ITEM NO

FINANCE AND PERFORMANCE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

THURSDAY 29 JUNE 2006

REPORT FROM CHIEF TRANPSORTATION AND ASSET MANAGEMENT

REVIEW OF MAINTENANCE ISSUES – LEISURE, LIBRARIES AND CULTURE DEPARTMENT

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To inform members of the current maintenance situation in relation to its Leisure Services and non- housing property stock.

INFORMATION

1 Budgets

1.1 On setting of the revenue maintenance budgets in 1996, the revenue R & M budgets bore no relationship to the actual identified property need as identified in two reports, MCS/MGS/MT/18 and MCS/CMT/05/97 to the then Corporate Management Team.

1.2 The leisure budget at that time was £373,000, which was in addition to two full-time service/maintenance plant engineers.

1.3 Ten years on the revenue budget has been reduced by approximately £100,000 and the two service engineers have both retired and have not been replaced. The maintenance budget has effectively been cut by £150,000 to the current budget of approximately £270,000.

2 Current identified maintenance backlog

2.1 The current available maintenance backlog value amounts to £5,788,735 (see attached breakdown list Appendix 1). This survey information is now five years out of date but the backlog figure has been increased annually in line with inflation and building cost indices and takes account of maintenance spend since the survey. To complete new surveys and in accordance with good practice guidelines to maintain a five year rolling programme of surveys, approximately £30k/year needs to be budgeted for and allocated to the revenue or capital budgets. It should also be noted that due to the recent restructuring of departments, there is currently some virement of property in departments taking place, therefore the attached property lists may vary but in overall budget terms will only have minimal effect.

2.2 The above backlog figure is to maintain like for like only and does not take account of any betterment, alteration or modifications that may be identified. 2

2.3 In addition, approximately £1,426,000 is identified as required to render the leisure services buildings fully compliant with DDA. Appendix 2 identifies properties still requiring DDA works.

2.4 Other emerging legislative needs are fire workplace risk assessments and asbestos management with the resulting works arising thereupon

2.5 The above identified works arising from various surveys/plans are in addition to ongoing day to day response and emergencies that are not being funded and adding to the now poor and deteriorating property stock.

3 Service contracts

3.1 Previous concerns refer to failure to instigate maintenance service contracts by TAM. All leisure buildings now have service contracts in place as detailed on the attached list as Appendix 3

3.2 The boiler servicing contract expired in October 2005 and was not re-let to enable the contract to be re-tendered and let to coincide with financial years for budgeting purposes. A one-off service order was placed in January 2006 to ensure cover of the Waterworld boilers.

3.3 TAM are currently experiencing staffing problems as the only mechanical engineer left the authority eight months ago and to date has not been replaced. Day to day emergency works are being administered by covering technical staff. This is currently being reviewed following the new TAM structure being implemented.

4 Waterworld

4.1 The closure of the water ride/slide at Waterworld did occur last October due to an unforeseen breakdown of a water pump. This type of breakdown would and is normally regarded as routine maintenance/emergency repair and as, in this identified case, was repaired immediately as parts became available with minimum closure time of the facility and disruption to the staff and public/service users. TAM maintenance staff and regular employed contractors have an excellent reputation for quality of service as identified in customer satisfaction questionnaire returns and national benchmarking statistics (see attached Autumn 2005 benchmarking return Appendix 4) and thus can be relied upon 24 hours per day 7 days per week to provide service cover.

5 Leisure Services/TAM relationships

5.1 A good working relationship has been developed between both departments over the previous ten years, however, it is recognised that there is always room for improvements and to this end the Chief Transportation and Asset Management Officer is arranging workshops for all appropriate staff to attend to discuss and develop areas requiring improvement.

5.2 TAM has dedicated staff to cover leisure services buildings in addition to the Operational Manager – Facilities Management holding regular monthly meetings with the Chief Leisure, Libraries and Culture Officer to discuss and agree budget allocation and need. Monthly budget statements are prepared and issued by TAM, however, with limited available budget there has been very limited planned maintenance undertaken over the past years at the instruction of the Chief Leisure, Libraries and Culture Officer. With the financial year 2005/2006 being a case in point, the revenue budget was approximately £69k overspent with 3 only one planned maintenance item being undertaken i.e. Queensway Sports Centre – resurfacing of running track at £80,000.

5.3 It can be seen from the above illustrations that the TAM and Leisure Service Departments are working within extremely limited and difficult budgetary constraints. As a consequence there is an increasing risk that elements of the infrastructure will fail or will need to be replaced on the grounds of health and safety with the potential to cause service interruption and client frustration.

5.4 To address this situation will require a consistent approach not just in this area, which is not unique, but across the way that the Corporate, non-housing building maintenance is provided.

5.5 It is intended that TAM will provide a follow on report to Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee outlining a proposal to address the operational and financial barriers which are now facing the Authority.

RECOMMENDATION

1 That Members note the contents of the report, in particular the repair maintenance condition and associated budgetary needs. 2 That Members support a further, more crosscutting, report on Building Maintenance service provision to the Corporate Assets.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

None

WEBSITE INFORMATION

None

Report Ref: CTAMO/28/96S

APPENDIX 1

Adult & Children Services Accommodation

Current Location Service Group Number of Staff Proposed Location Remarks

Children Contact and 3-5 Grosvenor Road Assessment Team CAFAT 22+1 Ty Henblas Appointeeship Service 5 Greenacres Service Manager (Adult) 1 Gladman Service Manager (Children) 1 Ty Henblas Family Support Team '1' 16+1 Town Centre Moved from Services Managers (Children) 2 Ty Henblas Crown 2nd

7-9 Grosvenor Road Vacated May 06

7-9 Grosvenor Road (Mobile) Vacate June 06

Kelso House Children Looked After Team 16+1 Kelso Lease expires Family Placement Team 21+1 Kelso 25/11/2007 Child Protection 3+1 Ty Henblas Children Review 3+1 Ty Henblas

Ruabon Offices Family Support Team '2' 17 Town Centre

Lambpit Street 3rd Floor Training 6 Centre 67 or Human Resources 11+1 Lambpit Street Planning Team (Adult) 8+1 Lambpit Street Planning Team (Children) 7+1 Ty Henblas Personnel Officers 4 Lambpit Street

Moved from 3-5 Adult Contact and Assessment Grosv. Road Crown 1st Floor Team CAT 15+1 Crown 1st Floor June 06 Moved from 3-5 OT 25 Crown 1st Floor Mobile June 06

Crown 2nd Floor Management Team 4 Crown 2nd Floor Finance Team 9 Crown 2nd Floor MIS Team 5 Crown 2nd Floor Secretaries 3 Crown 2nd Floor Performance Management Team 9 Crown 2nd Floor

Gladman Units 5/6 Care Management 26 Gladman Units 5/6 Welfare Rights 28 Gladman Units 5/6 APPENDIX 1

Moved from 7-9 Greenacres Learning Disability Services 74 Grosv. Road Domicilary Services 15 Moved from 5-6 Service Managers (Adult) 4 Gladman

Ty Henblas Chief Safeguarding &Supp 1 Ty Henblas Moved from Secretary 1 Ty Henblas Crown 2nd Jan.

PD2003/119/BH Nov.05 rev. June 06 rev. 20/06/06 APPENDIX 1 June 2006 Condition Survey Element Totals (Original Survey)

COMMUNITY CENTRES Committee Total : £1,863,475 LIBRARIES Committee Total : £ 788,501 MUSEUMS Committee Total : £ 570,769 SPORTS FACILITIES Committee Total : £2,565,990

Grand Total Condition Survey Amount: £5,788,735

W.C.B.C. ACCESSIBLE LEISURE PROPERTIES APPENDIX 2

BUILDING CATEGORY ACCESSIBLE ADDRESS LEISURE CENTRES ALYN WATERS COUNTRY PARK LEISURE CENTRE DARLAND SPORTS CTR GWYN EVANS POOL PLAS MADOC LEISURE CENTRE QUEENSWAY SPORTS CENTRE THE GROVES SPORTS CENTRE (not yet audited) TY MAWR COUNTRY PARK (Work in progress) WATERWORLD MEMORIAL HALL YSGOL CLYWEDOG SPORTS CENTRE

TOTAL 11 LIBRARIES (facilities review in progress)

BRYNTEG MEMORIAL CTR (ten year rule?) WREXHAM LIBRARY ARTS CENTRE

TOTAL 2 MUSEUMS HERITAGE CTR BERSHAM IRONWORKS (works limited by nature of site) NANT MILL WREXHAM COUNTY MUSEUM (essential only, refurb pending)

TOTAL 4 W.C.B.C. ACCESSIBLE LEISURE PROPERTIES APPENDIX 2

COMMUNITY CENTRES (facilities review in progress)

ACTON COMM CTR BORRAS BRYNTEG MEMORIAL CTR Y BEDD HOLT JOHNSTOWN RESOURCE CTR LODGE MAESGWYN PARCIAU COMM CTR PENYCAE RUABON COMM CTR.

TOTAL 15

LEISURE BUILDINGS TOTAL 32 APPENDIX 3

LEISURE SERVICES SERVICE AGREEMENTS

Intruder Alarm System Fire Alarm System CCTV Emergency Lighting Automatic Doors and Door Access Equipment Lift Air Handling Units Boiler Servicing Air Compressor Electrical Installation Testing Portable Appliance Testing Ultra-Violet Sterilizers Gas Tests Water Treatment – Water Hygiene and Chemical Dosing Sauna and Steam Room Equipment Energy Management Systems Air Conditioning Equipment Legionellosis Management and Control Pressure Systems – Zurich Kitchen Extract Equipment Ventilation Ductwork – Microbiological Test Lockers Belts, Filters and Greasing Equipment

COPROP Benchmarking For Building Maintenance Services AUTUMN 2005 Professional & Satisfaction with Prompt/ Timescale Accurately Met Needs Helpful and polite H&S Value For Money Overall Quality COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL Competent completed work CODE SERVICES Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score A Cheshire M 90% M 95% R 95% H 97% R 95% C East Sussex H 90% R 92% M 95% M 96% M 95% D Gloucester Q 87% H 91% H 93% R 95% H 93% H 90% F xxxxxxxxxxx D 84% Q 90% Q 92% Q 93% R 95% F 89% R 88% G IOW R 83% F 89% F 89% K 91% H 94% C 84% D 86% F 86% H Lancashire K 83% I 86% K 89% F 90% F 89% Q 84% Q 86% C 84% I Lincolnshire F 83% K 86% I 88% I 90% C 88% D 84% K 85% M 84% K xxxxxxxxxxx C 82% C 84% C 87% G 89% D 87% K 82% I 85% I 84% M Shropshire I 81% D 83% D 86% C 89% Q 86% I 82% C 85% K 83% N xxxxxxxxxxx N 80% N 81% N 86% D 89% I 85% N 76% P 82% Q 83% P Witshire P 80% P 81% G 86% N 88% G 84% P 73% N 81% N 79% Q Worcestershire A 73% A 74% P 85% P 86% N 83% A 72% A 75% G 74% R Wrexham G 69% G 72% A 76% A 80% A 81% G 71% G 75% A 74%

Average 82% 84% 88% 90% 87% 78% 85% 83%

Prompt / Timescale Accurately met needs Professional & Competent

100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% M H Q D R K F C I N P A G M R H Q F I K C D N P A G R M H Q F K I C D N G P A

Helpful & Polite Health & Safety Value for money

100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% H M R Q K F I G C D N P A R H F C D Q I G N A C Q D K I N P A G

Overall Quality Satisfaction with Completed work

100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% R M H F D Q K I C P N A G H R F C M I K Q N G A

This Chart is on both sheets Average Line COPROP Benchmarking For Building Maintenance Services AUTUMN 2005 Professional & Overall Quality of Satisfaction with Prompt/ Timescale Standard of Work Helpful & Polite Health and Safety Careful with Premises Value for Money COUNCIL CONTRACTOR Competent Service completed work CODE PERFORMANCE Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score A Cheshire F 85% F 88% I 88% F 91% F 88% C East Sussex H 84% R 87% F 87% Q 89% R 88% D Gloucester I 82% M 87% H 86% H 89% H 86% H 90% F xxxxxxxxxxx K 80% H 86% Q 85% I 89% F 89% M 85% R 88% G IOW P 79% Q 85% R 85% K 87% R 87% H 87% I 82% I 85% F 86% H Lancashire M 78% I 83% M 84% M 87% H 87% I 85% Q 80% Q 83% C 84% I Lincolnshire C 76% K 83% P 84% D 85% I 86% F 84% C 79% C 82% M 84% K xxxxxxxxxxx R 76% P 82% C 83% P 85% C 83% G 84% K 78% D 82% I 84% M Shropshire Q 76% C 81% K 82% N 84% Q 82% C 83% D 77% P 81% K 83% N xxxxxxxxxxx D 75% N 79% D 81% R 84% G 81% N 82% P 74% K 81% Q 83% P Witshire N 73% G 78% N 80% C 84% D 81% D 79% N 73% N 79% N 79% Q Worcestershire A 69% A 78% G 79% G 83% N 80% A 76% G 70% G 75% G 74% R Wrexham G 65% D 78% A 76% A 77% A 78% Q 73% A 67% A 74% A 74%

Average 76% 82% 83% 85% 83% 81% 75% 82% 83%

Prompt / Timescale Standard of Work Professional & Competent

100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% F H I K P M C R Q D N A G F R M H Q I K P C N G A D I F H Q R M P C K D N G A

Helpful & Polite Health & Safety Careful of Premises

100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% F Q H I K M D P N R C G A F R H I C Q G D N A H I F G C N D A Q

Value for Money Overall Quality Satisfaction with compled work

100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% I Q C K D P N G A F R H M I Q C D P K N G A H R F C M I K Q N G A

Average Line This Chart is on both sheets