Minutes:
Members welcomed the Managing Director of the Place Partnership Limited to the meeting and invited him to deliver a presentation (Appendix 2). Whilst this presentation was provided the following matters were raised for Members’; attention:
· The Place Partnership Ltd was a public sector mutual in which partners had equal shares.
· The organisation had been incorporated in March 2015, a Managing Director was appointed in June 2015 and the company had been launched in September of that year.
· The partnership had succeeded the previous partnership arrangement that had been managed by Worcestershire County Council on behalf of some partners.
· A range of partner organisations were shareholders in the company including Councils, West Mercia Police and Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service.
· The partnership provided property services on behalf of partners and had inherited some excellent staff from those organisations. All staff were now on the same terms and conditions.
· The partnership had introduced a graduate programme and were due to recruit three new members of staff to this programme in 2018.
· The partnership had around 500 contracts, though officers were working to simply this by reducing the number to approximately 15. This included a contract with 188 schools.
· The partnership delivered services across a wide geographical area encompassing Herefordshire, Shropshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire, though customers were located as far away as Altrincham in Greater Manchester.
· The Place Partnership had been involved in recent work on the One Public Estate exercise.
· A key consideration when managing Property Services was to maximise use of space and this could enable organisations to achieve efficiencies.
· There was a shareholders’ agreement, a service agreement, between the company and the shareholders, and properly constituted articles all of which underpinned the governance arrangements.
· Each shareholder had a representative who sat on the board, which met on a quarterly basis, as well as acted as a voice for their organisation. The Executive Director of Finance and Corporate Resources had this role on behalf of Redditch Borough Council.
· There was also a regular forum for shareholders, which was attended by the Chief Executive and Portfolio Holder for Corporate Management. These forums provided an opportunity to consider matters such as the partnership’s business plans.
· When the partnership had been launched it had been anticipated that in total services would be delivered at a cost of £25 million by year five. In fact, by year two the partnership had running costs of £21 million.
· The partnership was achieving a greater level of savings for partner organisations than the previous shared service arrangement.
· The partnership had inherited some systems that were not considered to be fit for purpose. Action had been taken over the previous two years in an attempt to address this.
· The partnership had worked on a range of projects, including Hindlip Park and Evesham Fire Station each of which had been complicated but had helped to generate new jobs at a limited cost to the public purse.
· The partnership had been scrutinised by the Royal Institute for Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
· The organisation had received recognition as Property Manager of the Year in a national competition.
Once the presentation had been delivered Members discussed a number of points in detail:
· The weaknesses of the partnership and how these could be addressed. Officers acknowledged that improvements could be made, though it was noted that the organisation had only existed for two years. This would take time and would involve a focus on improving customer services.
· The role of staff in helping to improve customer services. A new staff group, Your Place Matters, had been introduced to enable employees to discuss such matters.
· The potential for the partnership to also meet customer services by engaging with the customer to develop service action plans.
· The performance management arrangements for the partnership. The Committee was advised that the initial agreement underpinning the partnership had made no reference to Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) though these had been developed locally. Members requested a copy of these KPIs for information.
· The potential to include KPIs in the new service agreements that were due to apply from 1st April 2018 and the need to link these to the Council’s strategic purposes.
· The potential for conflicts of interest to arise where shareholders had both representatives on the board and an interest in achieving savings and generating revenue. Independent members had been recruited to the board to help achieve an appropriate balance and address any potential for conflicts of interest to occur.
· The meetings of the board and the potential for Councillors to attend these. Members were advised that partner organisations learned about meetings of the board through their representative.
· The progress that had been achieved with the One Public Estate project and the extent to which Members would be engaged with this. Officers advised that a draft document was in the process of being considered by the Corporate Management Team (CMT) and was currently due to be considered by the Executive Committee in March, though the item was also scheduled for pre-scrutiny.
· The process that needed to be followed to report matters of concern to the Place Partnership. Members were advised that it was best to report issues to the organisation’s contact centre.
· The existence of lead members of staff at the partnership who co-ordinated enquiries relating to a particular local authority area. This individual could help to ensure that any concerns relating to assets within that area were addressed.
· The level of profit that had been achieved by the partnership to date. Members were advised that in the first year of operation there had been a loss of £99,000. However, the audit had recently been completed of the year 2 accounts and this revealed that there had been a profit of £145,000 that year which was being reinvested in services.
· The provision of the same level of dividend to all shareholders regardless of the level of their contribution.
· The potential to generate more business by bidding for new contracts or undertaking specific pieces of work for external customers.
· The potential for the Redditch Fire Station to be regenerated as part of work on the One Public Estate project.
· The need for funding from the Council’s capital programme to invest in capital projects delivered by the Place Partnership on behalf of the authority.
· The availability of £200,000 in a Localities Development budget which could be invested by the partnership in projects that met needs within the community.
RESOLVED that
the report be noted