Agenda item

To consider the proposed revenue and capital bids for the Chief Executive's Office and Resources and Assets Directorates.

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 55 to 136, which set out the proposed revenue and capital bids for the Chief Executive’s Office and the Resources and Assets Directorate.

 

Clive Jones (Leader of the Council), Imogen Shepherd-DuBey (Executive Member for Finance), Rachel Bishop-Firth (Executive Member for Equalities, Inclusion and Fighting Poverty), Sarah Kerr (Executive Member for Climate Emergency and Resident Services), Ian Shenton (Executive Member for Environment, Sport and Leisure), Graham Ebers (Deputy Chief Executive (Director of Resources and Assets)), and Glynn Davies (Head of IT) attended the meeting to answer member queries.

 

The Executive Member for Finance commented that Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) was facing significant financial pressure due to inflation, and emphasised that every saving and income generation opportunity was important.

 

During the ensuing discussion, members raised the following points and queries:

 

·         In relation to business rates, had any downturn in the economy been factored into assumptions? Officer response – Business rates was a complex area, where the actual debit had increased (more new businesses had entered the area over time) and the multiple had also increased, whilst collection remained quite reasonable at approximately 99%. The main concern in this area was about a re-evaluation, which would almost certainly not come into play in 2023/24 due to the level of work required by the Government, however any re-evaluation would likely not be favourable for authorities such as WBC who had historically grown;

 

·         In relation to 3G pitch bid, where was the £45k saving going to be generated? Executive Member and officer response – This was based on mimicking the performance at other 3G pitches in the area, whilst being in line with the business case presented to the Executive. This was a modest surplus after the cost of running the site and capital financing costs. The whole scheme was under review as cost assumptions had changed significantly;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R3, car parking fees – Cantley Park, it was guaranteed last year that no car parking fees would be introduced at Laurel Park. Were the same guarantees given to Cantley Park? Executive Member response – More active discussion needed to be had regarding this proposal before it could go ahead;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R3, car parking fees – Cantley Park, there was a lot of alternative options for people to park for free. Did the projected savings factor in people choosing to park for free elsewhere and people choosing to walk or cycle to Cantley Park, and was there an option to place all country park car parks under one set of management with one set of policies? Executive Member response – This proposal needed very careful consideration to ascertain if savings were realistic and to measure any impacts on use of the site and its facilities. The possibility of one set of management for the country park car parks was already under consideration in its early stages;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R12, sport and leisure income generation (unachievable income generation), why was there a growth bid and had options been explored closer to the Wokingham Town Centre, for example at Elms Field? Executive Member response – There would originally have been a savings bid associated with this income, however, as the event was not very successful this savings line now had to be taken out of the MTFP. There were no firm plans to look at hosting the event elsewhere, however this could be explored in future;

 

·         It was noted that Wokingham Theatre needed to be included within the impact statement for the proposed changes to the Cantley car park;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R12, sport and leisure income generation (unachievable income generation), it was suggested that officers speak to Winnersh Parish Council about an outdoor gym, which they had experience with;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R19, one off growth to support leisure income recovery, what was the background to this bid? Officer response – This bid was to support the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic in terms of lost revenue as a result of lower uptake of subscriptions and activities. The figure of £70k could potentially be too low to plug the gap. Places Leisure were doing well in some areas, however the Council’s overall offering went a lot wider than private gyms including classes and support for the vulnerable and elderly;

 

·         In relation to bid CE R4, removal of telephone lines when Teams telephony went live, was the cost of Teams telephony included in the saving? Officer response – Yes, the proposed saving was the net position after switching to Teams telephony;

 

·         In relation to bid CE C1, Microsoft E5, was there a proposed increase in the number of licences? Officer response – Microsoft E5 was an expensive service, and the contract was reviewed every 4 years. Based on the regulations, this contract could be capitalised;

 

·         In relation to bid CE R2, effective use of Council owned community spaces, was the £150k saving achievable? Executive Member response – This was at an early stage where officers were exploring if partner organisations could operate out of WBC sites. A community strategy was being developed which would prove informative;

 

·         In relation to bid CE R1, reduced provision of mobile phones, could this potentially reduce staff morale and had the business continuity aspect of solely relying on Microsoft teams been considered? Executive Member and officer response – This saving represented 50% of currently deployed phones. Certain teams required phones whilst others did not, whilst Teams telephony would allow the implementation of ‘bring your own device’. Staff were becoming very aware of the need to make savings wherever possible. Almost all staff were issued a phone during the pandemic and many no longer required them, whilst business continuity aspects and security implications needed additional work;

 

·         In relation to bid CE R3, removal of two apprenticeship posts, were WBC still dedicated to keeping apprentices across the organisation? Executive member response – Absolutely, this was fundamental for the organisation and removal of these two posts were most certainly not part of the ‘norm’;

 

·         Had open-source software solutions been evaluated as a saving opportunity? Officer response – This had not been looked at in terms of collaborative tools, as WBC was bound by procurement regulations and staff may struggle with open-source software productivity wise;

 

·         In relation to bid CE R6, new WBC website, was work being done to maximise the revenue generation from advertisement? Officer response – WBC used to advertise on the current website however this was removed as the income was relatively small. This could be re-evaluated in line with current rates for advertisement;

 

·         When would the next contract for mobile phones be renewed? Officer response – This would begin next year, and a year-by-year scaling back would be in operation;

 

·         Would laptop refresh rates for staff be scaled back? Executive Member and officer response – The current refresh rate was between 3 and 4 years, and options were being explored to move this to 4 to 5 years. Some laptops needed critical upgrades which could not be delayed, whilst technology needed to be of a certain standard to allow access to the public service network;

 

·         Had chrome books been considered for staff laptops, as they were generally cheaper? Officer response – Many officers needed to work in a Microsoft Windows environment. The average cost of a laptop was £750, with some staff requiring more powerful hardware and some requiring less powerful hardware. WBC typically bought laptops at the wholesale price plus 3%. Officers were exploring options for ‘Windows as a service’, and WBC did need to continue to move away from legacy applications. It was requested that officers explore market opportunities, including the use of virtual machines to facilitate Microsoft Windows use;

 

·         Did WBC receive revenue for recycling old hardware, and could hardware be donated to local schools? Officer response – A contract was in place which provided a relatively small amount of money for recycling hardware. WBC would like to send used hardware to schools but due to licencing requirements this could prove difficult and even expensive for schools. It was noted that Microsoft offered special rates for students, and officers were requested to explore whether this could help old equipment being donated to schools;

 

·         Was it possible to get more solar farms online at a faster rate? Executive Member response – Future sites would be smaller than the Barkham site, and they would be taken forwards as quickly as was feasible;

 

·         In relation to bid CE R7, budget required to deliver sustainable organisational change, could the cumulative movement (a reduction in year 2) be explained? Officer response – There was an associated growth bid in year 2 which would ‘top-up’ the ongoing funding;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R11, salary funding pressure from cost of abortive feasibility works, could some further explanation be given? Officer response – Capital projects were explored on an annual basis, and where problems occurred and the project did not progress there was an associated revenue cost. These costs could not be capitalised, and it was prudent to put an estimated annual cost via a growth bid into the revenue budget;

 

·         With regards to the proposed reduction of the Borough News, had this saving included postage costs and had the impacts on vulnerable residents be considered? Executive Member response – There were reservations about this proposal which were being reviewed. The idea to move to one edition would allow them to be posted alongside annual Council Tax receipts;

 

·         In relation to bid CE R7, budget required to deliver sustainable organisational change, was this revenue cost of delivering the savings? Officer response – The funding included support for teams working on the user experience, user interface, organisational change, graduate scheme, and business analysts. This was considered a key corporate issue to deliver savings across the organisation, and this spend would facilitate these savings;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R1, income generation from solar farms, what did the £500k saving in year 3 represent? Officer response – This was the result of a part year effect of the introduction of a 2^nd site in year 2, after the costs of running the site and the costs of capital financing;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R17, investment and estates property pressures from depressed markets, were options being explored to see how WBC could work with businesses to make them as successful as they could be? Executive Member response – This was a very difficult area where the original forecasts were no longer achievable due to the changing retail environment and individuals’ incomes being squeezed. WBC would continue to work with businesses to try and get them to enter the Borough on good terms;

 

·         It was noted that large proposed spends such as CE R7, budget required to deliver sustainable organisational change, should have additional detail provided as they were very significant spends. Officers agreed to provide additional detail to the Committee with regards to this specific bid, and agreed to provide additional detail with regards to large proposed spends in future;

 

·         In relation to bid RA C1, community investment, it was noted that Councils could no longer borrow (through the public works loans board) to invest in property for purely commercial purposes, due to a change in legislation. Investments now needed to provide a community benefit, and a return on investment was secondary to this. There was £93.5m left for investment, and this would only be spent if the purchase covered all borrowing costs and demonstrably provided a community benefit, for example the purchase of a care home;

 

·         Had leasing vacant units on a short-term basis for ‘pop-up’ shops been considered? Executive Member response – This had been suggested to officers to explore;

 

·         With regards to a recent news article concerning the possible redevelopment of shops in the Wokingham Town Centre which would involve existing businesses having to vacate, were early proactive conversations taking place with these businesses to discuss potential spaces that they might be able to relocate to? Executive Member response – Whilst there was no active planning application relating to this proposal, officers and members could proactively engage to explore any potential options;

 

·         Were there opportunities to use Town and Parish Councils to send out the Borough News? Executive Member response – This could be explored, however it was uncertain if this could be feasible;

 

·         In relation to bid CE R8, equality and tackling poverty community engagement, did this cover staffing or coordination? Executive Member response – This would pay for two staff to provide support to the equalities and tackling poverty agenda, including writing the strategy;

 

·         It was noted that reducing the number of issues of the Borough News could impact how often critical information was seen by vulnerable residents;

 

·         With regards to the bid for an inclusion officer, was this funding for one post and was this agenda being pushed at the moment? Executive Member and officer response – This would fund one post until 2025 and would help to drive this agenda forwards;

 

·         With regards to the proposed bid for the HR operating model, what were the existing HR department doing and why did they require this extra support? Executive Member and officer response – There was a very high turnover within HR, and they needed someone to come in and re-organise the team and get them to a good place. The 21^st century re-organisation had reduced HR staff number to a minimum based on staff across the organisation ’self-serving’, which proved to be too ambitious. The appointment of the Assistant Director HR had been a significant addition to the team, however the team also needed additional support from outside of the organisation on a short term basis;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R13, increased demand through Council Tax relief scheme due to cost of living pressures, was this a change in policy? Executive Member and officer response – This was the same scheme with a reflection of the increasing demand on the scheme from residents as a result of inflationary pressures and Council Tax increases;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R14, insurance premiums, had self-insurance options been explored? Officer response – WBC did have quite a sizeable excess which helped keep premiums down, but it did require a sizeable insurance fund to cover the excess. Officers would come back on the specifics of self-insuring of small items;

 

·         It was noted that WBC had previously done very well out of the joint legal services item, which had now ceased;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R6, increased income from collection improvements, was the proposed savings target ambitious given the general financial climate? Officer response – Current collection rates were current higher than previous years. This bid was about managing our accounts in a responsible manner;

 

·         In relation to the proposal to move to paperless democratic meetings, how might this be implemented? Officer response – There were a number of ways this could be achieved, for example by asking members to request paper copies for particular meetings rather than printing unwanted copies, and reducing colour printing where this was not strictly necessary. It was recognised that many members found paper agendas extremely useful some meetings, such as Planning and Budget Scrutiny. This proposal was not suggesting the complete cessation of paper copy agendas, but instead working with members to understand their specific needs and reducing unnecessary or unwanted printing;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R8, revenue and benefits automation, did this savings proposal result in the reduction of staffing? Officer response – Yes, however any affected staff could be re-deployed to other vacant posts within the organisation;

 

·         In relation to bid RA R9, increased court costs for Council Tax and Business Rates, would this impact vulnerable people who could not pay? Executive Member response – This proposal would target individuals who refused to engage with WBC over a period of time, despite a number of chasers. Officers always worked sensitively with vulnerable residents to provide help, support and guidance, and this proposal was in no way aimed at these individuals;

 

·         In relation to RA R4, benefit realisation from commercial activities, what potential ideas were being explored? Executive Member and officer response – A consultant had carried out a review as part of an ongoing work programme. Staff were in place to explore income generation and cost reduction opportunities;

 

·         In relation to RA R5, contracts and commissioning reviews, could this be explained further? Officer response – CIPFA had undertaken a review which had led to an enhanced governance structure, and this bid would allow consultants to come in to upskill the Council’s negotiations team;

 

·         How were we interacting with commercial entities to make the best use of the Council’s assets? Executive Member response – All of WBC’s assets were being reviewed, and if aspects of the organisation could be made more commercial for the benefit of the community then ideas could be progressed;

 

·         At a recent meeting of Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee it was noted that the cost of childcare and the cost of running childcare facilities was increasing. Could options be explored to lease under-utilised WBC assets and space to childcare providers? Executive Member response – This option could certainly be explored;

 

·         At this point of the meeting, the Committee resolved to extend the meeting by a maximum of 30 minutes;

 

·         Had options been explored to extend the offer of WBC’s contact centre to other services such as the Police or Fire services? Executive Member response - This option could certainly be explored.

 

RESOLVED That:

 

1)      Clive Jones, Imogen Shepherd-DuBey, Rachel Bishop-Firth, Sarah Kerr, Ian Shenton, Graham Ebers, and Glynn Davies be thanked for attending the meeting;

 

2)      Further consideration be given to bid RA R3, car parking fees – Cantley Park;

 

3)      Officers speak to Winnersh Parish Council about outdoor gyms, which they had experience managing;

 

4)      Officers consider exploration of other venues, for example Elms Field, for hosting future Christmas markets;

 

5)      Officers re-evaluate the use of advertisement on the new WBC website to help maximise revenue;

 

6)      Officers explore market opportunities for staff laptops such as the use of chrome books, including the use of virtual machines to facilitate Microsoft Windows use;

 

7)      Officers explore whether student discounted Microsoft Windows license could facilitate old WBC hardware being donated to schools;

 

8)      Further consideration be given to the proposal to reduce the number of editions of the Borough News, including an impact assessment on vulnerable residents;

 

9)      Additional detail be provided with regards to bid CE R7, budget required to deliver sustainable organisational change, including how success would be measured;

 

10)   Additional detail be provided for future bids which represented a significant spend;

 

11)   Options be explored to see if it could be possible for Town and Parish Council’s to distribute the Borough News, or something similar;

 

12)   Officers come back on the specifics of self-insuring of small items;

 

13)   Officers explore options to lease under-utilised WBC assets and space to childcare providers;

 

14)   Officers explore options to extend the offer of WBC’s contact centre to other services such as the Police or Fire services.