Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor White.

None received.

·         Waste

·         Passenger Transport Unit

I) WASTE AND STREET SERVICES

Context:

To provide detailed draft proposals on the budget savings required to meet the gap between available resources and need to spend in 2016/17, for consultation purposes.

To consider the 2016/17 budget within the context of the 4 year Medium Term Financial Plan

That Select committee scrutinises the budget savings proposals for 2016/17 released for consultation purposes and provide their response by the 30th November 2015

The pressure is required to meet the increased expenditure in recycling and waste management for 2016/17 and is made up of several different components that are outside the control of Waste and Street Services.

          Key Issues:

MRF Costs – In 2012-13 the Council made a £350k saving with the introduction of a £0 MRF contract.  However since that time MRF capacity has been greatly reduced, new regulations have imposed burdens on the MRF sector and most of all the global economic downturn has had a very serious negative impact on commodity prices and therefore the value of recyclates.  Market testing has indicated that a cost for MRF reprocessing could be in the range of £35-55 per tonne.  MCC currently collects c.11,000 tonnes per annum.  It has been agreed with finance that a fee of £45p/t will be modelled introducing a pressure of £495k. 

Sustainable Environment Grant – in 2014-15 WG at the last minute changed the process and principles of this grant.  WG have indicated that they expect this grant to be used for wider purposes than just waste.  In the model a 10% reduction on this grant has been modelled - £191k.  However it must be noted that WG have indicated to other LAs that a cut of as much as 40-50% could be forthcoming in 2016-17.  This would be devastating for all LAs and for recycling and waste services.  If a 50% cut was forthcoming nearly £950k would be cut - a further £759k of the modelled reduction. 

Fleet & impact of route optimisation - The budget mandate was ambitious and unfortunately due to leases having been bought out in previous years the revenue saving from removing leasing costs could not be made.  The Council in effect has had that benefit in previous years.  The vehicle stock is now aging and an assessment by Transport is that 5 RCVs need to be replaced. In addition it has been acknowledged that the route optimisation project has placed too much stress on our workforce and therefore needs to be re-run and pressures reduced.  Therefore 1 further vehicle is needed to remove this pressure.  6 vehicles, lease cost of £25k = £150k.  8 posts were removed through the route optimisation process.  With the introduction of a new vehicle that needs to be manned – cost of a crew (driver + 2 loaders) = £71k.  Running costs of a vehicle (insurance, fuel etc.) = £26k. Total from pressure = £247k

Additional households/increases in waste & contract indexation.  – Waste production is linked to economic growth and number of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Background paper brought to Strong Communities on 10^th September – verbal position update

Context:

To update members on the provision of public conveniences at various sites within the County and seek feedback from members on options for the future provision of public conveniences.

That members review the information provided, consider the options for the future provision of the service and offer commentary for submission to Cabinet.

          Key Issues:

In 2010 the Strong Communities Select Committee undertook a detailed review of the provision of public conveniences. This informed a strategy for the future provision of public conveniences and as a result new arrangements were implemented including some closures but also transfer of responsibility to other providers (community and town councils).

Since then some further adjustments to service provision have been arrived at through greater collaboration with town councils and mandated in the MCC budgets for 14/15 and 15/16.

This has resulted in the majority of public conveniences remaining open to the public but the method of management and provision varying between towns and villages.

Appendix 1 lists those toilets where MCC retains an ‘interest’ and approved proposals for their future provision, including details of current revenue and capital costs associated with possible transfer as well as a commentary on capital receipts opportunities.

Those toilets that remain the responsibility and cost to MCC after the proposals already approved are:

1. Abergavenny: Whitehorse Lane

    Castle Street

    Brewery Yard

    Bus station

2. Monmouth: Blestium Street (Cattle market)

3. Usk: Maryport Street car park

    Usk Island

4. Tintern: Beaufort Cottage

Member Scrutiny:

Members were keen to stress that there should be at least one well maintained toilet in every town of the County.

Members discussed the importance of clustered working to solve problems and benefit from tourism.

A Member raised the issue for charging for toilets. And asked if advertising space being sold within the public conveniences had been explored. The Member also raised the provision of sanitary disposal. It was answered that charging had been looked at previously, however the cost of collecting the small amounts of funds raised was cost prohibitive in itself. It was agreed that advertising was being actively explored.

A Member expressed dissatisfaction that Cadw would not allow the general public to use the toilets at Tintern Abbey without payment of the entrance fee.

A Member commented that every community is different and every town is different, but when policy is set, it has to be universal and we have to be brave and enforce the policy.

Strong Communities Select Committee

Thursday 10^th December 10am

Meeting – 10^th December October 2015 at 10.00am

• Future Food Waste Treatment Strategy
• Month 6 Budget Monitoring