Rother District Council Agenda Item: 11

COUNCIL MEETING

28 February 2011

Budget 2011-2012

To consider and, if thought fit, to pass a resolution in the following terms: -

1.(a)That the Revenue Estimates for 2011/12 be approved at £12,227,740 as set out in the minutes of the Cabinet on 21 February 2011 and as amended by Council.

(b)The expenses incurred by the Council, set out in the minutes of the Cabinet of 21 February 2011, in the sum of £818,900 in respect of Bexhill and £42,850 in respect of Rye, be approved as the Special Expenses chargeable to residents of Bexhill and Rye respectively. All other expenses incurred by the Council (excluding Parish Precepts) be approved as general expenditure for the purposes of Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. (This resolution will be reviewed annually).

2.That it be noted, that at its meeting on 20 December 2010, the Council calculated the following amounts for the year 2011/12 in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Tax Base) Regulations 1992, made under Section 33 (5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:-

(a)39,020.37being the amount calculated by the Council in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992, as its Council Tax base for the year.

(b)

Bexhill / 17,421.99 / Etchingham / 371.66 / Salehurst / 1,065.88
Ashburnham & Penhurst / 192.90 / Ewhurst / 542.24 / Sedlescombe / 671.46
Battle / 2,793.28 / Fairlight / 914.56 / Ticehurst / 1,675.86
Beckley / 538.38 / Guestling / 629.63 / Udimore / 189.79
Bodiam / 158.65 / Hurst Green / 596.63 / Westfield / 1,100.91
Brede / 845.49 / Icklesham / 1,311.43 / Whatlington / 157.67
Brightling / 197.92 / Iden / 248.46 / Rye / 1,957.47
Burwash / 1,257.80 / Mountfield / 208.74
Camber / 673.65 / Northiam / 1,031.32
Catsfield / 364.40 / Peasmarsh / 535.46
Crowhurst / 370.51 / Pett / 459.69
Dallington / 175.54 / Playden / 164.70
East Guldeford / 32.40 / Rye Foreign / 163.90

being the amounts calculated by the Council in accordance with Regulation 6 of the Regulations, as the amounts of its Council Tax base for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.

3.That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2011/12 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1992: -

a.£57,080,668being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(2)(a) to (e) of the Act (this amount is the Council's gross expenditure including the Parish Council Precepts and the Special Expenses for Bexhill and Rye).

b.£43,866,540being the aggregate of the amounts, which the Council estimates for the items, set out in Section 32(3)(a) to (d) of the Act.

c.£13,214,128being the amount by which the aggregate at 3(a) above exceeds the aggregate at 3(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 32(4) of the Act, as its budget requirement for the year.

d.£5,034,450being the aggregate of the sums which the Council estimates will be payable for the year into its general fund in respect of redistributed non-domestic rates and revenue support grant (adjusted by the amount of the sums which the Council estimates will be transferred in the year between the general fund and its collection fund in accordance with Sections 97(3) and 97(4) Finance Act 1988 and also pursuant to the Collection Fund (Community Charges) directions under Sections 98(4) and 98(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988).

e.£209.63being the amount at 3(c) above less the amount at 3(d) above, all divided by the amount at 2 above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year.

f.£1,890,138being the aggregate amount of all special items referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act.

g.£161.19being the amount at 3(e) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 3(f) above by the amount at 2(a) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no special item relates.

h.

BASIC
COUNCIL
PARISH COUNCIL AREA / TAX
£
Bexhill / 208.69
Ashburnham & Penhurst / 197.48
Battle / 225.77
Beckley / 191.84
Bodiam / 216.82
Brede / 182.54
Brightling / 200.88
Burwash / 182.30
Camber / 228.92
Catsfield / 232.54
Crowhurst / 228.50
Dallington / 197.85
East Guldeford / 161.19
Etchingham / 237.20
Ewhurst / 230.93
Fairlight / 192.90
Guestling / 165.95
Hurst Green / 212.31
Icklesham / 233.35
Iden / 193.39
Mountfield / 214.37
Northiam / 206.76
Peasmarsh / 209.32
Pett / 195.43
Playden / 188.51
Rye Foreign / 168.82
Salehurst / 221.84
Sedlescombe / 208.10
Ticehurst / 215.71
Udimore / 192.80
Westfield / 188.44
Whatlington / 205.59
Rye / 226.24

being the amounts given by adding to the amount at 3(g) above the amounts of the special item or items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council's area mentioned above divided in each case by the amount at 2(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(3) of the Act, as the basic amounts of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.

i.

Parish
Council
Area / 6/9 / 7/9 / 8/9 / 1 / 11/9 / 13/9 / 15/9 / 18/9
Bexhill / 139.13 / 162.31 / 185.50 / 208.69 / 255.07 / 301.44 / 347.82 / 417.38
Ashburnham& Penhurst / 131.65 / 153.60 / 175.54 / 197.48 / 241.36 / 285.25 / 329.13 / 394.96
Battle / 150.51 / 175.60 / 200.68 / 225.77 / 275.94 / 326.11 / 376.28 / 451.54
Beckley / 127.89 / 149.21 / 170.52 / 191.84 / 234.47 / 277.10 / 319.73 / 383.68
Bodiam / 144.55 / 168.64 / 192.73 / 216.82 / 265.00 / 313.18 / 361.37 / 433.64
Brede / 121.69 / 141.98 / 162.26 / 182.54 / 223.10 / 263.67 / 304.23 / 365.08
Brightling / 133.92 / 156.24 / 178.56 / 200.88 / 245.52 / 290.16 / 334.80 / 401.76
Burwash / 121.53 / 141.79 / 162.04 / 182.30 / 222.81 / 263.32 / 303.83 / 364.60
Camber / 152.61 / 178.05 / 203.48 / 228.92 / 279.79 / 330.66 / 381.53 / 457.84
Catsfield / 155.03 / 180.86 / 206.70 / 232.54 / 284.22 / 335.89 / 387.57 / 465.08
Crowhurst / 152.33 / 177.72 / 203.11 / 228.50 / 279.28 / 330.06 / 380.83 / 457.00
Dallington / 131.90 / 153.88 / 175.87 / 197.85 / 241.82 / 285.78 / 329.75 / 395.70
East Guldeford / 107.46 / 125.37 / 143.28 / 161.19 / 197.01 / 232.83 / 268.65 / 322.38
Etchingham / 158.13 / 184.49 / 210.84 / 237.20 / 289.91 / 342.62 / 395.33 / 474.40
Ewhurst / 153.95 / 179.61 / 205.27 / 230.93 / 282.25 / 333.57 / 384.88 / 461.86
Fairlight / 128.60 / 150.03 / 171.47 / 192.90 / 235.77 / 278.63 / 321.50 / 385.80
Guestling / 110.63 / 129.07 / 147.51 / 165.95 / 202.83 / 239.71 / 276.58 / 331.90
Hurst Green / 141.54 / 165.13 / 188.72 / 212.31 / 259.49 / 306.67 / 353.85 / 424.62
Icklesham / 155.57 / 181.49 / 207.42 / 233.35 / 285.21 / 337.06 / 388.92 / 466.70
Iden / 128.93 / 150.41 / 171.90 / 193.39 / 236.37 / 279.34 / 322.32 / 386.78
Mountfield / 142.91 / 166.73 / 190.55 / 214.37 / 262.01 / 309.65 / 357.28 / 428.74
Northiam / 137.84 / 160.81 / 183.79 / 206.76 / 252.71 / 298.65 / 344.60 / 413.52
Peasmarsh / 139.55 / 162.80 / 186.06 / 209.32 / 255.84 / 302.35 / 348.87 / 418.64
Pett / 130.29 / 152.00 / 173.72 / 195.43 / 238.86 / 282.29 / 325.72 / 390.86
Playden / 125.67 / 146.62 / 167.56 / 188.51 / 230.40 / 272.29 / 314.18 / 377.02
Rye Foreign / 112.55 / 131.30 / 150.06 / 168.82 / 206.34 / 243.85 / 281.37 / 337.64
Salehurst / 147.89 / 172.54 / 197.19 / 221.84 / 271.14 / 320.44 / 369.73 / 443.68
Sedlescombe / 138.73 / 161.86 / 184.98 / 208.10 / 254.34 / 300.59 / 346.83 / 416.20
Ticehurst / 143.81 / 167.77 / 191.74 / 215.71 / 263.65 / 311.58 / 359.52 / 431.42
Udimore / 128.53 / 149.96 / 171.38 / 192.80 / 235.64 / 278.49 / 321.33 / 385.60
Westfield / 125.63 / 146.56 / 167.50 / 188.44 / 230.32 / 272.19 / 314.07 / 376.88
Whatlington / 137.06 / 159.90 / 182.75 / 205.59 / 251.28 / 296.96 / 342.65 / 411.18
Rye / 150.83 / 175.96 / 201.10 / 226.24 / 276.52 / 326.79 / 377.07 / 452.48

being the amounts given by multiplying the amounts at 3(h) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in Valuation Band "D", calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different Valuation Bands.

4.That the Council notes that for the year 2011/12 East Sussex County Council the Sussex Police Authority and the East Sussex Fire Authority have stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of dwellings shown below: -

Valuation Bands
Precepting Authority / A / B / C / D / E / F / G / H
£ / £ / £ / £ / £ / £ / £ / £
ESCC / 772.20 / 900.90 / 1,029.60 / 1,158.30 / 1,415.70 / 1,673.10 / 1,930.50 / 2,316.60
Sussex Police / 92.28 / 107.66 / 123.04 / 138.42 / 169.18 / 199.94 / 230.70 / 276.84
East Sussex Fire / 54.57 / 63.67 / 72.76 / 81.86 / 100.05 / 118.24 / 136.43 / 163.72

5.That, having calculated the aggregate each case of the amounts at 3(i) and 4 above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the year 2011/12 for each of the categories of dwellings shown below: -

Valuation Bands
LOCAL TAX AREA / A / B / C / D / E / F / G / H
£ / £ / £ / £ / £ / £ / £ / £
Bexhill / 1,058.17 / 1,234.55 / 1,410.90 / 1,587.27 / 1,939.99 / 2,292.72 / 2,645.44 / 3,174.54
Ashburnham & Penhurst / 1,050.70 / 1,225.83 / 1,400.94 / 1,576.06 / 1,926.29 / 2,276.53 / 2,626.76 / 3,152.12
Battle / 1,069.56 / 1,247.83 / 1,426.08 / 1,604.35 / 1,960.87 / 2,317.39 / 2,673.91 / 3,208.70
Beckley / 1,046.94 / 1,221.44 / 1,395.92 / 1,570.42 / 1,919.40 / 2,268.38 / 2,617.36 / 3,140.84
Bodiam / 1,063.60 / 1,240.87 / 1,418.13 / 1,595.40 / 1,949.93 / 2,304.46 / 2,659.00 / 3,190.80
Brede / 1,040.74 / 1,214.21 / 1,387.66 / 1,561.12 / 1,908.03 / 2,254.95 / 2,601.86 / 3,122.24
Brightling / 1,052.97 / 1,228.47 / 1,403.96 / 1,579.46 / 1,930.45 / 2,281.44 / 2,632.43 / 3,158.92
Burwash / 1,040.58 / 1,214.02 / 1,387.44 / 1,560.88 / 1,907.74 / 2,254.60 / 2,601.46 / 3,121.76
Camber / 1,071.66 / 1,250.28 / 1,428.88 / 1,607.50 / 1,964.72 / 2,321.94 / 2,679.16 / 3,215.00
Catsfield / 1,074.08 / 1,253.09 / 1,432.10 / 1,611.12 / 1,969.15 / 2,327.17 / 2,685.20 / 3,222.24
Crowhurst / 1,071.38 / 1,249.95 / 1,428.51 / 1,607.08 / 1,964.21 / 2,321.34 / 2,678.46 / 3,214.16
Dallington / 1,050.95 / 1,226.11 / 1,401.27 / 1,576.43 / 1,926.75 / 2,277.06 / 2,627.38 / 3,152.86
East Guldeford / 1,026.51 / 1,197.60 / 1,368.68 / 1,539.77 / 1,881.94 / 2,224.11 / 2,566.28 / 3,079.54
Etchingham / 1,077.18 / 1,256.72 / 1,436.24 / 1,615.78 / 1,974.84 / 2,333.90 / 2,692.96 / 3,231.56
Ewhurst / 1,073.00 / 1,251.84 / 1,430.67 / 1,609.51 / 1,967.18 / 2,324.85 / 2,682.51 / 3,219.02
Fairlight / 1,047.65 / 1,222.26 / 1,396.87 / 1,571.48 / 1,920.70 / 2,269.91 / 2,619.13 / 3,142.96
Guestling / 1,029.68 / 1,201.30 / 1,372.91 / 1,544.53 / 1,887.76 / 2,230.99 / 2,574.21 / 3,089.06
Hurst Green / 1,060.59 / 1,237.36 / 1,414.12 / 1,590.89 / 1,944.42 / 2,297.95 / 2,651.48 / 3,181.78
Icklesham / 1,074.62 / 1,253.72 / 1,432.82 / 1,611.93 / 1,970.14 / 2,328.34 / 2,686.55 / 3,223.86
Iden / 1,047.98 / 1,222.64 / 1,397.30 / 1,571.97 / 1,921.30 / 2,270.62 / 2,619.95 / 3,143.94
Mountfield / 1,061.96 / 1,238.96 / 1,415.95 / 1,592.95 / 1,946.94 / 2,300.93 / 2,654.91 / 3,185.90
Northiam / 1,056.89 / 1,233.04 / 1,409.19 / 1,585.34 / 1,937.64 / 2,289.93 / 2,642.23 / 3,170.68
Peasmarsh / 1,058.60 / 1,235.03 / 1,411.46 / 1,587.90 / 1,940.77 / 2,293.63 / 2,646.50 / 3,175.80
Pett / 1,049.34 / 1,224.23 / 1,399.12 / 1,574.01 / 1,923.79 / 2,273.57 / 2,623.35 / 3,148.02
Playden / 1,044.72 / 1,218.85 / 1,392.96 / 1,567.09 / 1,915.33 / 2,263.57 / 2,611.81 / 3,134.18
Rye Foreign / 1,031.60 / 1,203.53 / 1,375.46 / 1,547.40 / 1,891.27 / 2,235.13 / 2,579.00 / 3,094.80
Salehurst / 1,066.94 / 1,244.77 / 1,422.59 / 1,600.42 / 1,956.07 / 2,311.72 / 2,667.36 / 3,200.84
Sedlescombe / 1,057.78 / 1,234.09 / 1,410.38 / 1,586.68 / 1,939.27 / 2,291.87 / 2,644.46 / 3,173.36
Ticehurst / 1,062.86 / 1,240.00 / 1,417.14 / 1,594.29 / 1,948.58 / 2,302.86 / 2,657.15 / 3,188.58
Udimore / 1,047.58 / 1,222.19 / 1,396.78 / 1,571.38 / 1,920.57 / 2,269.77 / 2,618.96 / 3,142.76
Westfield / 1,044.68 / 1,218.79 / 1,392.90 / 1,567.02 / 1,915.25 / 2,263.47 / 2,611.70 / 3,134.04
Whatlington / 1,056.11 / 1,232.13 / 1,408.15 / 1,584.17 / 1,936.21 / 2,288.24 / 2,640.28 / 3,168.34
Rye / 1,069.87 / 1,248.20 / 1,426.50 / 1,604.82 / 1,961.44 / 2,318.07 / 2,674.69 / 3,209.64

6.The Head of Finance as Section 151 Officer be authorised to authenticate and serve all notices etc. required in connection with the Council Tax and National Non Domestic Rate.

Budget Consultation

  1. As of the 21 February, 112 people had responded to the consultation. The consultation asked the respondent to invest more or less in services, asked about staff pay, income generation and about the impact of changing the way we procured and delivered services. It also challenged respondents to set a Council tax level at 2% or below. Overall the response to this latter point was from an increase of 2% to a reduction of 45%. The following graph shows that 45% (50) of the respondents proposed an increase of between 0% and 2%. In terms of reducing Council Tax, 46% of respondents proposed a reduction of between -1% and -15%.

  1. The consultation also gave the opportunity to make comments for Members consideration. These are shown at Appendix A, although any of a personal nature have been removed and referred to the relevant authority or department. The results of the consultation will be considered as part of future policy development and financial planning.

1

c110228 - Budget 2011/12

Appendix A

Budget Consultation – Comments received

- Small communities like Rye attract small pots of public funds from many sources, such as from ESCC and Arts Council; what attempt is being made to draw strands together to ensure that grants are effectively targeted in priority areas?
- Rye: Why has the Cinque Ports building been retained now that functions have moved to the new library building, with the remaining functions moved elsewhere ( Tilling Green school building OR a small part of the Freda Gardham site OR the Conduit Hill pump Station OR the offices on the Rye Peninsula managed by Rye Partnership?) or reduced altogether?
- Rye: Why is the Freda Gardham site (ESCC?), or a large part of it, which attracts significant public funds, not offered for disposal?
- Rye: Why is the old Conduit Hill pump station lying empty - if it does not fit into plans then should offer for disposal?
- Rye Partnership: What is its future? Could the costs be better used elsewhere, perhaps to support functions which should be handled by Rye Town Council or cut altogether?
- Rye: Why do we maintain two TICs in Rye? Surely the Strand site should be offered for disposal of to a local organisation to run as self funded Trust Status (Big Society?) to make savings?
No longer employ temporary/contract staff; staff should be re-directed to these posts/work instead.
Excellent idea to give the public some feel of how budgets are made up.
One major saving could be made in the economic development arena.
With the very honourable exception of Graham Burgess, we would seriously question the efficacy and value for money of the rest of that department.
Future grandiose schemes such as the Bexhill Seafront should be abandoned to save money. Consideration to reduce the number of staff. Salaries should be frozen in the current financial year. Consideration to devolve services to Town and Parish Councils providing it is financed by e.g. car park revenues.
The economic well-being of our towns would be radically improved by major reductions in expenditure on partnerships etc. etc. and substantial reductions in car parking charges. These high charges drive people to other districts and export both retail and tourist spend.
My career experience is in manufacturing industry. I was MD and Chief Executive of a large company for 20 years until I retired. During this time I was faced with many challenges, including downturns. In my opinion the situation which RDC faces is very similar to a downturn. The key is to survive and be strong enough for the recovery when it comes; and it will come. In my experience there are certain steps that must be taken when a downturn occurs, and they should be taken without delay. I would of course like to see the 2011/2012 Budget in detail, but in the absence of this I offer the following suggestions:
1. Review every function and project to test how essential it is to survival; if you were to cut it out, would you be able to survive for 6 months or more? If you could survive without it, then put it on the list of potential deletions or delays.
2. Determine the Top Ten areas of expenditure which are considered necessary and apply a 20% reduction to the budgeted amount. This then becomes the "New Budget" and Departmental Managers must reshape their operation to match this; if they say they cannot, then they must argue their case to convince the board of a viable alternative.
3. People are usually the most expensive part of an operation and regrettably the biggest savings often come from headcount reductions. There can be no areas which are exempt from this.
4. Purchases and bought-in services typically represent a very large proportion of overall expenditure (30 to 50%) so all suppliers must bear the brunt of the cost reductions required by proposing innovative methods of achieving a 20% saving over 2 years.
Obviously there are many areas of detail which must be fully explored in order to make contributions to the cost reductions required, but I have always found that to apply the above procedure is the most effective way to achieve the big cuts in expenditure necessary.
Thank you for this opportunity to give my suggestions.
It seems that the council is looking to save 15% per annum. I suggest that everybody thinks 'outside the box' and looks at the greatest expense drain. I would suggest that the Councillors provide a lead in reducing their allowances and expenses by 15% and all Staff who are paid above the national average also take a pay freeze for the next two years, and reduce their allowances and expenses by 15%. Those paid above £150,000,say, should have their salaries reduced to this level and relinquish all other sources of council income.
Council Services should be merged with adjacent Councils to save on staff costs. There should be an absolute embargo on all staff recruitment. Any necessary staff posts should be recruited internally at reduced salary rates.
How much money would this save? Secondly all external contracts should be renegotiated - as done by 'big business' to save 15% on all contracts.
Well, for starters they could have saved £5 million by not building that ridiculous bodge-up on the seafront at Bexhill - and not even decent shelters for the elderly to sit in out of the wind! Can anyone tell me why they have done this? It would be disgraceful if elderly or children's services were cut and all this money had been wasted on this. Could they justify this expense?
Streamline all procedures so that there is less double handling. Start at the top and see if everyone is really delivering.
Amalgamate the roles of the "Chief executives” of Rother and Wealden into one. Thus there is a saving of at least £250, 000 for a start.
Then amalgamate all the HR and Computer departments into one , thus saving another £750, 000.
Bingo that’s a million -- for astart.
This is not a joke email -- I am really serious about this amalgamation of councils -- see Westminster and Wandsworth.
There is too much duplication and overpaid jobs for the boys in local councils.
Having watched the chaos on the seafront over the last 18-24 months and the end result i am so disappointed to see what our money has been spent on. Simple things like taking up turf then relaying it nearly 18 months later - what a waste - why could the existing turf not have been cut out to allow for the beds? Why where such tiny plants used when more established ones cost but a few pound more. Now the errors seem to be repeated in the final stage - who is project managing this?
The survey does not allow sufficient in-depth choice - the council decides what effect the reductions in spending have within sections.
Sack Peter Jones.
Please don't cut spending on the environment, care for the sick and disabled, care for the elderly, and to community groups.
Make sure that only 15% is saved each year to lessen the impact.
Reduce all wages by 20% if receiving over £35,000 a year.
Don't waste money on statues or art galleries.
As all ways. I believe the councils are top heavy and could be cut back by at least 10% to justify the wage bills so saving a good amount towards the budget.
Being pensioner I rely on the bus service and pass…So if they should be cut it would make it all most impossible to get to the shops and any appointments
Far too great of the budget is spent on Bexhill especially the De La Warr Pavilion. Bexhill is not the focus for most of Rother. Rye is treated badly and the villages worse.
Thanks for asking for my comments.
I would suggest that cuts are taken from leisure/cultural/library and any other non essential services.
You must start looking at your top management and re-assess their salaries, can we really afford these? Bonuses are no longer to be paid out, they should get a salary and no more!!
No more paying Consultants for work that is never likely to go ahead, a large amount of money has been spent on this consultancy work that I believe many of your own staff could have done!!
You must sell off the De-La Warr pavilion!! Did not the Wetherspoon organisation originally submit an application for use? Perhaps they still might be interested?
The council must take no credit for the sea front as the lost revenue by the shops and hotels during the last year, must have been substantial and only the council are to blame!!
Forget about building new shops on the sea front, open those shops that are closed in the town!!
The budget consultation should not be about cuts to services but about the effectiveness and efficiency of the council and its management. I have seen over the last 7 years of living in Bexhill so many incidents of money wasted and poor management of the services we do have that it doesn’t surprise me that now the council are using the funding cuts as an excuse to give a poorer service to the residents of this area while at the same time keeping the same inefficient systems and managers.
My preference is to spread the reductions across all services. In the individual service reductions I certainly favour reduction of grounds and park maintenance, allowing more natural development. In transport services, the availability of out of town services is more important than in-town mobility.
I presume that the detailed reduction figures which I suggest are also forwarded with these comments.
There is far too little information in this for it to be considered as a consultation.
Antisocial behaviour could be discouraged whilst saving tax by making those responsible feel consequences for their actions in the form of increased tax to cover their behaviour.
1. The problems of intimidation fear of molestation and attack by uncontrolled dogs and packs of dogs in public spaces, dog faeces collection and all other dog related services such as signs and support for dog training classes could be funded by a dog licence. A lot was achieved by the signs warning of fines for not clearing up dog faeces. The same sort of excellent results could be achieved very cheaply by signs telling dog owners to keep their dogs properly under control in public spaces.
2. The continuing problem of drunken loutish behaviour, disturbing the peace, swearing, intimidation, vandalism and violence associated with the small hours of Saturday and Sunday morning in Rye between 2 & 3 a.m. could be improved by taxing any establishment associated with the problem. All establishments selling alcohol could be said to be contributing to the problem. All of these establishments are closed by midnight except for the night club which remains open until the trouble starts. The night club should not only work closely with the police to tackle the problem but should also make a sizeable contribution to the cost of policing this problem.
The collection of rubbish and street cleaning could be rationalised. When the bins are emptied, often large amounts of rubbish are spilt onto the streets by the bin men in their haste to complete their work. If they took a little more care, with the increased time that this implies, this problem could be resolved. There would then be no need for the street sweeping vehicle which follows but often does not clear the mess up because their path is blocked by parked cars.
The cutting back of wild vegetation in some places is much more excessive than is required, for example next to the river Tillingham in Rye. Whilst it is necessary to keep paths open the removal of all vegetation is unnecessary and deprives us and wildlife of the pleasure of wild flowers and habitat.
The appearance of unpleasant and unnecessary fences next to footpaths such as that on Leasam Hill or the cycle path from Rye to Winchelsea is against the public interest. Who funded this?
The amounts paid to clear up after Rye Fawkes always seem excessive and disproportionate to the amount of work done. These services could be supplied much more cheaply if they were put out to tender. There are many unemployed people who would undertake this work for a fraction of the sums currently paid.
Much of the expenditure on Rye cemetery seems unnecessary.
The replacement of a perfectly good bird watching hide with a new one on the Rye Harbour Nature Reserve was questionable. Is this anything to do with Rother?
I am not sure if all these issues are necessarily related to RDC but I would be interested in any responses about any of them.
You can save money by using more commercial sponsorship deals and advertising. For Example, you can get a local or national business to sponsor the local library or individual day centres and the sponsors name would appear on the outside of the premises. This would be taking a leaf from sporting sponsorships. The salary of the top people in the council can be cut by 10 or 20 per cent. Invite film crews to film here for a considerable charge. Offer the council chambers for rent to groups who need a meeting point(commercial or charitable groups.) There are loads of way to meet these targets all it takes is a bit of creativeness!
Some of the information was very thin, especially on increasing revenue. Informed decisions are not possible on this basis.

1