Services Shared: Costs Spared? an Analysis of the Financial and Non-Financial Benefits of Local Authority Shared Services

Improvement

Services shared: costs spared? An analysis of the financial and non-financial benefits of local authority shared services

Appendix 6: Review of South Oxfordshire District Council and Vale of White Horse District Council shared services arrangements Contents

Executive summary 3

Introduction 6

Shared services background 7

Set-up consolidation benefits 10

Wider business change benefits 13

Third party services 17

Strategic developments 18 Executive summary

South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse For example, revenue and benefits claims District Councils agreed to share services accuracy has risen in Vale of White Horse in 2008. The arrangement has delivered from 79 per cent in 2008/09 to 93.3 per cent significant benefits. Total employment cost in 2011/12. savings between 2007/08 – 2011/12 from the shared service arrangements were £5.69 Council tax payers in Vale of White million, with an upfront investment cost of Horse have benefitted from the shared £1.79 million, delivering a net employment arrangements as the alternative options cost saving of £3.9 million. would have included cuts to services, reduced staff capacity and possibly higher Further budgeted savings of £4.92 million are council tax and other charges. Council tax forecast between 2012/13 – 2013/14. These at the Vale of White Horse is the 14th lowest are planned to come from improvements in England with the average home paying in waste and recycling contracts and in £116.69 in 2010/11. improved business processes, IT and reductions in staff through the Fit for the By sharing senior managers and staff, the Future (FTF) transformation process. councils work more closely together and benefit from a stronger Oxfordshire presence, Given the pressures on local government with greater operational resilience. For finances and the prospect of further example, a co-operative approach is evident reductions in Central Government funding, in Didcot with joint work on housing growth these sums are significant for both district and the associated Great Western Park councils. A strong focus on continuous development, the single largest ongoing improvement means that both councils see housing development in England, the the existing shared services as the starting planning for Science Vale and in the Central point rather than the end game. Government allocation of an Enterprise Zone in the area. This has significant potential Although the councils did not undertake to support both councils’ financial tax base detailed analysis on the expected impact of through business rates, council tax and the the shared service arrangement (SSA) on new homes bonus, and provide jobs and non–financial measures, service delivery, housing for local people. performance and customer satisfaction have not suffered and, in many cases, have improved.

Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 3 Both councils are similar in scale and The change process was initiated by a demographics and the administration centres simple but direct joint business case, which, are not too far apart. The willingness of once agreed, was robustly and speedily the two sets of officers and councillors to implemented. The key initial drivers were collaborate has been critical. the reduced management costs arising from sharing services. Once this was delivered, This was important initially in finding out an iterative approach increased the level and whether the shared arrangement would and depth of the shared arrangements. could work. Latterly it has been important in creating and sustaining the service once Both councils have identified some key established. It is clear that both councils learning points from their joint experience in considered the ‘bigger picture’ and were developing shared arrangements, including: prepared to put aside purely local interests ‘for the greater good’. • Making an active choice between progressing with implementation or It was vital for both Chief Executives and the waiting until all supporting areas such two political leaders to work well together as Information and Communication to steer the shared arrangements through. Technology (ICT) are in place. The Agreeing a shared management team took councils chose the former option and time, with South Oxfordshire initially more implemented the shared arrangements hesitant. At any one time, any of the political quickly. As a result, during 2010/11 and and managerial leaders could have easily 2011/12 there was some operational derailed the process. Both councils were disruption. For example both councils had able to lay aside worries about ‘sovereignty’ separate ICT platforms and staff have had and ‘takeover’ to secure the aim of to contend with issues such as file sharing greater integration. Part of the success is between the two administrative centres. undoubtedly the willingness of councillors to Since April 2012 these have largely been set the direction and then allow their senior resolved. managers to ‘manage’ the process. • Ensuring that necessary decisions about The speed at which shared arrangements the selection of operating systems in were introduced was seen by politicians technical areas such as planning, building and senior staff as critical. Fearful of regulations and environmental health are legacy processes and negative mind-sets, taken as quickly as possible. Delayed managers worked hard on the ‘culture’ by decisions have impacted on the proposed changing behaviour and labels, favouring shared arrangements for some services. firm and clear interventions to reduce staff • Job evaluation [JE] was a bottleneck as numbers rather than prolonged uncertainty. many new roles at shared service manager They achieved the set-up of the shared and below were created, and some JEs services over a very short time-scale. were delayed by the limited number of trained evaluators.

4 Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 • This has caused some, but not significant, delays in putting in place the shared arrangements. There was also a decision to do all future evaluation of jobs on one council’s grades, pending a future project to harmonise pay. There is a need to ensure effective planning and implementation including, training more people to do JEs to minimise delay. • Agree important Human Resource details as early as possible such as the policy arrangements, terms for officers travelling between the administrative centres and hours of working. This provides certainty for staff and harmonises the different arrangements that previously existed. • Agreeing key joint corporate policies in relation to issues such as procurement and standing orders. Some delays occurred while agreement was reached as to which council’s policies joint officers should comply with. • Ensuring sufficient management support is available to minimise any negative impact on the well-being of staff, especially when workloads are very high. • Making time for senior managers to be able to listen to the concerns of staff affected by redundancy and uncertainty. However, consultation needs to be balanced against the desire of most staff for a speedy resolution to employment decisions.

Third party income opportunities were not a key motivator or immediate priority for the SSA. However, the councils are now examining opportunities for generating income by providing services to other public sector organisations.

Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 5 Introduction

The purpose of this Local Government This was supported by several face-to-face Association (LGA) research project is to interviews. Those interviewed were: substantiate but not audit a selection of five established and successful local government Councillor Ann Ducker shared service arrangements. The research Leader of South Oxfordshire District provides the sector with important evidence Council and numerical based analysis on the success Councillor Matthew Barber of the projects in terms of financial returns Leader of Vale of White Horse District and service delivery. The main themes Council explored were: the efficiencies achieved so far, the impact of shared services on David Buckle customer satisfaction and outcomes; the set Chief Executive, South and Vale up costs and timescales for delivery and the extent to which the outcomes have varied Anna Robinson from initial business cases. Strategic Director, South and Vale

South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Matt Prosser are a natural choice for an evaluation of Strategic Director, South and Vale shared services between district councils. They are one of the longest standing Steve Bishop and most comprehensive shared service Strategic Director, South and Vale arrangements between district councils Andrew Down in England. In mid-2008, building on the Head of Service, ICT, HR and Customer success of earlier joint working in revenues Services South and Vale and benefits and waste, councillors decided on rapid steps to move to a joint Chief Clare Kingston Executive and shared managers down to the Head of Service, Corporate Strategy third tier. This process occurred between July South and Vale 2008 and February 2009. Subsequent moves extended the situation so that today, nearly William Jacobs all posts in both councils are shared. Head of Finance South and Vale

The analysis in this report is based on Geoff Bushell documentary evidence provided from both Service Manager, Shared Performance, councils, including financial information. Projects and Customer Services Manager

6 Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 Shared services background

Both district councils serve similar types The main driver for the shared arrangements of communities. While the councils serve was to deliver financial savings. Other larger towns, such as Didcot and Abingdon, benefits were listed in support, but these the majority of the area is rural and sparsely have emerged during the process rather than populated. However growth is a key issue, being planned at the outset. It is clear that both in terms of accommodating new homes the basis for establishing the shared service and developing the joint private-public sector agreement (SSA) came from increasing vision for new high-value jobs at Science financial pressures, including a reducing Vale near Harwell. South Oxfordshire Government grant and the need to protect provides services for approximately 130,000 front-line services. people living in 55,000 houses while Vale of White Horse is slightly smaller at These pressures were not felt equally 119,000 people living in 50,000 homes. between the councils. Vale of White Horse The main South Oxfordshire Council office had far more acute money pressures than is in Crowmarsh Gifford, which is only 12 South Oxfordshire and was facing the miles from Vale of White Horse’s offices in prospect of deeper cuts to staff and front- Abingdon. line services. This can be typified by the significant difference between the councils In July 2008, when the decision was made to in relation to capital and revenue reserves. appoint a shared management team, South South Oxfordshire had £60 million capital Oxfordshire was Conservative controlled and £20 million revenue reserves contrasted and Vale of White Horse was Liberal with £5 million and £3 million at Vale of Democrat controlled. South Oxfordshire had White Horse. Corporate performance and outsourced more of its service management service provision, as judged by external and delivery to external companies in areas organisations such as the Audit Commission such as engineering support and customer were also weaker at Vale of White Horse. services. If the need for change was more acute at In 2011/12 South Oxfordshire’s revenue the Vale of White Horse, South Oxfordshire budget was £13.1 million while Vale of White was not immune from the need to make Horse’s was £11.4 million. Budgeted figures efficiencies. Senior officers at South for 2012/13 show a decrease to £12.2 million Oxfordshire identified that there was excess at South Oxfordshire and £10.7 million at capacity so savings could be made without Vale of White Horse. an adverse impact on the quality of services delivery.

Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 7 The move to shared service arrangements This outlined to the Cabinet of South was helped by several earlier developments Oxfordshire and the Executive Committee which facilitated cultural change and of Vale of White Horse an opportunity for a integration, including: shared management team, led by one, single Chief Executive, supported by three Strategic • the establishment in 2006 of joint working Directors and eight Heads of Service. arrangements between the councils on revenues and benefits (Ridgeway Shared The joint Chief Executives’ paper was clear Services Partnership) operated by Capita that each council would retain its full set of and a joint refuse collection and street statutory and discretionary functions. It was cleaning service with Biffa also understood that there would be no major • the hard work and patience of officers and upheaval in joint governance arrangements. councillors when early attempts at joint For example, there was no joint cabinet, working on The Ridgeway Shared Services so that each council retained political Partnership ‘creaked’ sovereignty. At least one of the political • savings of £200,000 per annum that had leaders made it clear to the Chief Executives already been delivered through shared that service standards could not be sacrificed finance teams. This formed an important and this was an absolute pre-condition for precedent to the development of the proceeding. shared services arrangements which followed. The key attraction for the councils was the on-going annual savings from senior The Chief Executives of both councils were, management team salaries (from the after consulting with their Leaders, fully Chief Executive down to 3rd tier Heads of committed to the notion of a single Chief Services). This was £748,000 per annum, Executive and a shared management team resulting from a reduction in senior staff and devoted great energy into preparing for from 21 to 12. Both councils viewed this as the changes. The two sets of politicians then helping them meet projected budget deficits had to consider the new arrangements and and also being preferable to cuts in services determine they were for each council. or increases in council tax.

Political agreement within both councils Councillors accepted that this would incur occurred at different speeds. Vale of White one-off redundancy and pension costs, along Horse reached a positive decision more with recruitment consultant costs, which the quickly, while initially there were greater business case placed at a maximum of £1.22 concerns at South Oxfordshire. In July 2008 million (these costs to date are £921,016). the two Chief Executives tabled a joint report.

8 Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 Alongside financial savings and maintaining Councillors were supportive of officers’ desire services both councils saw other benefits for further integration and delegated the arising from the shared management team. implementation of the changes to managers. These were: This approach ensured maximum support for the shared arrangements across the two • joint delivery of services where a single councils. service delivery arrangement could deliver operational benefits; Other than financial savings and the wider benefits envisaged (see 3.13), neither council • improved management, capacity, set out a detailed approach for measuring or professional expertise and evaluating the impact of the shared services development, recruitment and through key performance indicators. retention; • more cost effective procurement Senior managers felt the financial savings through greater buying power; were clear, there was therefore little to be gained in developing complicated processes • reduced costs through improving for measuring the effect. Both councils administrative and support processes; felt that existing processes and measures • a higher profile for the joint used for service planning, performance management team in speaking for a management and customer satisfaction population of nearly 250,000, larger would suffice and ensure that there was no than any single district council in the negative impact on performance and the country; and delivery of priorities. • stronger strategic position on any joint However, in hindsight, comparing non- issues and greater powers of influence financial performance against a base in Oxfordshire and nationally. case would have been a helpful way of communicating the benefits of the shared service arrangement to stakeholders. The original agreement was for shared management team arrangements to be delivered down to the third tier, Head of Service level.

Following the appointment of these shared managers there was added momentum from officers for further integration and change with Heads of Service (and, later, Service Managers) exploring wider opportunities and efficiencies through greater joint working throughout the councils.

Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 9 Set-up consolidation benefits

Approval of the Joint Chief Executive’s paper Despite Vale of White Horse losing more of 16 July 2008 paved the way for rapid staff, South Oxfordshire achieved greater action. Relentless and robust implementation savings as it started with a higher cost base. followed with the top three layers of joint senior managers appointed between July Vale of White Horse is now picking up a 2008 and February 2009. greater recharge from South Oxfordshire, as the majority of shared staff are employed The fourth tier at the critical Service Manager by South Oxfordshire. Staff are now mostly level came into being in October 2009 with charged 50:50 to each council phased implementation of joint teams during 2010. Since 2007/08, annual joint savings of £200,000 have resulted from the sharing of To date almost all managers are shared, finance teams. although the pace at which this has progressed has varied. Delays in ICT and Similarly, bringing together the client side computer software have for example slowed waste team is saving £200,000 per annum the pace of change in some areas, such as following initial set up cost of £88,480 in its planning, but since April 2012 these issues first year (see Table 1). have been resolved and all services are now shared.

Between 2008/09 and 2010/11 net staff savings from the shared management team were £765,984. This consisted of £1,569,400 savings and one off costs of £803,416. Of this, South Oxfordshire has saved £473,931 or 62 per cent and Vale of White Horse £292,053 or 38 per cent.

10 Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 Table 1: Shared Services Staff Savings Initiative 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total (£) Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Forecast Forecast Shared 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,400,000 Finance Teams SMT savings 784,700 784,700 784,700 784,700 784,700 3,923,500 One off costs 167,600 549,500 86,316 49,400 34,100 34,100 921,016 & recurring pension contributions Shared Waste 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 800000 Team Shared Waste 88,480 88,480 Team One off costs 4th tier 609,000 609,000 609,000 1,827,000 4th tier One off 150,300 150,300 costs Below 4th tier 661,600 661,600 661,600 661,600 2,646,400 Below 4th tier 695,000 695,000 One off costs Annual Gross 200,000 200,000 984,700 1,846,300 2,455,300 2,455,300 2,455,300 10,596,900 Saving Annual One 167,600 637,980 931,616 49,400 34,100 34,100 1,854,796 Off cost and reoccurring pensions Net Annual 200,000 32,400 346,720 914,684 2,405,900 2,421,200 2,421,400 8,742,104 Saving

Using 2007/08 as the baseline, with total off costs associated with implementing the staff costs of £19,937,592, from 2012/13 the restructuring. budgeted annual ongoing savings will be £2,421,200. This equates to overall staffing The councils have yet to determine issues costs savings of 12.1 per cent per year. relating to pensions contributions. These were not tackled at the time of reorganisation The rapid pace of change avoided prolonged to avoid any delays to implementation. Both doubt for staying or leaving staff and councils are keeping this arrangement under was widely seen as a major plus point by review to ensure there are no dis-benefits politicians and remaining senior managers to council tax payers or the public purse and staff. Staff numbers reduced from 576 through pension arrangements. to 412 across both councils. This equates to a reduction of over one in four of the Managers played a crucial role in helping staff (28 per cent). The reduction in staff create the new culture. This period was numbers is a greater percentage than the obviously not without emotional stress for reduction in staff costs because of the one- managers, staff remaining and staff leaving.

Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 11 The appointment of a special adviser to Politicians and senior managers consider the new joint Chief Executive (an existing that the financial success of the shared HR manager of one of the Councils who services arrangements have enabled the stayed in post for a period rather than retire councils to reduce council tax in South early) was seen as very important in adding Oxfordshire by 2.5 per cent for 2012/13 and capacity and HR expertise. Additional actions to freeze it in Vale of White Horse. Politicians that supported effective cultural change and regard this as a necessary and powerful acceptance were: action in these hard economic times.

• Pay rates were harmonised as quickly as possible. • Staff newsletters were conjoined. • E mail addresses merged to [email protected].

In addition, a process of ‘structural’ reviews was implemented, whereby priorities, staffing levels and the amount of time staff spent working for each council were established. For the most part, priorities and staff time are equally balanced, although in some areas, such as environment, crime, sports and arts development and climate change, some staff spend more time at one council than the other.

Now that the Vale of White Horse is Conservative controlled these differences are eroding as political priorities become closer. However, the mechanisms still allow for locally determined political priorities to be reflected in staffing levels. When consulted the 50 per cent of the public who were aware of shared services said they were supportive as long as it saved money.

12 Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 Wider business change benefits

As well as direct consolidation benefits, staff satisfaction in other local government indirect benefits have resulted from the settings shared services arrangements to the benefit of customers and the capacity and resilience career development for remaining staff, who of the councils. These include: can take on new roles based on competency rather than technical expertise. This allows improved and more consistently high quality staff to work at higher levels and with wider delivery of services in Vale of White Horse responsibility and adopt a more ‘business- where the alternative to shared services like’ approach to their departments would have been service cuts; greater buying power: the waste contract one of the highest percentages of recycling is performing above expectations – the 68 collected in the whole country. At Vale of per cent recycling is way above the South White Horse this rose from 34 per cent in 2011/12 target of 51.1 per cent and Vale 2008/09 to 68 per cent in 2010/11 following target of 46.8 per cent, while the joint waste the introduction of a new waste contract contract is saving £7 million over the contract which collects more types of recycling. South life of 7 years to June 2015. The councils Oxfordshire also rose from 43 to 70 per cent) are optimistic that Leisure and Recreation provision will improve even further when reduced sickness and absenteeism (South a new contract is let to the market after Oxfordshire 6.93 days and Vale of White 2013/14. Horse 4.36 days at the end of 2011/12, compared with 6.89 and 8.27 days Building on the success of South respectively in 2007/08) leading to higher Oxfordshire’s business improvement plan productivity. South Oxfordshire’s current both councils are now benefiting from a joint figure would be much lower but for several transformation process. Termed ‘Fit for the people on long term sickness arising from Future’ (FFTF) and based on continuous serious illnesses. Current performance is improvement principles, the councils have well below the 2011 national average of 7.7 evaluated service areas including planning, days housing and environmental health. higher quality of overall management and leadership. While some staff satisfaction figures dipped very slightly (for example from a factor of 4.2 in staff feeling of well-being to 4.1) these are not statistically significantly and in overall terms compare well with

Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 13 The programme is run internally, with cuts but in a way that provides benefits external consulting support, and helps the for customers, staff and the organisation. councils strategically review service areas in Examples of savings in the Planning order to ensure: Service include streamlining of registration process, e –consultations and document • focus on the delivery of the Corporate management systems. In other areas there Plan. have been staff reductions in the efficiency • focus on what customers want and need. of the service. These are on top of the reductions from harmonisation through • removal of functions and tasks not shared services. FFTF is supporting the essential to the customer or the delivery and consolidation of shared services organisation. arrangements. Running FFTF across both • removal of waste from systems and South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse processes. councils has cost each council around half as • development of innovative approaches. much as it would if each ran the programme independently. • improved performance, management and productivity. FFTF is a balanced approach to change. • creation of more motivated, purposeful and It combines a focus on cost reduction with competitive teams. improving the experience for customers and simplifying processes. During 2009/10 and FFTF has been a very important 2010/11 South Oxfordshire saved £1,723,000 improvement process to support the through its FFTF programme and budgets councils in managing further budget cuts to save £3,990,000 between 2011/12 and while maintaining quality of service to the 2013/14 in addition to the savings from the public. Where implemented it has provided a shared service (Table 2). clear project discipline for enforcing budget

Table 2: Summary of Other Main Savings Initiative 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total Actual Actual Actual Forecast Forecast Payroll 80,000 80,000 160,000 Waste contract 195,380 653,140 652,680 652,680 2,153,880 Recycling income from 36,000 162,600 347,760 362,760 383,080 1,292,200 new waste contract Fit For The Future Phase1 558,000 558,000 558,000 558,000 558,000 2,790,000 Phase 2 607,000 607,000 607,000 607,000 2,428,000 Phase 3 165,000 165,000 222,400 552,400 Net Annual Saving 594,000 1,522,980 2,330,900 2,425,440 2,503,160 9,376,440

14 Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 Performance levels have seen no significant of their contact with the council, especially or sustained drop in performance during the when contacting by e-mail. In important implementation of shared services. Indeed areas for customers such as waste and performance standards including waste recycling, the public from both councils can and recycling and benefit payments have find it difficult to get through to the waste improved at Vale of White Horse mainly as a contractor. To date therefore the number of result of improved management. complaints and contacts are rising in relation to the delivery of the shared waste contract. For example, benefits performance has improved significantly over recent years. There are no comparable historic customer When the contract was let in 2006, the satisfaction baselines for Vale of White contractor struggled to meet the target of Horse, but when South Oxfordshire’s processing benefits claims in 30 days. customers were asked in 2011 how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with the way South However, in 2012 its performance is Oxfordshire District Council runs things, 73 consistently better than 10 days, mainly as per cent of respondents were satisfied, of a result of improved management. Benefits which the majority were fairly satisfied. While accuracy has risen in Vale of White Horse the level of satisfaction represents an overall from 79 per cent in 2008/09 to 93.3 per cent increase since 2007, in 2011/12. Table 3 shows that satisfaction has actually However both councils recognise the need to fallen since 2009 when it peaked at 78 continue to improve the customer experience per cent. Levels of satisfaction at South and engagement with service providers. Oxfordshire in 2011 are similar to the 72 per For example in the 2011 South Oxfordshire cent national average. Citizens’ Panel, nearly four out of every ten people were dissatisfied with the results

Table 3: South Oxfordshire Customer Satisfaction

Total satisfaction 73%

78%

63%

Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 15 Given the large amount of outsourcing, the While national comparison data is now no council’s shared ‘Performance Review of longer collected, there is no evidence service Contractors’ has been an important check on delivery has declined as a result of shared the quality of delivery to the public. An annual service arrangements. report for each major contractor provides a consistent means of measuring performance A major by-product of shared working is and trends in customer satisfaction. the critical scale achieved in dealing with Contractor delivery and customer experience politicians at county and national level and ratings in waste, engineering support and with local companies and bodies such as UK grounds maintenance remains high, while Atomic Energy and Npower. benefits have improved. The experience of the shared services Older leisure contracts at Vale will be approach and joint working has increased replaced in 2014 when service level the capacity of councillors to take a strategic agreements can be tightened to produce view of issues that cut across arbitrary better performance. Overall leisure centre political boundaries and to reach effective attendance trends are difficult to track decisions of benefit to all parties. because of changes in information collection, Science Vale for example cuts geographically closures of specific centres for maintenance across the two districts and its impact does or refurbishment, and contractor changes. too. Issues affecting the area are now dealt However there are higher numbers of with far more robustly than before the shared people visiting leisure centres on General arrangements were put in place. Councillors Practitioners (GP) advice. and senior managers also consider that For example, for one leisure contract, GP shared arrangements significantly impacted referral sessions increased from 458 in on the Government’s decision to allocate an 2008/09 to 693 in 2010/11 – a 51 per cent Enterprise Zone to the area. increase, and under 16 use also increased. With this and Growth Point status, business Monitoring places a strong emphasis on rate growth potential is £260 million. The customer excellence and it is helping to drive Science Vale UK area has growth targets of improvement. over 16,000 jobs over the next 15 years, and Performance management reports to the Enterprise Zone plan to deliver 8400 of councillors help focus attention on areas that those direct jobs by 2015. matter to customers and citizens. Monthly

Board Reports graphically represent the key performance areas that are important to citizens and are known to drive customer satisfaction.

These show improving performance in areas such as speed of council tax benefit processing, number of new and affordable homes built and dealing with homelessness.

16 Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 Third party services

Third party income was not a motivation for the establishment of the shared service and has not been a critical component of the SSA’s development. However, this is starting to change as the SSA evolves and the councils are starting to explore opportunities around audits, systems and processes. In addition, some early consideration is being given to offering treasury management services to other councils, but this is only an aspiration at present. Third party income may also be a much stronger part of the 2013/14 new Leisure Management contract.

The council could consider opportunities for third party income as part of its medium term financial plan.

Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 17 Strategic developments

Future savings and improvements continue Both councils see large opportunities to be sought through the FTFF programme for increased efficiencies and improved and opportunistic events. For example performance when the existing leisure when, a Head of Service recently left, their contracts are jointly tendered in 2013/14. duties were shared among the remaining seven Heads of Service. This both saved Taking advantage of the combined weight money and provided further challenge to the of the councils buying power plus the managerial and professional development of experience learnt from procuring the financial the Heads of Service. services and waste contracts, both councils should be in a good negotiating position to Other smaller examples include service deliver financial and indirect benefits from the managers taking over different managerial new leisure contract. responsibilities in areas that are not their professional background but which are Politicians, senior managers and staff undertaken on the basis of their managerial see the next phase of the SSA as tackling ability and competencies. Again this has the ‘sensitive’ issue of a single site in one helped save money where posts become of the two council areas. Combining the vacant and to retain good staff who might vast majority of staff in one location would have left to widen their experience. generate significant property related savings and benefits, including: In addition the Councils expect to make further savings from joint procurement. • sale of one of the Council Head Quarters Although not yet included in budgets and office sites to generate significant hence not incorporated in Table 2, expected disposal proceeds from retail or housing benefits are likely to include: redevelopment; • increased business rates or new homes • shared grounds maintenance contract bonus that would result from any new saving an estimated £1,560,000 over the development; contract (2012-2020) • lower costs in terms of a reduction in • shared geographical database system business rates and property occupation saving a net £487,400 over the contract costs through the release of one of the (2012-2020) sites; • renegotiation of Vale of White Horse • reduced costs of ICT and customer Council’s leisure contract saving £275,000 services; per year (from 2011). • reduced costs of staff engaged in

18 Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 maintenance, janitorial and security duties; • reduced mileage costs and travel time between the two council offices.

However, considerations would include:

• finding an acceptable solution to ensure that a democratic presence in both council areas is maintained; • longer journey to work times for some staff to be set against shorter times for others; • increased journey times for face-to-face meetings for citizens, customers and public sector partners.

The Councils are not examining opportunities to partner with other public service providers such as other neighbouring councils, National Health Service (NHS), or police.

Finally were the Government minded to put local government restructuring back onto the public services agenda, both councils consider that they would be very well placed to form a southern Oxfordshire unitary council, if this were the wish of the electorate and political parties.

Services shared: costs spared? Appendix 6 19 Local Government Association Local Government House Smith Square London SW1P 3HZ

Telephone 020 7664 3000 Fax 020 7664 3030 Email [email protected] www.local.gov.uk

L12-554