Minutes:
(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillor Evelyn Archer and Maia Whitelegg)
(Councillors Eileen Blamire and Tony Johnson declared prejudicial interests in the following item due to being members of the Williamson Park Board of Directors and left the meeting prior to consideration thereof.)
In accordance with Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman agreed to consider the report as an item urgent business as it may have budget implications for the Council that needed to be considered as part of the 2008/9 budget process.
The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) submitted a report that gave consideration to the recommendations of the Williamson Park Board that had met on 10th January 2008 in respect of their considerations regarding the future management arrangements of the Company.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:
To continue with the existing arrangements is not an option and therefore there are only 2 realistic alternatives
Option 1 - To agree to the request from the Williamson Park Board.
This would mean Williamson Park retaining its existing company status but with support arrangements formalised through service level agreements.
As officer support to the Company has been on an ad hoc basis, there is no detailed record of the level of support that has been provided to date. This option would therefore require officers from both the Council and the Company to meet to scope and cost up the arrangements that would be required in order for the Company to achieve its business plan objectives.
Until this exercise has been undertaken, it is impossible to say if the Council would incur additional costs. If indeed the required support could not be provided from within existing resources or accommodated within service business plans, then it is certain that additional costs would be incurred.
Option 2 – Decide to dissolve the company and bring the operation back into the Council.
This would mean dissolving the company and transferring the Parks staff and budgets to the City Council. In effect, the Parks operation would be subsumed into the Council’s existing services. The Council would then be responsible for reviewing and delivering the Company’s existing business plan objectives.
It is likely that the transfer of staff would take place under TUPE conditions and this transfer could incur costs in relation to any improvements in staff conditions of service that may be required.
Bringing the Company back into the Council would also require consideration of the same officer support requirements as referred to in option 1 but maybe not on the same scale.
It is further likely that the dissolution of the company would itself have costs attached but these have not been costed at this stage.
There were no preferred officer recommendations.
It was moved by Councillor Roger Mace and seconded by Councillor Abbott Bryning:-
“That Option 1 as an in principle decision, as set out in the report, be approved.”
Members then voted as follows.
Resolved:
(6 Members voted in favour (Councillors June Ashworth, Jon Barry, Abbott Bryning, John Gilbert, Roger Mace and Maia Whitelegg) and 1 Member abstained from voting (Councillor Evelyn Archer)
(1) That, in principle, Cabinet agrees to the request from the Williamson Park Board in respect of the future management arrangements of Williamson Park.
Officer responsible for effecting the decision:
Corporate Director (Finance & Performance).
Reason for making the decision:
The decision means that Williamson Park retains its existing company status, but with support arrangements formalised through service level agreements.
The ‘in principle’ decision has been made at this time in order for further detailed work to be carried out and reported back to Members before a final decision is made.