Agenda and minutes

There were none. 

The record of the meeting held on 4 September 2012 was agreed and signed by the Leader as correct. 

There were none.

Background:

This report set out the major financial issues facing the Council over the next three years. It also provided a framework for the more detailed preparation of the draft Revenue Budget for 2013/16.

The report included details of the Council’s financial position, together with an overview of the Spending Review 2010, the Council’s strategic priorities and core values and the need for the Medium Term Financial Plan to be able to respond to the changing policy context in which the Council and its partners operated.

An assessment of likely available resources and details of a number of key spending issues across the Council’s directorates were set out. It was also noted that the Medium Term Financial Plan identified the resources available, which would determine the service priorities within the Council Plan. Diversity Impact Assessments would be undertaken and reported to Members as part of the budget and service planning process as the quantum of resources and hence the impact on Council services unfolded.

Members were advised that after allowing for a potential council tax increase and estimated savings from the transformational Better for Less programme, which sought to improve services and deliver efficiencies, there remained a potential deficit for 2013/14 of £5.9million.

In order to retain the strategic aim of achieving a sustainable budget without recourse to reserves, existing and emerging pressures would be challenged and weight given to the efficiency agenda and the search for more cost effective means of delivery.

The report also set out the timetable for the development of the draft budget setting proposals and it was noted that business and service planning would run concurrently, leading to the development of the Council Plan.

The Cabinet considered an addendum report that was tabled at the meeting. This set out details of the comments and recommendations from the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which had considered the report on 25 September 2012.

Reasons:

This was a preparatory document to meet the budget process and timetable set outwithin the Constitution. 

Background:

This report sought approval for the addition of £4.410m to the capital programme, to deliver the next phase of essential infrastructure for the Rochester Riverside Development, funded through an interest free loan, through CLG’s Growing Places Funding.

The report examined three options for the delivery of the remaining land within Phase 1 of the development. In summary, this included releasing development opportunities to the market, with a requirement for developers to install site wide infrastructure for the remainder of Phase 1; further prudential borrowing; and, delivering site wide infrastructure for the remainder of Phase 1 through Growing Places Funding.

It was noted that Growing Places Funding was a programme of affordable loan finance, allocated by Local Economic Partnerships, to cash flow strategic investment in development opportunities. This is to enable the quicker delivery of developments, which might otherwise stall, enabling economic growth through creation of new jobs and homes.

The report noted that the bid for Rochester Riverside would enable the delivery of the next phase of infrastructure; providing fully serviced plots, sufficient for the next 7-8 years of anticipated development, reducing the risks and costs to developers and also the required percentage of developer profit, thus increasing the resulting obtainable land values from future market sales of development plots.

It was reported that the Rochester Riverside Project Board, comprising of Members from the Council and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), had considered and recommended this approach, subject to respective Council approval and approval by the HCA’s Board on 31 October 2012.

Reasons:

To facilitate the delivery of the next phase of essential infrastructure for the Rochester Riverside Development.

Background:

This report presented information on vacancies that officers had requested approval to commence recruitment for, following the process agreed by Cabinet on 7 January 2003 (decision number 9/2003).

Appendix 1 to the report provided details of the posts.

Reasons:

The posts presented to Cabinet will support the efficient running of the Council.

Background:

This report sought permission to award a framework contract for Homecare and Extra Care Services. The Procurement Board had approved this report for submission to the Cabinet after review and discussion on 21 September 2012.

The Cabinet had given approval to the commencement of this procurement at Gateway 1 on 6 September 2011 and this report was based upon a recently undertaken procurement process.

It was noted that the management of this procurement was a pilot of the category management approach to procurement, where adult social care and the corporate team were working together to ensure that the recommissioned homecare services deliver better for less. The homecare services had been the subject of a strategic sourcing plan (SSP), which was developed in partnership with PwC. Subsequent to the Procurement Board’s endorsement of the SSP, a commercial strategy was developed to deliver a better service for less expenditure so that there was an increase in value for money for all stakeholders.

Members were advised that the category management approach had also identified a better approach to the initial idea of homecare providers on the framework being the select list for the mini procurements of extra care. A review of the market identified that there were specialist providers of extra care that would not tender for homecare services. The creation of a select list/framework of extra care providers meant that the council could undertake mini-procurements with quality assured providers to meet the demand for services as schemes are opened.

The report set out details of two procurement contract award options: do not award any contract and cancel procurement process and award contract to the series of contractors.

An exempt appendix provided key information in respect of finance and whole-life costing; providers and detailed procurement process tender evaluation information.

A Diversity Impact Assessment screening form was attached to the report. This indicated that a full Diversity Impact Assessment was not required.

Reasons:

The decisions are made on the basis of: the improved redesign of home care services that focus on continuous improvement; the delivery of £1.4 million of savings, without disruption to services; and, a streamlined mini-procurement process for potential extra care providers for emerging  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.