Decision Maker: Cabinet
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: Yes
To advise cabinet of the current position of creating a shared service for the Property Service function of the Council and to provide direction to enable further discussions.
Cabinet resolved unanimously not to exclude the press and public at this point
(Cabinet Member with Special
Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)
Cabinet received a report from the Chief Executive to advise of the current position of creating a shared service with the Property Service function of the Council and to provide direction to enable discussions to be concluded with a single authority.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
Although a full costing analysis had not been completed officers were coming to the conclusion that a decision on a preferred partner was the most logical next step. The two options were set out below.
|
|
Option 1: Shared Service with the County Council |
Option 2: Shared Service with SLDC/NPS |
|
Advantages |
Improved district wide asset management leading to potential revenue savings and capital receipts for the City and County through property rationalisation delivered through the new function.
Offers an opportunity to redefine standards with amore robust resource to manage the joint portfolio of the city and county councils.
Allows for the potential benefits of being part of larger contracts with possible cost reductions.
Potential cost reductions through shared management and reduced establishment. |
Allows the authority to take advantage of alternative resources and management expertise.
Offers the opportunity to redefine standards & possibly reduce service costs
Increase the pace of change & innovation
|
|
Disadvantages |
Not all costs have been identified at this stage until the city council’s direction is more clear.
Both councils would potentially have differing aims & objectives.
Differing schemes of delegation and ways of working
|
This is an unknown cost until final agreement is reached
There would be a need for a client officer with appropriate funding.
Internal ‘notional’ recharges (based on time spent by staff within other support services, e.g. Financial, Governance Services, etc) replaced by actual management costs charged by NPS, but not necessarily offset by corporate corresponding saving from reduced staffing levels in other support services
|
|
Risks |
There would be a need to ensure that the aims of the shared service are brought together to ensure that all local objectives are achieved to the satisfaction of both authorities.
Failure to achieve the local objectives of both authorities could lead to a reduced level of service provision with delays likely in undertaking work
|
Costs still need to be determined.
Provider may not be able to respond as quickly to local objectives due to reduced local knowledge of the Lancaster district or where there are specific areas of difference despite having similar requirements
Public procurement rules, i.e. failure of the ‘client function’ meeting the legal definition of a shared service agreement
|
Option 1 was the officer preferred option. To make further progress in this review it was advisable to make a decision on a preferred partner to allow that option to be worked up in more detail. It was unreasonable to continue working up proposals with other organisations if there is potentially little likelihood of further progress. The County Council proposal provided the potential for much improved asset management for the district as a whole and our shared citizens and actual cost savings.
Formal consultation with employees and trade unions should commence immediately.
Councillor Hamilton-Cox proposed, seconded by Councillor Blamire:-
“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”
Councillors then voted:-
Resolved unanimously:
(1) That the County Council be identified as the preferred partner for a shared property service.
(2) That Cabinet be kept informed of progress.
(3) That formal consultation commence with staff and trade unions.
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Chief Executive
Head of Property Services
Reasons for making the decision:
The provision of property services affects the operation of all the Council’s buildings and therefore any future provider of these services will need to be conscious of the need to reflect sustainable practices in their work. The Corporate Plan refers to “Partnership Working and Community Leadership” within which it is identified that we should work with partners to reduce costs, make efficiencies and create resilience within the district. Specifically reference is made to “develop a programme with Lancashire County Council to reduce costs by sharing more of our services.” The efficiencies delivered from developing a shared service will assist in achieving the outcomes of the Council’s savings and efficiency programme and targets outlined in the Medium Term Financial Strategy and Medium Term Property Strategy.
Report author: Elaine Stoker
Publication date: 02/08/2011
Date of decision: 26/07/2011
Decided at meeting: 26/07/2011 - Cabinet
Effective from: 10/08/2011
Accompanying Documents: