Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for inability to attend the meeting (if any).

There were no apologies for absence received.  

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 19 January 2010.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2010 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

There were no declarations of interest received.

Purpose: To receive an update on actions following the previous Committee meeting. 

The Committee considered information provided as requested at the previous meeting (Agenda Item 4).

The information provided on social care contract negotiation was noted.  This would be returned to when Teresa Bell, Corporate Director (Community Services), was next in attendance in order to seek further clarity.

(Councillor David Holtby joined the meeting at 6.35pm).

The outcome of the joint work being conducted by the Stronger Communities Select Committee and the Greener Select Committee on public transport would be reviewed when completed, to assess whether the Resource Management Select Committee wished to cover any additional work related to the topic.

The information provided detailing the costs of providing childcare vouchers to staff was noted.  Andy Walker confirmed that the budget provision was held in Human Resources. 

RESOLVED that:

(1)               Work on negotiating social care contracts would be returned to when Teresa Bell was next in attendance in order to seek further clarity.

(2)               The outcome of the joint public transport scrutiny work would be reviewed when completed to assess whether the Select Committee wished to cover any additional work related to the topic. 

Purpose: To review the efficiency and effectiveness of Property Services in relation to contracts and the use of contractors in schools. 

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5) in continuation of its work to review the efficiency and effectiveness of Property Services in relation to contracts and the use of contractors in schools. 

Steve Broughton highlighted the following key points in relation to the repeated school survey:

·                    The survey reinforced what was already identified following the Property Service review and the original school survey.  The Property Service action plan sought to address these issues.  This included improvements to communication with schools, with further surveys planned and more informal contact both during and post a project.  Test surveys had been run with Theale Green Community School and Mortimer St Johns Infant School. 

·                    The full list of comments provided by schools responding to the survey had been examined and noted.  Steve Broughton felt that many of these were historical and had been addressed previously,  although trend analysis had been undertaken.  However, concerns remained for some schools based on their previous experience of work undertaken.  There were also some positive responses, albeit minimal. 

·                    There was no specific target to increase the number of schools buying back services, but there was a desire to maximise this. 

·                    It was acknowledged that the project management methodology needed further development and this had been picked up in the action plan.

·                    Many issues related to the cost of the Council’s maintenance term contractor, Kier.  It was acknowledged that schools did need to pay a premium for the contract which included emergency call outs.  However, quotes provided were often challenged and in some cases an alternative contractor had been used.  A working group had been set up to discuss the future of this contract which included schools and Education Officers. 

Some of the particulars of the Kier contract were then discussed.  Andy Green advised that the contract was in its eighth year.  It had been renewed for a further three years on the completion of the original five year contract.  The contract was due for renewal in April 2011.

It was made clear to schools that the contract was not meant for minor works and a handyman service had been offered on a trial basis to schools.  However, there had not been a great take up at this stage.  This was partly due to the fact that some schools employed caretakers. 

Members queried whether there was sufficient awareness of this service.  Steve Broughton confirmed that it was included in every Property Service newsletter and communicated at the Education Management Advisory Board.  Mark Lewis added his view that information needed to be regularly communicated to schools in this way. 

It was queried whether the issue raised by a number of schools in relation to the way in which jobs were invoiced and paid had been incorporated into the action plan.  Schools reported that they were not always aware of final prices and this therefore impacted on their budget monitoring.  Andy Green explained that as schools could not access the Council’s financial system, Agresso, Property Services were authorised to process  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Purpose: To outline to the Select Committee the results and recommendations arising from the Task Group review into why S106 contributions have been unspent and the issues delaying payment. 

The Committee considered a report outlining the results of the task group review into why S106 contributions have been unspent and the issues delaying payment (Agenda Item 6).

Councillor Laszlo Zverko, Chairman of the Task Group, introduced the report presented for the Select Committee’s approval.  Once approved the report would be taken to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission for their endorsement. 

The Committee went through the report paying particular attention to the recommendations and the following comments/amendments were made:

Paragraph 9.1 (conclusions).  There was some difference in opinion regarding whether the statement that “the system in West Berkshire operated well with S106 contributions spent appropriately where possible” was accurate.  There was generally agreement that the system had improved and it was felt that the task group’s work had contributed to this. 

Andy Walker advised that unspent balances were monitored by, and service areas attended, quarterly meetings of the S106 sub group of the Capital Group.  This supported recommendation 4.

An amendment was requested to recommendation 12, to request that Parish and Town Councils discuss S106 contributions as a standing item at some or all of their meetings.

An amendment was requested to recommendation 14, that if a set timeframe for spending contributions was exceeded then service areas should investigate whether contributions could be reallocated to another appropriate area, subject to legal agreements. 

Councillor David Rendel, another Member on the task group, suggested that there were some aspects raised as part of the review that would be useful for the Select Committee to receive in future.  This was to understand progress with payments which had been outstanding for many years, although these amounts were minimal.  Also developments with the Community Infrastructure Levy. 

RESOLVED that:

(1)               The report would be approved with the amendments requested and then sent to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission for endorsement. 

(2)               Additional information would be requested for a future meeting regarding progress with payments which had been outstanding for many years, as well as information on developments with the Community Infrastructure Levy.  These would be added to the work programme. 

Purpose: To discuss the current position and to identify areas of good practice.  

The Committee considered the current position of the Children and Young People Directorate budget (Agenda Item 7).

Margaret Goldie reported that the Directorate would be underspent by approximately £400k.  This was primarily due to underspends within Children’s Services and was for the following reasons:

·                    A reduction in allowances paid to foster carers.

·                    An expectation that expensive residential placements would be required, however this level of need did not materialise.

·                    A significant level of income had been received as a result of other local authorities purchasing adopters trained by West Berkshire Council.  This was a reciprocal arrangement.

·                    The age range of children in foster care in 2009/10 differed to the previous financial year and indeed the current financial year.  Many younger children were in the fostering system during 2009/10 than was normally the case and this meant that costs were reduced, even though the actual number of children in foster placements remained fairly unchanged at the annual average of 130.  This was because a number of older children moved out of the system.  The age profile for 2010/11 differed with many older children in the looked after system which would mean an increased cost.  These changes were hard to predict as many children moved in and out of the system, although the age profile was tracked as much as possible to help estimate costs, i.e. those due to reach the age of 18.  Budgets were also based on previous financial years.

·                    Care proceedings were seen as a last resort and efforts were first made to place a child with other family members or friends.  Although from a budget point of view this did not necessarily reduce costs as allowances still needed to be paid. 

·                    The reduction of professional services mentioned in the report referred to consultancy and advisory functions.  This funding was contained within the Corporate Director budget and was seen as non priority spend, this part of the budget was therefore frozen. 

Members felt that it would be useful to understand the budget variations that have occurred since the previous budget report was made to the Select Committee in order to help analysis.  It was agreed that the spreadsheet provided at the previous meeting would be presented with the latest report at future meetings.  

RESOLVED that Stephen Chard would circulate the spreadsheet discussed at the previous Committee meeting alongside the latest report in order to help analysis.

Purpose: To make the Select Committee aware of the latest financial position of the Council.  

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 8) concerning the month 11 revenue budget monitoring.

Community Services

The £16k saving against the subsidy for Newbury Cinema was queried.  Andy Walker agreed to provide a written answer to explain this.

Environment

It was queried whether the estimated additional cost of £651k for winter maintenance and road repairs could be assisted by grant monies.  Andy Walker advised that this grant could only be used in 2010/11.

Chief Executive

It was noted that the underspend for the Chief Executive’s Directorate budget had increased by £223k from the previous month.  This was felt to be a large movement which was also the case in previous years.  A concern was raised that forecasting was not sufficiently accurate.

The delay with the CCTV transfer was queried and a written response was requested.  A written response was also requested to explain why the large refund identified within ICT had not been found at an earlier stage and similarly why the additional fee income in Legal and Electoral Services had not, at least in part, been budgeted for.

It was agreed that Nick Carter would be asked to provide the information relating to the Chief Executive’s Directorate budget. 

The costs of the general election were fully funded by a central government grant.  Andy Walker agreed to check who met the costs of the local election with the Returning Officer.

Levies and Interest

The high underspend of £340k was queried.  Andy Walker explained that this was mostly in relation to savings made within the pay award budget, with the remainder coming from budget accruals made by service areas which were no longer required.

Andy Walker advised that the year end figure was not yet finalised but it was the intention to report this at Executive on 17 June 2010.    

RESOLVED that:

(1)               Andy Walker would provide a written answer to explain the £16k saving against the subsidy for Newbury Cinema.

(2)               Nick Carter would be asked to provide the information requested that related to the Chief Executive’s budget.

(3)               Andy Walker would check who met the costs of administering the local election with the Returning Officer.    

Purpose: To report the progress on the Capital Programme for 2009/10.  

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 9) concerning the month 11 capital programme monitoring.

It was commented that it was pleasing to see the high level of budget commitment.  

RESOLVED that the report would be noted. 

Purpose: To consider and prioritise the work programme for 2010/11.  

The Committee considered the Resource Management Select Committee Work Programme (Agenda Item 10).

The items intended for the next scheduled meeting of 15 June 2010 were noted. 

Councillor Jeff Brooks raised the need to identify future scrutiny topics that could be added to the work programme.  Councillor Jeff Brooks and Councillor Laszlo Zverko agreed to pursue this through their respective. political groups. 

RESOLVED that:

(1)                           The items intended for the meeting on 15 June 2010 would be noted.

(2)                           Councillor Jeff Brooks and Councillor Laszlo Zverko would seek to identify future scrutiny topics through their respective political groups. 

Purpose: To receive a report on the changes to the Council’s Establishment over the third quarter of 2009/10. 

The Committee considered the Quarter 3 Establishment Report (Agenda Item 11).

The downward trend in the establishment was noted by the Committee.

There was however an increase in jointly and externally funded posts, which carried a risk if external funding was reduced. 

RESOLVED that the report would be noted.

RESOLVED that members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the under-mentioned item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as contained in Paragraphs(s) * of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information)(Variation) Order 2006. Rule 9.10.4 of the Constitution also refers.

The Committee considered an exempt report providing a funding update on the St Bartholomew’s School rebuild project.

Margaret Goldie presented the report which described the risks to the project in relation to the sums raised from land sales as part of the St Barthomolew’s School rebuild project, as requested by the Select Committee.

Margaret Goldie confirmed that the work was on schedule. 

RESOLVED that the report would be noted.