Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Peter is right,it is not me saying anything it is the KCC,all I am doing is reporting back what was saiD and done at the meeting.
Anyway we move on this is the last one tonight.
Foster carers the proposal is=
Reduce the amount KCC pays Foster Carers each week.
KCC have ariund 700foster carers,from all sections of the community. Foster carers are committed to give a child or young person the best possible care and help to achieve positive out comes,this would make a saving of £3million .
For the Proposal.
(1) Some feel that reducing the pay might not affect their decision to foster a child,given that most Foster Carers don,t do it for the money.
(2) REduced payments could discourage those wanting to enter foster parenting as a business.
(3)KCC already pays foster carers above the national average so this would bring the authority more in line with others.
Against this proposal.
(1) Reducing the amount paid could put some carers off fostering.
(2)Paying foster carers less per week could mean they couldn,t spend much on activities for foster children,many of whom have faced traumatic experiences in their past.
{3} Some feel that reducing the amount paid to foster careers could be seen as placing less value on the important role foster carers play in the lives of vulnerable young people.
(4) Independent Foster Carers cost significantly more.
The first one tomorrow will be Connexions thank you all again for feedback could still do with more.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Connexions the Proposal.
Reduce the amount we pay for(Connexions) careers advice and educational attainment.
Connexions offers advice and guidance to 13 to 19 year olds,including advice on subject choices,career options,finding a job and training opportunities, Connexions Personal Advisers are available through schools and colleges,or in town centre Access pOINTS.The current budget for Connexions is £10million.Proposal is reduce this by £2 million making a saving of £2 million.
Good one up next Highway Maintenance.
For the Proposal.
(1) Some feel that schools could take more of an active role in preparing young people for their future careers. Several-but not all schools-already provide a careers advice.
(2)Some feel that the provision of a universal careers service could still be retained with a reduced budget, it,s important that it remains accessible if people want to use it but it could do less proactive work.
(3) Some have questioned the value of advice from Connexions.
Against the proposal.
Reducing this service means that young people in search of training and work may not have access to the support and advice they need to make the right choices about their future careers and training.
(2) Investing in good careers service and helping people make the right choices may in turn reduce the need for funding in other areas that are the result of bad choices,eg- unemployment.
(3) Some feel that a universal careers advice should be separate from the home"Where children may feel pressured) and schools (Who are already responsible for so much.)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
if something has to go then connexions it would be for me - 10 million quid is a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere.
schools and parents are better able to give appropriate advice.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,657
I agree Howard that is the sort of thing that should be taught at school and always used to be, £10 million saved in one go.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Thank you that is what we are looking for,and I am in agreement with you both. your remarks with the rest will go to the KCC after they are all in.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
This is number 12 so we still have someway to go yet.
Highway maintenance== The Proposal is=
Reduce highway maintenance by £3million.
We spend £33million on ensuring the hightway network is safe to use and our 8,500km of roads and 6,000km of pavements are properly maintained.
This includes keeping roads open in winter,inspection and maintenance of roads pavements &bridges, traffic sighs, gully clearance and road safety.
The KCC could save £3million by going for this proposal.
For the proposal.
(1) If KCC provides the salt and gritlocal residents could clear many of the minor roads and pavements themselves.
(2) As long as it gets done we can wait an extra few days for routine repairs.
(3)If we spent less on inspections and unnecessary road works/improvements,we could spend what we save here on routine repairs and maintence.
Against the proposal.
(1) The winter service across the County countering the effects of ice,frost and snow on the highway-would not be able to be maintained at the same level.
(2) Service response speed to routine repairs (eg. potholes) is currently 28 days. Cutting the budget by £3millionwould increase the response rate further.
(3)Some routine safety inspections of roads and pavements and the resulting maintenance works would not happen, or take longer to happen.
Hope we gets lots of posts on this one.
The next one will be Bus routes, this one will make you sit up and think to.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,657
Number 1 made me laugh, it is many years since minor roads and pavements have been cleared.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Yes you are right Mrs Higgins,I have been clearing snow away in our close now for years
Bus routes-the proposal is
Reduce the number of bus services KCC subsidises this would make a saving of £2 million.
For the Proposal.
(1) Some feel that there is little point in running bus services which are used by very few people(and in some cases cost KCC over £10 per passenger journey).
(2) Some also feel that people choose where they live,and that it should not be others who subsidise their transport.
(3) Some feel local communities should play a greater role in helping residents without independent means of transport.
Against that proposal
(1) Goes against environmental policies encouraging public transport use,as people would use their cars more if bus services were not available.
(2) People who live in rural communities will be hit the hardest as their bus routes are uneconomical.
(3)People will not be able to access essential services(Health, learning, food,etc.)
Please do not forget it is the KCC saying all this not me. Thank you.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
It is 16 Proposals not as I said 19,..
Coming next when I get back in.
It is Waste Disposal. then Vulnerable Adults and the last one Libraries.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
vic
the rural bus routes have already been earmarked for the axe, it was announced months ago that k.c.c. would stop funding many from the end of this year.
people do choose where they live so it should come as no surprise that if they live in rural areas then services will be less.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Waste disposal, The Proposal is=
Reduce the availability of waste disposal facilities to residents.
There are currently 18 Household Waste Recycling Centres(HWRCs) across Kent, costing £7.7million. HWRCs provide a facility where a wide range of household waste can be taken for reuse,recycling or disposal.Reducing the availabilty of HWRCs would meann closing some down, and /or reducing the opening hours of others. the saving would be £2million.
For The proposal.
Some feel that recycling is less important than other key services which look after health and wellbeing.
(2)Most people use HWRCs at the weekend,so reducing the opening hours on weekdays would not impact the majority.
(3)Some feel thatthe centres are used by businesses as well as households.
Against the proposal.
(1) People like the convenience of being able to use these local facilities at times when it suits them, and not have to travel far.
(2)Some feel that closing/reducing opening hours could reduce the amount of recycling people do, which would mean more waste going to landfill.
(3) Some feel that reduced availability of HWRCs may increase fly tipping.
Well I think they should stay the same as they are now. Over to you.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Vulnerable Adults=
The proposal is= Over 5,000 of the most vulnerable adults receive help either in their own homes,supported accommodation or in residential care.This costs £158million. We could make savings if we reduce the level of care,this would make a saving of £3million.
The proposal
{1} Could family and neighbours do more to help?
{2} Should the council only pay for essential services E.G. not pay for holidays.
(3) Do clients always need round the clock care.
Against this proposal.
(1) Support is provided to the most vulnerable who cannot look after themselves.
(2) KCC RECEIVES SOME FUNDING DIRECT FROM GOVERNMENT IN THE FORM OF GRANT TOWARDS COST OF CARE.
{3}Reduced support from the council couldlead to more demands on other more expensive public services e.g. health.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,657
Vic, could you clarify the "not pay for holidays". Does that mean KCC pays for vulnerable adults to go on holiday, if so that could easily be cut.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Ok we come to the last one.
Before I do it please note once more.
All I have done is write out what the KCC have done on handouts to us at the meeting,I have done it word for word none of it is in my own words,apart what I have add at the end of some proposals.
So please do not have ago at me thank you.
Also I need to know do you wish this all to go to the KCC so they can get a better overall picture of what the public are thinking I see we have over 80 post back, and some 1.200 veiws, so I think we should send it to them,at the meeting was about 50 of the public so not that many. But I need you to say so,I will pay the cost of sending it back.
Libraries the proposal is
Reduce spending on Libraries by £3 million by closing the least well used libraries and focus on the main town centre hubs.
Kent currently has 101 permanent libraries. which cost £20million to run -the saving would would retain 20 main libraries across the County.
OR alternatively
Transfer the running of smaller libraries to local communities with the Council providing specialist advice.
Saving made would be £3million.
For the proposal
(1) Are Libraries an essential service or are they 2nice to have"?
(2)Do Libraries still meet the modern needs of society.?
{3} Many have access to books and computers in their own homes and do not need KCC to provide them.
Against this Proposals.
(1)Some feel that libraries provide a community focal point.
(2) A library is more than a place to borrow books, particularly the free internet access.
{3} Some feel that specific groups rely on the services and expertise of Library staff more then others- eg. the young and elderly.
Well that is the last one,i will not act on all this for two days, that will give you all time to look at them again,then if by then you have told me to send them off,I will download it as it is and send it off,or if i have no feedback on sending them back I will not do it. But I will tell you what I am doing. Thank you all for your time in reading it and your feed backs. I remain yours faithfully Vic Matcham
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Yes Mrs Higgins it means just that,and what you say is right there would be a saving there on its own I do not know how much,but it all adds up and we just need to find the £20million. Thank you.
Jan its difficult to be precise , without the ability to ask the questions from the proposers ie KCC , but the holiday expenditure on the vulnerable adult proposal is probably refering to VAs who live at home with a main carer ( usually an older parent ) and this holiday is an agreed respite break , which means the carer can continue in this role . Without these funded breaks the carer can breakdown and the VA will end up in a residential setting , and cost the council ( therefore us ) more .
And there is a spend to save option regarding tele-care and tele-meds which can both cut costs and increase empowerment and autonomy.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
*93
It's easiest to cut the aid to the vulnerable.
I believe at some stage of our life we were all vulnerable and all relied on others.
No, let's not take it out on vulnerable people.
Vic, my absolute veto, for what it's worth. Ask KCC to continue providing the vulnerable with aid, please.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,657
Sarah, I was thinking of those who are not cared for by their family, families definitely need respite care.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
vic and his team can now alter the sums that have to be saved.
dexia bank in belgium have deposited 10 million smackers in the account of k.c.c.