Word Document
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SKEGNESS TOWN COUNCIL Direction & Strategy Committee Wednesday, 22nd March 2017 7.00 pm at the Town Hall, Skegness, Lincolnshire NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF the above meeting. The business to be dealt with at the meeting is listed in the agenda set out below. AGENDA 1. MINUTES OF LAST MEETING – Previously circulated To note that the minutes of 17th January 2017 were approved and adopted by Council at its meeting on 1st February 2017. 2. APOLOGIES 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 4. AMENITY GRASS CUTTING – report attached Presentation from the Town Clerk on the Amenity Grass areas in Skegness. 5. DOG FOULING & WARDEN – report attached. 6. EAST LINDSEY OFF STREET PARKING REVIEW – report attached. Any further observations in relation to the report need to be submitted to ELDC by 12 noon on Monday 10th April 2017. 7. DCLG HOUSING MARKET CONSULTATION – report attached. Consultation closes 11:45am on Monday 24th April 2017. Steve Larner – Town Clerk 15th March 2017 4. SKEGNESS TOWN COUNCIL REPORT TO: DIRECTION AND STRATEGY COMMITTEE 22ND MARCH 2017 BY: TOWN CLERK SUBJECT: Amenity Grass Cutting PURPOSE: To determine the standards, methodology and process to establish Amenity Grass Cutting from 2018/19 . 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 At its meeting on 1st March 2017, Council decided to take on the responsibility for Amenity Grass cutting in Skegness following Lincolnshire County Council’s decision to stop this service. There are some 153840 m2 of grass verges in Skegness and Winthorpe. 1.2 For 2017/18, a temporary contract has been procured, but this is a stop gap measure to enable the grassed areas to be kept under control until a permanent solution can be found. 1.3 Council has indicated that it wants the Committee to explore the future options available for verge cutting and come back with proposals and recommendations for consideration by Full Council. 2 METHOD 2.1 The first step will be for committee to set out a specification of the works to be carried out. Until this is done it is impossible to determine the options for delivery or an idea of the likely costs. Committee will need to decide whether it can do this from the maps and schedules provided or whether a visit to the various sites is required. The specification should include as a minimum: - • The scope of the cut – which areas are to be cut/not cut • The standard of the work and how it will be measured – this could be set out as a maximum permitted length of grass or the frequency of the cuts – this could be different for different areas but the Committee need to consider the complexity of monitoring such an arrangement and the knock on administrative overhead. A high standard would be 16-18 cuts per annum or a max grass height of 60mm, a medium standard 12-15 cuts per annum or 75mm, a lower standard would be 8-11 cuts per annum or 100mm. Separate standards would apply to exceptionally wet or dry weather. • Method of working – Pre-litter pick, timing, H&S, road signs, branding of workers and how this will be monitored. • How the contractor will respond to complaints and what the triggers are. 2.2 Once the Committee has determined what it is that needs to be done, it will be possible to explore the options that are available to deliver this. Below are some of the issues the Committee may wish to explore – this is just by way of example and not an exhaustive list. Contract In-House Fixed price Flexibility in how delivered – can change priorities as and when required to meet need Specification takes time to prepare if it Need to manage the staff and provide is to be robust. Flexibility is difficult or cover for when things go wrong. expensive to build in as contractors need certainty to give a low price Additions to specification are likely to Upfront costs of equipment needed to be expensive undertake the work Usually no big up-front costs for Potential economies of scale if other equipment as this is recouped across work is being undertaken in house, contract but would be some upfront costs Procurement process takes a lot of Job creation, recruitment and resources and is repeated on a selection, job evaluation, training has cyclical basis (i.e. every 4-5 years) to be managed. But there is direct control over the performance and behaviour of those representing the Town Council Contract has “lock in” and so there is Job opportunities are in Skegness but less room to change in response to may be seasonal and future change changing situations. Options to may result in organisational change/ terminate contract will increase the redundancies. contract price or incur termination costs Bad weather (unless exceptions are Weather conditions may require agreed) is the problem of the additional resources, but could also contractor – but they also get the mean that resources can be banked if benefit during dry/cold periods annualised hours are used 3 COSTS OF OPTIONS 3.1 Council has asked for costs of the options. To get an accurate estimate of the cost of a contract will require market testing. Realistically this is not feasible unless the Council is willing to invest in procurement support. Use of general costs per m2 are unlikely to give very accurate costs due to the location of grass, widths of verges and obstacles. Some reviews of other Council’s contracts from published information has been undertaken, but often it is difficult to uncover the amount and complexity of the work or any specific contractual terms that would influence the price. These are mostly kept confidential. 3.2 The committee also needs to consider its own capacity to work up and consider both options to any level of detail. 3.3 To assist with setting the specification standard some indicative costs are set out below, but these have a very wide margin of error. Generally, the better the standard the more attractive an in-house operation becomes. Length 50mm 70mm 100mm Approx 1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks frequency of cut CONTRACT Est Cost per m2 0.326ppa pm2 0.244ppa pm2 0.162ppa pm2 Est Contract £50000 £37500 £25000 Cost (2016) Inflation (Fuel, £1250 950 650 insurance, wages) Total Contract £51250 £38450 £25650 IN HOUSE No Cutters 4 3 2 Staff Hours Groundsman 3663 2442 1221 Senior 1221 1221 1221 Groundsman Approx Staff £36000 -£48800 £28000-£36300 £20300-£24600 Cost (inc. on- costs) Est Fuel £4000 £3250 £2500 Maintenance Insurance Depreciation on £7500 - £12500 £7000 – £12000 £6500 - £11500 equipment (4 yrs) TOTAL £47500 - £65300 £38250 - £51550 £29300 - £38600 3.4 An in-house option will be costed based on an annualised hours approach. Total costs will include employee costs, equipment costs, maintenance and fuel. Equipment will include for example: a zero-turn mower (possibly 2 depending on max operating hours), 1-3 walk behind commercial mowers, brush cutters/strimmers and a trailer or a pickup. 3.5 In determining the options the Committee needs to keep in mind other work the Council is or will be undertaking and whether any options support this either financially or operationally. 3.6 Both in house and contract approaches will have an impact on the administration team. a) For the contract approach, procurement and contract management will be an ongoing matter. If a contractor fails to perform this may involve more evidence gathering and a longer resolution period as the labour force is not within direct control. b) For the in-house approach, there will be more staff management issues as well as recruitment and training from time to time. 4 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 The Directions and Strategy Committee considers: a) How to develop the specification of work and associated standards b) The methodology for deciding on a contract or in-house approach to avoid creating excessive additional work both for Committee members and staff. c) The potential ramifications in respect of the budget in 2018/19 and beyond FOR DECISION For information relating to this report please contact The Town Clerk, Town Hall Skegness or email [email protected] Background papers None 5. SKEGNESS TOWN COUNCIL REPORT TO: DIRECTION AND STRATEGY COMMITTEE 22ND MARCH 2017 BY: TOWN CLERK SUBJECT: Dog/Street Warden PURPOSE: To report back on the advice from ELDC regarding a potential Dog/Street Warden . 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 At its meeting on 1st March 2017, Council asked the Direction and Strategy Committee explore the potential for Skegness Town Council to employ a Dog/Street Warden to be funded by fines collected. They asked that ELDC be asked for advice and for this information to be brought back. 2 ADVICE AND POWERS 2.1 Dog Control Orders become obsolete later this year as they have now been superseded by Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO) and Community Protection Orders. 2.2 ELDC are now looking at what the District Council need to put into place for dog control under a PSPO, across the district, and they are also obtaining clarity on which organisations can enforce, as the legislation doesn’t allow Parish and Town Councils to enforce in the same way as Dog Control Orders did. 2.3 As part of this piece of work ELDC are also looking at different options for enforcement – interestingly City of Lincoln have introduced a warden who is issuing Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) for litter and dog fouling and the income has covered their costs. However, they have District Council powers and are issuing over 700 Fixed Penalty Notices per year in Lincoln city centre. 2.4 By summer there should be greater clarity on how ELDC will proceed with PSPOs and this should provide better direction especially in respect of the powers needed to undertake any enforcement.