The Tory Group wanted to use the transitional funding to reduce the council tax. That would have meant it was unavailable to put into maintain services and supporting parks. It's quite simple you can't use funding twice by wanting to use it to reduce the CT you were therefore suggesting cuts in funding to parks.
@wheels - you obviously know something about council funding! You don't work for SMBC do you?
@CllrKennyBlair - I am grateful that the Conservative group did put forward an alternative budget for once, so we can see the difference in emphasis.
From memory, you planned to put up council tax by 2%, plugging the gap with the 900K transitional funding and an
anticipated underspend in some depts.
But in council every speaker on your side (except Annette) mentioned reserves as an argument.
Our auditors would not like us to dip into reserves too much (tempting as it is). There are guidelines for this as Steve H (our retiring finance officer in the council) reminded us all. Reserves are more or less as they were.
Your group was talking about
Earmarked Reserves (my capitals) - money set aside for projects. There are more of these as we try to pool budgets and find better ways to save money. We do have to cope with the £21 million we lost
this year alone. IN addition to all the previous years. Perhaps Earmarked Reserves should be called something different - Earmarks Funding, perhaps?
I do recognise that the nation should try to balance its books. But local government is proving to be the easy whipping boy. Lord Porter, a Conservative councillor and the chair of the Local Government Association said in Nov,
“It is wrong that the services our local communities rely on will face deeper cuts than the rest of the public sector yet again, and for local taxpayers to be left to pick up the bill for new government policies without any additional funding.”
As Kenny knows I do try to stick to facts! As does he, to be fair.
