Agenda item

To consider a report by the Director for Digital and Resources, copy attached as item 7

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 6, a copy of which had been circulated to all Members, a copy of which is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. The report before members provided an overview of the delivery of the sustainable councils financial strategy for 2020/21, along with details of the proposals that would help deliver a balanced budget for the next financial year and beyond.

The Head of Financial Services introduced the report to the Committee and set the main financial challenges facing the Council.

A Member asked the following question: Under ‘Increase in the costs associated with temporary and emergency accommodation’ it states that there has been a further increase in the caseload associated with homelessness and should this caseload continues to rise the Council will need to address the cost issues. Is this increased caseload due to the extra preventative work being carried out? What does ‘address the cost issues’ mean in this context? The Committee was told that the caseload referred to is the number of households accommodated in temporary accommodation in Worthing.  The number of households presenting as homeless each month meant that Worthing was experiencing a net increase in the number of households that require emergency accommodation.The cost pressures referred to the net cost of placing families and individuals into temporary and emergency accommodation. The creation of temporary accommodation at developments such as Rowlands Road.

A Member asked the following question:  The commercial programme states a drop in income between 18/19 and 19/20 of approx 190k, are all the reasons as stated on agenda page 19 (g) and h) please and if so what is the breakdown across those factors please? Members were told that this referred to the Grafton Site in Worthing which was a complicated site that included some associated properties.

A Member asked the following question: It is noted that the current budget strategy was subject to consultation in 2016/17 and that ‘individual savings proposals are subject to consultation with officers of the council, executive members and members of JOSC’. As there is no detailed public budget consultation exercise this year, at what point, if any, are individual savings proposals considered sufficient to be put to public consultation? The Committee was told that it was important that when the Councils consulted with communities an unrealistic expectation was not created of how they may effect change or have influence over a final decision.  The Councils had limited financial flexibility, however endeavour was made to engage with our community where there was likely to be significant service change or the change is of wide public interest, and there are viable alternatives in which consult with residents on. For example the Councils were consulting on changes to Council Tax discounts and premiums relating to vacant and long-term empty residences. There would also be specific engagement activities which may be a result of or aim to influence a specific budget initiative - for example the Brookland Masterplan.

A Member asked the following question:  Business rates deficits - please can you provide an update on whether the out of action turbines is a long-running issue and whether contingency has been made to cover this. Members were told that the turbines had become faulty earlier in the year. It was expected that they would remain out of action for about 6 months during which time no business rates would be payable. Since the 6 month exemption had expired, business rates have been paid. There was no need to provide a contingency as this was a one-off and exceptional event.

A Member asked the following question: Financial pressure in 21/22 re: potential cost of investing in food waste (what does this mean and how much are we talking here please?) Members were told that the budget was based on initial forecasts and was a contingency budget. There were some unknown factors that had been taken into account such as the possibility of some government funding, the extent at which the County would share savings generated by diverting waste from landfill and different ways to configure a service to accommodate weekly food waste collections,  all of which will need to be considered.

Resolved: that the report be noted