At the Full Council meeting 24/2/21 we had received an update on the terms of the draft 2021/22 Scottish Government Budget, including funding for a Council Tax freeze. During the debate, when all political groups except the Liberal Democrats agreed to that freeze for 2021/22, I said I was not a fan of council tax freezes and hope that accepting this one was not a precursor to future freezes like a previous 10-year freeze period under the SNP Government. Freezes are usually caveated by significant ring-fencing of Government funds allocated to local authorities, who increasingly become mere agents of government policy. However, as we exit the COVID lockdown it is probably appropriate to support a freeze and it is of course electorally popular before an election because all but the most discerning of the public do not make the connection between cuts in services resulting from council tax freezes.
Subsequently, having agreed a freeze, PKC had to debate how to adjust our provisional Revenue budget which had been based on a council tax increase of 4.28% in March 2020.
So, on 10/3/21 the Independent Group produced a budget which, unlike the other party groups, did not involve taking any money from earmarked Reserves for Covid-19. In my speech to the debate, I highlighted 3 main themes to our budget proposals for additional expenditure:
1. Post Covid-19 lockdown we felt there was a need to support children, youth and older people so made proposals for Youth Community Golf & Tennis (£75,000), the Equalities Fund (£40,000), Supporting Activities for Older People (£75,000) and Mental Health Initiatives (£70,000).
2. We made capital provisions totalling £31.75 million to be funded from Revenue by covering the annual cost of borrowing at current ‘record’ low interest rates; so effectively providing, amongst other things, a Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund (£1m), a Town Centre Regeneration Fund (£3m), Local Roads (£3.5m + £40,000 from Revenue for unadopted roads that had been previously withdrawn, including provisions for pothole repairs & flood prevention i.e. ditch clearance and gully cleaning, the latter not mentioned by other groups), Loch Leven Heritage Trail (£250,000) and Active Travel Routes/Paths (£1m).
3. I also asked Members to note that most of our additional expenditure proposals were based on recurring expenditure, not just for one year, in a rolling programme for the future.
Finally, in relation to Kinross-shire Ward, we proposed 3 measures:
1. Funding to support administration costs (£40,000) for a ‘pilot’ Area Committee of PKC for Kinross-shire. I have been working for this since my first term of office began in 1999 and would like to see it come to fruition before I stand down in 2022. A scheme for devolving power to community level is particularly appropriate for the former county of Kinross-shire whose area population is so much greater than it was at re-organisation of local government in the 1970s. The concept is supported by the 4 local members and the Kinross-shire Forum of Community Councils, with Cllr Purves and myself having recently pursued a draft scheme with officers and happy to work further on an acceptable scheme that, initially, would not include quasi-judicial matters and would retain voting rights to local members only.
2. The Kinross Railway ‘Feasibility Study’ builds on a PKC unanimous decision of 4/10/17 made at our historic council meeting in Kinross and provides £50,000.
3. Regional Parks (£50,000) need feasibility work on the creation of an Ochil Hills Regional Park and the expansion of the Lomond Hills Park, which is also supported by Kinross-shire Forum & Local Members.
Unfortunately, our budget did not pass but the proposals from the minority Tory Administration did and that included money for Local Roads (£4m including restoring the withdrawn funding for unadopted roads), Loch Leven Heritage Trail (£160,000), the provision of a new permanent ranger service that we had suggested and crucially our ‘pilot’ local decision[1]making committee for Kinross-shire Ward (£40,000). Our budget lost to the SNP amendment, which was then set against the Administration’s budget and I voted for the latter because of the noted inclusions above.
If any reader wants further clarity on the budget debate and proposals, I am happy to provide it.
Councillor Michael Barnacle Independent Member for Kinross-shire