Minutes:
The Commission considered a joint report of the Chief Executive and
Director of Corporate Resources concerning the work being undertaken within the
County Council and with partners:
a) to address the on-going
impact of the coronavirus (Covid-19) within the County;
b) to plan the recovery
and reinstatement of services linked to the gradual lifting of lockdown
restrictions by the Government;
c) the latest statistics
which show the economic impact of the pandemic particularly on levels of
unemployment;
d) to
outline the financial impact of the pandemic in the current financial year and
the medium-term impact on the Council’s finances
A copy of the
report marked ‘Agenda Item 10’, is filed with these minutes.
In introducing the
report officers advised as follows:
· There
continued to be significant senior officer involvement in the crisis management
arrangements set up both by the LRF (Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland
Local Resilience Forum) and the Council to respond to the Covid 19 pandemic. The focus of activity remained on both
response and recovery but with the latter becoming increasingly important.
· The
cross member Working Party had now met and agreed the principles that would
guide the recovery. Work had commenced
on interim recovery plans and the outcome of these would be reported to the
Working Party in July.
· The
latest position regarding the impact of Covid 19 on the Council’s finances
suggested pressures up to £55.8million as shown in the table at paragraph 25 of
the report. However, more recent
assessments had increased this to £64m due to expected reductions in the
Council’s income from council tax and business rates and extra costs of home to
school transport. The County Council was
not in the position of some authorities who were considering issuing S114
notices, but the impact on the Council was nonetheless severe and it would
require the use of reserves and drastically reducing the capital programme.
In response to
questions members were advised as follows:
(i)
It was recognised that the recovery process
would not be straight forward and that the recovery phase would be running
alongside the Council’s response to the pandemic. Furthermore, there was still much uncertainty
about what the new normal might be which made planning difficult and so would
require several iterations of recovery plans.
(ii)
Officers were aware that in promoting Digital
Value there would be significant advantages and possible cost savings
particularly in the way staff work. It
was recognised that the Council would need to have regard to those service
users who may have difficulties with the use of digital options. As plans for reintroducing services were
prepared the specific needs of such groups would be considered.
(iii)
The Council needed to strike a balance between
its interim recovery plan and the longer-term objectives for the Council and
County. To that end it would need to
ensure that the policies put in place did not deter or stifle economic activity
and investment, but also ensured that where developments were planned this was
accompanied by appropriate infrastructure to serve the communities affected.
(iv)
The Working Party on recovery was not a
decision making body and as such, where decisions required member approval this
would be done in the usual way of consulting scrutiny and seeking a final
decision from the Cabinet. Members
wishing to make comment on the recovery process should contact their Group
representatives on the Working Party.
(v)
The planned recovery timetable was to focus on
interim recovery – i.e. to the end of the year.
Departments had started to plan on this basis and it was hoped that the
outcome of this would be reported to the Working Party in July. Looking ahead,
the aim would be to take stock in September and then begin planning for the
following and subsequent years and to do this in the context of the review of
the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy.
(vi)
Recent comments from the MHCLG (Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government) and from ministers reported in the
press seemed to indicate that there was recognition of the
financial pressures being faced by local government and the need for
financial sustainability. There also
appeared to be recognition that investment in infrastructure projects would
offer the best way to stimulate economic activity. It was hoped that this would result in the
Government supporting councils by underwriting tax bases, business rate income
and generally with additional revenue funding which would mean less would need to
be taken out of the capital programme to support development.
RESOLVED
a) That
the contents of the report and the supplementary report be noted;
b) That
the principle and direction of the proposed recovery plan be supported;
c) That
the significant financial impact of Covid19 on the County Council be noted and
that efforts continue to lobby Government to meet the full costs incurred in
responding to the crisis and the resources required to support recovery.
Supporting documents: