Issue - meetings

Report to follow

Public Question

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

1.    Mr Roberts raised the following points on behalf of GMB members. Asked for clarification:

      i.          If garage staff were moving or not.

    ii.          How/when vehicle maintenance would be undertaken.

 iii.          If Waterbeach would be the location for all vehicles.

  iv.          How Councillors could make an informed decision without figures from other council services.

    v.          Details on financial implications in Appendix 1, specifically costs/savings that would arise from the shared service proposal.

  vi.          Stated shared services could be beneficial if done in a timely manner. An informed decision should be made on the business operation. The report raised more questions than answers. Suggested South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) and the City Council should not tie themselves into a lease until the costs/benefits are clear.

 

The Director of Environment responded:

       i.          The Mill Road site had been allocated for housing, so the City Council Waste Service would have to move from the site regardless of whether services are shared with SCDC or not.

     ii.          The move to Waterbeach could lead to a change in service such as maintaining trucks. This proposal needed more work, and would be reported back to Environment Scrutiny Committee in future. Staff and trade unions would be consulted on proposals.

   iii.          Not all operational details (eg depot site functions) could be given at present, but would be addressed in future. There is a business case to make this change.

   iv.          Staff would be consulted in future regarding shared service proposals. A key consideration was how staff could travel to the Waterbeach site.

    v.          Truck ‘rounds’ would be reviewed in future for optimum efficiency. The Director of Environment, Head of Refuse & Environment and Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health attended a staff meeting and committed to work with staff to develop the best routes.

   vi.          Bad weather needed to be factored into operational plans so crews could access the Waterbeach site.

 vii.          Section 11 of the Officer’s report set out planned savings, including the loss of one head of service.

 

The Head of Refuse & Environment said Appendix 1 of the Officers report set out income from various sources. City Council and SCDC income varied for paper waste recycling, but were similar for other services.

 

The SCDC Director of Health & Environmental Services said SCDC spent five times more on fuel costs than the City Council. This would be factored into the budget for shared service operating costs so the city would not be affected.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health responded:

       i.          Recognised a substantial change was proposed.

     ii.          Things had gone well in the past where staff had fed into consultations to shape services.

   iii.          Staff had raised issues for consideration regarding the current proposal for shared services. These would be considered.

   iv.          The process to make savings needed to start now, but not in a way that negatively affected the service.

 

2.    Mr Roberts said the shared service would reduce paper waste recycling income for the City Council as it worked in a different way to SCDC.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health responded that income was not guaranteed, so future assumptions could not be based upon historic data.

 

Mr Roberts said that people were not against the principle of a shared service, but it should be set up in the correct way. The Council would not want to pull out of a deal later when no savings were made.

 

3.    Mr Watson raised the following points:

      i.          There were general staff concerns regarding proposed service cost savings.

    ii.          Referred to a paper he circulated setting out estimated costs for him to travel to the Waterbeach site instead of the Mill Road one. He stated his transport costs would greatly increase when travelling to the new site, which would leave him financially worse off.

 iii.          Queried if increased staff travel costs had been factored into an equalities impact assessment.

  iv.          Queried how the proposed reduction in waste collection vehicles would lead to cost savings as this would cause longer rounds and working hours.

    v.          Queried if SCDC would save more costs that the City Council.

 

The Head of Refuse & Environment responded:

       i.          Financial impacts would be considered as part of organisational change policy. Individual 1-2-1 meetings would be held with staff to understand their circumstances.

     ii.          Route optimisation would occur through using vehicles more effectively, rather than having artificial boundaries between SCDC and city service areas.

   iii.          Any system introduction would lead to questions and concerns. SCDC and the City Council were talking to staff on how to introduce the shared service. This would lead to a lot of change.

 

The SCDC Director of Health & Environmental Services said:

       i.          It was important for manager’s to be aware of employee’s personal details such as transport costs. Managers needed to be creative in finding solutions to reduce costs by working with frontline staff.

     ii.          Overtime was paid to SCDC staff to compensate for long hours when services were redesigned in September 2014. These hours were reducing.

   iii.          SCDC spent £3.9m per year on waste services, the City Council spent £2.6m. Each would put this amount of funding into the shared service budget and share savings.

 

The Director of Environment said £13,000 of premises costs would be saved through the move to Waterbeach through enhanced facilities, as the City Council would not have to maintain the Mill Road depot (proposal dependent on releasing the land for housing).

 

The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health made the following points:

       i.          Thanked staff for their comments.

     ii.          Travel was an important future consideration. The Executive Councillor, Director of Environment plus Head of Refuse & Environment were discussing options to address concerns.

   iii.          SCDC and City Waste service workers would be offered a good deal and could expect similar terms and conditions (these differed currently).

 

4.    Mr Stevens queried if the garage and taxi certificate of compliance service would move to Waterbeach, or perhaps be outsourced.

 

The Head of Refuse & Environment responded:

       i.          A business case on services would be presented to Councillors in future. This would include costs/savings for outsourcing all garage services.

     ii.          Officers were looking at what the garage does now as part of a review of services that would/not be provided in future.

   iii.          It was important to undertake the service review.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health reiterated the above points and said the issue would return in future for consideration by Environment Scrutiny Committee in more detail.

 

5.    Mr Bannister raised the following points. Queried:

      i.          Why report details were late.

    ii.          Fuel operation details.

 iii.          How routes could be optimised when in-cab technology did not work.

  iv.          A number of SCDC loaders were agency staff, how would this be addressed through shared services.

    v.          Details about travel allowance. It would cease after 1 year, which was effectively a pay cut.

 

The SCDC Director of Health & Environmental Services said:

       i.          All fleet vehicles would refuel at the same place in South Cambs.

     ii.          In-cab technology would be reviewed in future.

   iii.          Agency staff were used to cover service changes, most drivers/loaders were SCDC staff.

   iv.          Operational details eg travel allowance would be addressed in future.

 

The Head of Refuse & Environment responded:

       i.          Officer reports were issued 1 week pre-committee.

     ii.          Staff could expect a standard 37 hour working week. Over time etc would be reviewed through consultation.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health reiterated it was important that staff fed into the shared service process, this would shape how it operated. This could be done through trade unions, Leading Hands or the Head of Refuse & Environment. The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health undertook to liaise with Mr Roberts in future.

 

Mr Bannister said that staff did not want a pay cut, and suggested existing staff be paid all monies, whereas new staff could be put on new conditions (if downgraded).

 

The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health said staff and pay issues would be explored through trade unions and the Joint Staff Employer Forum. The Director of Environment said this was a crucial issue and a report on operational details would be brought to Environment Scrutiny Committee in future.

 

Environment Scrutiny Committee members thanked public speakers for attending and talking to the Committee.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report set out the work that had been done to assess the potential for a single shared waste service for South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council. The report concluded that there were significant savings that can be achieved by creating a shared service with a Governance Board representing both Councils. The report recommended the creation of a single shared waste service at Waterbeach and that arrangements be made to consult with staff and unions on detailed proposals. A further report was requested on a range of matters including options for the appropriate long term delivery model for the single shared waste service, and business cases for a shared trade waste service and also the possible re-location of the Cambridge City garage facility.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health

Agreed:

       i.          The creation of a single shared waste service, wholly owned and run by the local authorities, with a single management structure and workforce, located at the Waterbeach Depot using a single pool of vehicles for Cambridge City & South Cambridgeshire DC.

     ii.          The relocation of the Cambridge City Waste Service to share the Waterbeach Depot; and the creation of a shared Head of Service for Waste and a single management team to deliver the single shared waste service, and to undertake full consultation with the staff and unions to deliver these changes;

   iii.          The creation of a Shared Waste Board to oversee the delivery of the Single Shared Waste Service, to oversee performance within the budget and policy framework set by both Councils, and to provide advice and recommendations on waste policy matters to both Councils, and to deliver the Councils’ objectives.

   iv.          To delegate the implementation of the proposals set out in (i), (ii) and (iii) above to the Cambridge City Director of Environment and South Cambridgeshire DC Director of Health & Environmental Services, in consultation with the South Cambridgeshire DC Cabinet Member, and the Cambridge City Executive Member, Chair of Executive Scrutiny and Opposition Spokespersons.

    v.          To develop further single shared waste service efficiency and cost-saving proposals as set out in the Officer’s report.

   vi.          To develop options and proposals for alternative joint delivery models (beyond the Lead Authority model) to operate the single shared waste service and to report back to Councillors in July 2015.

 vii.          To instruct officers to prepare a detailed implementation plan with financial implications to be agreed with the Shared Waste Board to inform the future budget setting work of the two Councils.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Director of Environment and SCDC Director of Health & Environmental Services.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Were reassured that operational matters would be pre-scrutinised before implementation.

     ii.          City Council and SCDC staff should be on the same terms and conditions for the same job.

   iii.          It was essential to find savings, these not costs should be shared equally with SCDC.

   iv.          The City Council did not want staff annualised hours terms and conditions like SCDC.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Director of Environment and SCDC Director of Health & Environmental Services said the following:

       i.          Staff transport arrangements would be addressed though the Joint Staff Employer Forum.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health said this exercise was not a privatisation of the waste service. Reiterated staff travel issues would be reviewed in future.

 

     ii.          No impact was expected on staff pensions. This would be confirmed with the Head of Human Resources.

   iii.          Risks concerning the paper waste recycling service would be checked with SCDC in future. Details were set out in the SCDC Medium Term Strategy.

   iv.          SCDC and City Council terms and conditions would be harmonised in future. Details would be reported back to Environment Scrutiny Committee in July 2015. Timetable details were set out in Appendix 3 of the Officer’s report.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health said the intention was to harmonise terms and conditions upwards ie the highest pay band in the relevant range.

 

    v.          SCDC had a higher demand for waste services in summer rather than winter. This was when green bin waste crews were needed in rural areas, so staff worked longer hours in summer than winter, but costs equalled out over the year ie salary was unaffected. SCDC used annualised hours, but the City Council did not. Each could operate differently using the shared service.

   vi.          A single head of service would be empowered to deliver it.

 vii.          The contract exit strategy would be set out in a Memorandum of Understanding.

viii.          Consultation mechanisms were in place for Garage and Waste Service staff.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.