Agenda item

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 were circulated to the Panel.

The Portfolio Holder said that if Cassiobury Park was excluded, the density statistics for Watford would be higher.  Watford was a small geographical area but it provided facilities for people outside the Council’s geographical area.  The cost of visitors to the area was not compensated by the Government but by the local residents.

A Member said that the information did demonstrate that Watford was a high cost Council and it should not be complacent.  The Council needed to continue to be rigorous in its service prioritisation exercise.  It was important the Council did not get into the position where it needed to borrow money.

The Chair stated that he did not agree with the Member’s comments. 

A Member said that she had found the study interesting.  It was necessary to consider whether people wanted to pay for the services provided.  The key thing to be considered was the service provided to the customer. 

Another Member said that he considered it was possible to identify efficiencies, but he did not want the Council to lose the good things it was known for.  The quality of service needed to be maintained.

The Head of Strategic Finance informed the Panel that the housing comparisons had not been included as both of the other authorities still had a Housing Revenues Account.  He said that the conclusion he could identify from the study was that Watford had a high cost and provided a high quality service.  It would be possible to find efficiencies without decimating services. 

A Member suggested that the Panel needed to look at the income generated by services.  For example, whether bookings were from Watford residents or those outside of the Borough.  The cost impact of licensed premises.  The demand for services and whether they were a fair price.

The Chair thanked the officers for the presentation and Members for their contributions.

RESOLVED –

1.         that the Council Tax for the three authorities be circulated to Members.

2.         that a list of all grass pitches and parks be circulated to Budget Panel.