Council and councillors

To receive Cabinet Report No.08/2021 from the Strategic Director for Resources.

·       The above report was presented to Cabinet on 12 January 2021 and the recommendations within the report were approved.

·       Cabinet has requested that Scrutiny review and comment on proposals before the Cabinet meeting on 16 February 2021 so as to inform the decision making process.

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

Report No.08/2021 was received from the Strategic Director for Resources.

Mr 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 2021.

During the discussion the following points were noted:

·       Councillors Waller and Powell had submitted questions directly to the section 151 officer before the meeting and it was agreed with the Chair that these questions and their answers would be appended to the minutes.

·       Mr Della Rocca outlined the key points of the report in his presentation (appended to the minutes) and emphasised that using reserves to relieve the funding gap of circa £2.6million was not good financial practice and something he would have preferred not to do.

·       In contrast to the Executive’s proposal to increase the Adult Social Care (ASC) precept by only 1%, Mr Della Rocca had advised that the full 3% allowed by the Government should be used resulting in a total 5% increase to the Council tax instead of 3%. Not using the full, allowed ASC increase this year would have a cumulative impact over the next five years of c£4.5 million.

·       The underspend of c£1million shown in Quarter 3 20/21 was an anomaly for this year only and was because the Council had received additional Covid funding from the Government. Going forward, the monies would be used to fund Covid issues that ran into the next financial year, for example the expected increase in demand for Adult and Children social care that had been forecast in Quarter 4 but, because of lockdown, would now likely be seen next year.

·       Councillor Brown, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, together with the Leader of the Council, Cllr Hemsley, had met with Luke Hall, Minister of State for Regional Growth and Local Government to highlight the unacceptable funding disparity between Rutland and other councils. 80% of Rutland’s spending came from Council Tax revenue as opposed to Government funding, whereas for most other councils this figure was c60%.

·       The Minister was surprised how much of an impact the reduction in the New Homes Bonus had on small councils such as Rutland.

·       The further business rates tariff of £1million that the Council had to pay to the Government had a greater impact on a small authority such as Rutland, as the £1m equated to 20% of business rates whereas in many other areas the £1m equated to, for example, only 10% of rates.

·       Councillor Brown was frustrated by the lack of action on the Fairer Funding Review but RCC had been promised a seat at the table in 2022/23 to discuss this issue.

·       Although he agreed with the Section 151 officer that it would be prudent to increase Council Tax by the full 5%, Councillor Brown had recommended to Cabinet only a 3% increase in recognition of the financial hardships felt by residents and also in support of local businesses as every pound taken out was a pound less spent in the local economy.

·       Councillor Walters reminded Councillors that the Better Care Reserves were ring-fenced and could only be spent on specific needs with the agreement of health colleagues.

·       Councilor Begy was sympathetic to the argument for opting for a 1% social care precept but felt that the approach could cause problems if suppliers increased their costs. John Morley, Director for Adult Social Care and Health, agreed that this was likely and broadened the question to include the Council’s own adult services saying that for the last 2 years, 25% extra work coming through the Adult Duty Desk had been absorbed by the adult services team and managed because of internal efficiencies. Unfortunately, the trajectory of cases presenting themselves was still going up for similar reasons e.g a growing and ageing population. In addition due to the pandemic, hospital operations had been cancelled possibly storing up need for social care later on, mental health issues were increasing and there was the unknown pressures of long term Covid symptoms which would have an effect on carers and services. The expectation of a 7 day hospital discharge service was going to cost an increasing amount and Care homes too had also experienced greater expenditure during the Covid crisis, and it was likely that their costs, as well as those for domiciliary contracts, would have to be increased in order for their businesses to be sustainable.

·       Councillor Burrows asked whether there was any risk that any Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) overspend could be passed on to the Council but was reassured by Mrs Godfrey that the Government had indicated that overspends in the higher needs funding area would not need to be funded by the Council.

·       Changing Lives funding (officially called Troubled Families by the Government) had been extended for a further year but officers were unsure of what would happen after that. The whole of the Children’s Service offer was being looked at to cope with increasing financial pressures.

·       Councillor Waller acknowledged the fact that Councillor Brown would soon be stepping down from the Cabinet and his role as Portfolio Holder for Finance, and asked that it be put on record that he would be very much missed.

·       In response to a question from Councillor Waller on how much Council Tax would have to be raised in subsequent years if the full 3% ASC precept was not added this year, Councillor Brown stated that the 1% ASC increase and 3% overall Council Tax rise was the Cabinet’s position and was a political decision which was taken to help mitigate the financial hardships that many families and businesses were experiencing because of the Covid pandemic. He acknowledged that it was a risk but one they were prepared to take. The number was reflected in the MTFP and considerable savings would have to be made going forward unless funding was increased.

·       Councillor Waller also asked Councillor Walters, the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care how he could support only a 1% increase in the ASC precept knowing the pressure and risks to safeguarding that the service area was likely to be under. Councillor Walters echoed Councillor Brown’s earlier sentiment and pointed out that there would be a full review of Adult Social Care which would look for further efficiencies.

·       Councillor Brown confirmed that the Cabinet were proposing a 3% overall rise in Council Tax this year, 2021-22, made up of 2% + 1% ASC precept and for the following year, 2022-23 it would be 4% made up of 2% + 2% ASC precept which would make up the full 3% ASC precept allowed by the Government over a two year period. The Executive felt that the 3% overall rise was the right figure for this year but acknowledged that it could be split differently for each of the 2 years and Councillors would have the opportunity to put forward any alternative suggestions at the Budget Council meeting on 22 February.

·       The Covid pandemic had necessitated services being delivered in a different way and Councillor Razzell suggested that service redesign post covid could adopt and build on many of these practices to deliver further efficiencies and savings.

·       John Morley, Director for Adult Social Services expressed his preference for the Council Tax charge to be ‘front loaded’ as he feared that having to trim too hard might in fact prevent the Council becoming more efficient as there was a huge preventative opportunity that had arisen from the Covid tragedy. RCC and its community health and primary care network colleagues were committed to integration to bring about improvements and efficiencies but needed time to make these changes.