Agenda and minutes

(NB Prior to the start of the meeting the Chairman welcomed back Councillor Nelson who had been absent for some time due to ill health.)

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 25^th September 2008 were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director – Environment providing an update on progress with the Invest to Save bids, reporting on savings achieved to date and seeking approval of further bids in relation Power Perfectors.

 

It was reported that, as part of the Invest to Save process, four projects had been approved in connection with the work the Council was undertaking through the Local Authority Carbon Management Programme. Details of the projects and ongoing savings achieved to date were set out within the report covering:

 

• the networking of printers to multi-functional devices;
• the installation of Power Perfectors in Council Buildings;
• Halton Stadium; and
• a lighting upgrade.

 

It was advised that, given the savings that could accrue from installing Power Perfectors, further work had been done to assess the potential of installing the devices at Picow Farm, Widnes Direct Link, Halton Lea Direct Link, Runcorn Market and Oak Meadow. The total cost of installing Power Perfectors at these buildings was £52,000 but should result in annual revenue savings of £12,000 per annum. Approval was therefore sought to increase the Invest to Save bid to enable the schemes to proceed. The total cost of the Invest to Save bid including fees would be £248,150, which would give expected annual revenue savings of £75,000 per annum, a payback of approximately 3.3 years.

 

In receiving the report the Sub-Committee commended the proposals.

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)       the report and savings to date be noted; and

 

(2)       the Invest to Save bids for Power Perfectors be approved.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director – Environment regarding the decision taken by the Operational Director (Highways, Transportation and Logistics) to award several contracts for the supply of client transport services to “non lowest price” tenderers. In accordance with Procurement Standing Order Number 3.2, the report advised the Sub-Committee of the circumstances surrounding this decision.

 

Members noted that the Transport Co-ordination Section managed a complex range of client transport contracts and arrangements for clients of both the Children and Young People, and Health and Community Directorates. Wherever possible, priority was given to arranging transport for clients on the Council’s “In House Fleet” operation. However, these arrangements were often contracted out for a period of one to three years to external transport providers, typically licensed taxi and minibus operators.

 

During the last round of client transport tendering carried out in July 2008, 50 new contracts had been awarded, the vast majority of which were to the lowest priced tenderers. However, 15 contracts (30% of contracts) were awarded to “non lowest price” tenderers. The reasons for these decisions were mostly operational, with the most typical being the preferred tenderer being unable to accept the contract due to lack of resources. However, in a small number of cases, the adopted tendering scoring process led to the decision being taken to offer the tender to a “non lowest price” tenderer on the basis of other considerations such as quality and accessibility of the vehicles offered by the contractor to be used and any previous operational difficulties experienced when using the contractor.

 

Each tender had been scored using a 50:50 price/quality criteria and details of the individual tenders which had been awarded to “non-lowest price“ tenderers were shown in Appendix 1 to the report.

 

RESOLVED: That the award of several of the client transport service contracts (as set out in Appendix 1 of the report) by the Operational Director (Highways, Transportation and Logistics) to “non lowest price” tenderers be supported.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director – Environment seeking approval for the waiving of relevant procurement standing orders in relation to a waste management communications campaign.

 

It was noted that Halton Borough Council’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy highlighted the need for effective communications and awareness-raising to facilitate a positive behaviour change in Halton. The Council had invested significantly to deliver a programme of enhanced kerbside recycling services to meet future targets; however, the Council would only be successful in achieving targets if it had the co-operation of the residents of Halton.

 

Essential to achieving increased co-operation and participation was a raised awareness of waste related issues and the report set out the details of a proposed comprehensive and targeted communications and marketing campaign to bring about such increased awareness amongst the residents of the Borough.

 

The Sub-Committee was advised that EnviroComms, an external communications specialist, had been commissioned to deliver training to a number of key Council officers focusing upon the principles of successful communication and publicity. EnviroComms had also been asked to provide proposals to deliver a campaign in Halton to achieve a number of outcomes, which were outlined for Members’ information. Subsequently, EnviroComms had submitted a proposal that was made up of a number of key components including:

 

• a Halton “Brand” Development;
• public roadshows;
• direct marketing to each household in the Borough; and
• “doorstepping” and community engagement activities.

 

A key part of the proposal would be a team of trained individuals directly engaging with residents through a programme of visits to households within the Borough. This would assist in identifying attitudes towards recycling and existing barriers to recycling, and would increase awareness and use of existing and future recycling services. In addition, an integrated media and advertising campaign would also be managed and delivered jointly by the Council’s Press and Public Relations Manager and relevant waste management officers who had co-ordinated such activities to date.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that EnviroComms had a proven track record of delivering successful campaigns for local authorities that had resulted in significant increases in recycling performance. The overall cost of the proposal for Halton, which would run for approximately 18 months, was anticipated to be £140,000. Standing Orders required that a tendering exercise be undertaken where services of this value were to be procured; however, the aim of the campaign was to exceed Halton’s Local Area Agreement (LAA) recycling targets and, in order to do so, would require its commencement at the earliest opportunity. Any further delay resulting from a potentially lengthy tendering exercise could jeopardise the Council’s achievement of such targets. Furthermore, the early introduction of the campaign would increase the level of recyclable materials collected and the Council would benefit from an increased reduction in landfill disposal charges.

 

The first meeting with Government Office North West to review the Council’s actions to meet the stretched performance targets contained within the Halton LAA was to take place on 26^th November 2008 and it was important to be able  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director – Health and Community outlining proposed charges to be made for occupation of pitches at the new Traveller Transit Site in Warrington Road, Runcorn.

 

It was noted that, at its meeting on 25^th September, the Sub-Committee had considered a report on proposed charges for occupation of the site but had decided to defer a decision on the matter pending further consideration of potential costs to the Council, given uncertainty about some of the operational costs. In the interim, quotations had been obtained for costs associated with the drainage system, which was the single biggest area of uncertainty, and the forecast budget had been amended accordingly.

 

The Appendix to the report summarised the cost implications for the Council of a range of potential charge rates and occupancy rates. Occupancy rates could not be guaranteed but it was not unreasonable to assume that a 90% rate could be achieved. It was noted that charge rates for private caravan sites varied considerably depending on location and facilities; however, a number of comparisons had been sought and these were set out within the report for Members’ information.

 

The Sub-Committee was advised that the intention was that the site would be cost neutral and it was therefore proposed that a charge of £11 per adult household be set initially for a period of 6 months and a further report be brought to the Sub-committee to review income against costs in the light of operational experience.

 

RESOLVED: That a charge of £11 per adult household be set initially for a period of six months and a further report be brought to the Sub-committee to review income against costs in the light of operational experience.

The Sub-Committee considered:

 

(1)            whether Members of the press and public should be excluded from the meeting of the Sub-Committee during consideration of the following item of business in accordance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 because it was likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be considered, exempt information would be disclosed, being information defined in Section 100 (1) and paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972; and

 

(2)            whether the disclosure of information was in the public interest, whether any relevant exemptions were applicable and whether, when applying the public interest test and exemptions, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed that in disclosing the information.

 

            RESOLVED: That as, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business in accordance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 because it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business, exempt information will be disclosed, being information defined in Section 100 (1) and paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

(NB Councillor Hodgkinson remained in the meeting during consideration of the following item of business having demonstrated a “need to know”.)

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director – Environment outlining the outcome of the tender process for the provision of the Environmental Consultancy Services Framework Contract.

 

RESOLVED: That the appointment of Amec Earth and Environmental to the Environmental Consultancy Framework Contract be approved.

MINUTES ISSUED: 22^nd October 2008

CALL IN: 29^th October 2008

Any matter decided by the Executive Board Sub Committee may be called in no later than 29^th October 2008