         There was allowance in the budget for salary costs incurred for the Council’s executive recruitment.

·         The Council was not prepared to invest unless it could demonstrate that it would make a sensible return.

·         RCC had considered, but discounted, setting up an ’arms-length’ company to run their investments as other Councils had. This was because the Council only invested within the county and there were a limited number of opportunities. These opportunities tended not be in the form of house building but instead were in business and warehousing and industrial sites.

·         The Council had a mixed arrangement for its legal services with its own in-house resources but also using Peterborough City Council (PCC) and Local Government Shared Services (LGSS) when required. It was an area of increasing demands and costs, such as having to have representation at SEND tribunals. Members queried whether Rutland’s legal arrangements and the contracts in place with PCC and LGS offered the best value.

·         £100k had been set aside for the customer services project which was one of the priorities outlined within the Corporate Plan. The figure was a statement of intent, rather than specific costs, as in order to effect this type of culture change, time and resource would be needed to assess what was needed and develop a new strategy.

·         Cllr G Brown had produced a video to accompany the budget and to communicate to residents the reasons for an increase in council tax. Press releases had also been given and on the website a series of questions and answers about Council tax had been published.

·         Ultimately, Members would have to make a value judgement on whether to continue with the provision of library services in its current format or to possibly withdraw some, or even all, services.

·         The recent changes to the procurement of library stock had resulted in savings for the Council.

·         There were opportunities to utilise mobile library services in a different way to tackle rural isolation.

·         Discussion of the future of library services should be discussed at Scrutiny committee in order to gauge Members’ appetite for any radical change to the service.

RESOLVED: 

The Growth Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Committee reviewed and commented on the proposals and NOTED the report before its presentation to Cabinet at their meeting on 18 February 2020.