Decision details

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Smith)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Environmental Services to seek Cabinet’s agreement for entry into a revised cost sharing agreement with the County Council from April 1^st 2013.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

The County Council was essentially proposing the following-

PROPOSAL- To accept a revised cost sharing agreement from 2012/13 (one year ahead of the termination of the current arrangement). This agreement would provide the City Council with a contribution of £6,099,594 over a 5 year period from April 2013. The amount also included payments for loss of recycling income as were currently provided. The amount offered was less than the amount offered under the current agreement. Two sub-options were presented to provide choice as to the contribution received.  Sub- option 1a saw the contribution spread equally over the 5 year period. In 2012 /13 this option would mean that approximately £104,000 extra savings would have to be made by the Council. Sub- option 1b saw the contribution front loaded in profile. Based on the financial appraisal (see financial implications in the report to the agenda) it appeared that Sub-option 1a would be the easier option to manage.

Acceptance of the cost sharing agreement required a commitment to provide at least 90% of households with three- stream waste collection arrangements (which Lancaster City Council had already achieved). Increasing of collection frequencies of residual waste (grey bins) to less than fortnightly would not be acceptable. If the City Council wished to accept the County Council have requested for budgeting purposes that we inform them by October 31^st.

If the City Council did not wish to accept the revised offer it would remain within the current cost sharing agreement until its end in 2013/14. At this point there was no indication that any further financial support would be provided by the County Council.   In theory this would allow Lancaster City Council greater freedom as to collection arrangements e.g. reintroduction of weekly grey bin collections. In practice the combined cost of the loss of cost sharing (£1.2million / year)  and the increased cost of reintroduction of weekly bin collections (£1- 1.5 million / year) would make this option unrealistic from a financial perspective. It would also be contrary to the aims of the Council’s corporate plan.

Essentially there were two choices-

·         Accept the revised cost sharing agreement

·         Not accept the revised cost sharing agreement

For the reasons outlined above the officer preferred, and only realistic option, was to accept the County Council’s proposal of entry into a revised cost sharing agreement from April 1^st 2013. The most preferable sub-option from both an operational and financial perspective was to accept the contribution spread equally over the 5 year period of the agreement (Sub – option 1a).

Councillor Smith proposed, seconded by Councillor Blamire:-

“(1)      That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That Lancaster City Council agrees to entry into the revised cost sharing agreement with the County Council from April 1^st 2013.

(2)        That Lancaster City Council indicates that its’ preference is to have the contribution from the cost sharing agreement spread evenly over the 5 year period (Sub-option 1a).

(3)        That the Head of Environmental Services informs County of the above and is delegated to agree the precise operational details of the agreement.

(4)        That budget projections are updated accordingly

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Head of Environmental Services

Head of Resources

Reasons for making the decision:

Waste collection / recycling is provided to all households in the District and is a statutory service.  Whilst the decision to accept the proposals would require the Council to consider potential savings and efficiencies as part of the forthcoming MTFS and budget review, it provided a clearer and less risky picture for the future and greater stability in year-on-year operational and financial planning.