The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Panel that Councillor Meerabux would be permanently replacing Councillor Mortimer.

There was a further change of membership: Councillor Jeffree replaced Councillor Watkin for this meeting.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Panel that as a Vice-Chair had not been elected at Annual Council it was necessary to seek nominations for the post.  She advised that the convention was that an Opposition Councillor was the Vice-Chair of Budget Panel.

Councillor Dhindsa nominated Councillor Meerabux as Vice-Chair, which was seconded by Councillor Rackett.

Councillor Derbyshire noted that Councillor Rackett had declined the position at Annual Council.  He said that he felt it was too early for Councillor Meerabux to undertake the role, as he was still a fairly new Councillor.  Councillor Derbyshire then nominated Councillor Poole.

The Chair commented that the role should be based on a person’s ability rather than their length of service.  His understanding was that the roles of Chair and Vice-Chair of Budget Panel were taken by Opposition Members and if the current nomination had taken place at Annual Council this would have been the case.

Both nominations were put to the Panel and Councillor Poole was declared the Vice-Chair.

RESOLVED –

that Councillor Tony Poole be elected Vice-Chair of the Budget Panel for the 2011/12 Municipal Year.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2011 to be submitted and signed.  (All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2011 were submitted and signed.

This report informs the Budget Panel of the process put in place to identify further efficiency savings whilst either maintaining or improving current levels of service delivery.

The Panel received a report of the Executive Director of Resources setting out the processes put in place to identify further efficiency savings whilst either maintaining or improving current levels of service delivery.

The Executive Director Resources informed the Panel that the report highlighted the 12 projects put in place to deliver improvement in key processes.  A benefits analysis would be carried out to assess their value and key milestones would be reported to Members.  Once these 12 projects had been completed, more would be added to the programme.  The Council needed to constantly look at the way it worked and to deliver efficiencies going forward.

Following a question from the Chair regarding the Consultant employed to assist with the programme, the Head of Strategic Finance advised that the Consultant had been working at the Council for six months and would be continuing until September.  This role was an integral part of the service programme. He added that the Consultant was not paid if he was on holiday or on sick leave.  The approximate cost was £20,000.  He confirmed that this would be offset by the savings identified.

A Member stated that this was a long-term process and asked what would happen once the Consultant left and where the strategic leadership would lie.  The Member added that the performance of revenues and benefits had been inconsistent and enquired what implications the changes would have on this.  He also referred to the Government’s proposed changes to the benefits system.

The Executive Director Resources said that there were two key projects which were crucial to the revenues and benefits shared service.  The first was to ensure that both Watford and Three Rivers staff were working on the same system and version of the software.  Once this had taken place the processes would be harmonised and the Customer Service Centre trained to answer some queries.  It was hoped this would be in place by the end of December 2011.  The service was continually improving.  There would be further changes in the future.

The Executive Director Resources informed the Panel that as the Council progressed through the first phase of the programme; dialogue would start and consider what the Council could do in 2012/13.  The strategic overview came from the Programme Delivery Board, with leadership from the Managing Director and both Executive Directors.

Planning projects – Data Cleansing

A Member asked for clarification about the annual savings referred to in the report.

The Corporate Projects Section Head explained that the savings of £19,830 were gross.  The cost of data cleansing was £20,000.  In the current financial year this cost had been covered by savings from a vacant post.  The savings would be shown in the next and subsequent years.  The data cleansing was currently in progress and the expected completion date was July or August.  A data sample had been sent back to the Council for checking.  It was important to ensure that no new errors were created.

Corporate projects – Channel Shift

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

A PowerPoint presentation will be given highlighting the salient features of the benchmarking study.

The Panel received a report of the Head of Strategic Finance setting out an introduction to the Harlow Value for Money Study.  A presentation was given incorporating the comparisons between Watford Borough Council, Stevenage Borough Council and Harlow Council. 

The Head of Strategic Finance explained that the benchmarking process tried to compare costs and activities with other local authorities.  The figures used for the study were the 2009/10 outturn figures.  The figures would not include the efficiency savings identified through service prioritisation.  Harlow Council had included other authorities, but the Leadership Team had discounted them due to the size of populations. 

The presentation showed the comparative statistics for the three authorities, which included population; the 2009 CAA overall performance result, indices of deprivation rank, population density and ethnicity.  The key comparisons highlighted were revenue expenditure, environment expenditure, planning expenditure, parking costs per head, culture and community costs, benefits and taxation and the corporate and democratic core costs. 

Members were invited to ask questions about the comparisons.

The Chair asked how much each authority charged for Council Tax.  As this information was not available it was agreed that this would be circulated to Members. 

A Member commented that Watford had a high Council Tax and high expenditure.  He felt this was due to the quality of service.  He added that Watford had maintained a weekly bin collection which was valued by residents.  This was bound to be more expensive that fortnightly collections.

A Member commented that the benchmarking exercise did not give a true picture, as it was a standard form which was completed.

The Consultant advised that this was a proven method to compare unit costs of authorities.  He acknowledged that comparison based on unit costs alone would never be the full story and that the benchmarking did not show how an authority delivered a service.  It would be difficult to find an authority exactly the same.  The information would help Members decide whether further investigation was needed into a service.

Following a question from the Chair about comparisons, the Consultant advised that the calculations had been based per head of population and had not factored in visitors to the town. 

The Consultant advised that the Planning costs for Watford were higher than the other two authorities, but it was amongst the best performing authorities in the country.  The calculation had not been assessed on an application basis.  There had been a recent benchmarking study which had compared per application.  Watford was still high in comparison.

The Portfolio Holder referred to the parking net income.  He said that some of the income would be within the Property service.  The parking account was net nil.

The Panel considered the Culture and Community expenditure.  The Head of Strategic Finance said that, based on the comparisons, it might raise the question whether the Council had too many parks or grass pitches.

The Chair said that he was unsure the reference to 77 grass pitches and 30 parks was correct and asked that details  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report and accompanying documents presented to Cabinet at its meeting on 6 June are attached for Budget Panel’s consideration.

The Panel received a report of the Head of Community Services which had been presented to Cabinet at its meeting on 6 June 2011.  The Housing Value for Money Review aimed to achieve savings targets for 2011/12 and 2012/13, which were part of the Service Prioritisation Programme.  The report set out the process and the recommendations to achieve the Phase 1 savings proposals.  The proposals for Phase 2 were due to be presented to Cabinet in September.  An external consultant had been used to provide an external challenge.

The Chair noted that the officer had referred to a consultant being used and asked that a report was provided with a breakdown of consultants’ costs spent in the whole Council.

The Chair commented that due to changes in housing benefits there was likely to be more pressure on local housing.  He had noted that there were 14 families being accommodated in bed and breakfast premises.  He asked what plans were in place for the long term.  He also asked for information about housing staff costs, particularly as it was proposed that £150,000 saving needed to be found in the second phase.

The Housing Section Head replied that the consultant had cost £18,000 and had carried out their work over a month.  With regard to families being accommodated in bed and breakfast accommodation, the Housing Section Head said that this was a huge concern.  Officers were working hard to resolve this situation.  They were looking at a number of options, including discussions with other local authorities and the Housing Trust; reviewing hostels which were no longer in use by the service; linking with the private sector and homeless prevention.  It was possible that there would be an increased pressure due to people moving out of London.  Housing officers were working with Housing Benefits to track interest in moving to the area. 

The Housing Section Head advised the Panel that in order to find £150,000 savings it was likely staffing levels would be affected.  She referred Members to the housing budget document included with the report.  There were four teams in housing with a total of 20.43 staff although this included a 0.5 full time equivalent post which had been deleted as part of Phase 1.  Each role would be looked at; what work was done and whether it could be done differently.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Panel that the Budget Book was available on the Council’s website.  All expenditure was broken down.  The Housing Service was on pages 75 to 85.  The figures also included agency and consultancy costs. 

A Member commented that the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) provided money advice.  She asked whether there was any overlap between the two services. 

The Housing Section Head responded that the CAB did a great job but would not necessarily have the capacity to deal with urgent cases threatened with homelessness.  The clients seen by the Council had urgent demands.  Whilst carrying out the review she would be looking to see  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This report sets out the draft work programme for 2011/12.

The Panel received a report of the Legal and Democratic Section Head including a draft work programme for 2011/12.

A Member suggested that meeting 2 to be held in July was overcrowded.  He recommended that the review of Controlled Parking Zones should move to September.  He also suggested that the Panel should review income generation in September prior to the fees and charges report.

The Head of Strategic Finance confirmed that Budget Panel had previously looked at the trade refuse service in depth and a similar exercise on income generation in September would be timely.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer reminded the Panel that it had been suggested that a report regarding the cost of consultants could be presented at the next meeting.

The Chair clarified that it should also incorporate agency staff costs and should cover 2010/11 and the current year.

The Portfolio Holder referred Members to the Budget Book as it contained all the information set out by departments.

It was agreed that this would be circulated to the Panel rather than as an item on the agenda.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Panel that the Housing Value for Money Phase 2 report was due to be presented to Cabinet in September.  She advised that Budget Panel was due to meet to day after Cabinet.

It was suggested that either an informal meeting could be set up to review the second phase of the Housing Value for Money review.

RESOLVED –

1.         that the draft work programme be updated

2.         that an informal meeting be set up to consider the Housing Value for Money Review Phase 2.

·               Monday 18 July 2011

·               Tuesday 27 September 2011

·               Tuesday 25 October 2011

·               Monday 18 July 2011

·               Tuesday 27 September 2011

·               Tuesday 25 October 2011