Issue - meetings

Report RES13047

At its meeting on 23^rd May 2012, the Executive resolved that Improvement and Efficiency Sub-Committee be given delegated authority to determine Invest to Save Schemes requiring up to £200k but that a cap on the total expenditure to be agreed be set at £1m and up to a maximum of ten schemes.  The Executive also resolved that Members be kept fully informed in the early stages of schemes being processed, and agreed that the Sub-Committee would monitor agreed Invest to Save schemes and receive details in the form of a spreadsheet listing all the approved schemes and progress with savings achieved.  Post completion review reports would be provided when schemes had been completed showing the outcomes and savings that had been made.  The Sub-Committee considered a report providing an update on the progress of Invest to Save Schemes.

In considering the summary of Invest to Save Schemes approved to date, a Member noted that a number of schemes exceeded the maximum payback period of five years.  The Chief Accountant confirmed that some of the older schemes had a longer payback period. Going forward, in considering new Invest to Save Schemes, a payback period of up to five years would be the norm.  The repayment to the Invest to Save fund would also include interest for the loan which would be higher for those schemes with a longer payback period.

Another Member noted that the summary did not reflect the non-financial benefits of Invest to Save Schemes, for example, the Library Self-Service and RFID Technology Scheme that had freed up library staff to undertake wider library duties.  The Chief Accountant agreed that one of the main benefits of providing post completion review reports for individual schemes would be that the focus was not purely on financial outcomes but also whether scheme objectives had been met.

Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP highlighted the Trial of Revised Green Garden and Textile Collection Service Scheme and noted that the cost saving realised by the scheme was difficult to measure.  It was highlighted that £140k of the Invest to Save funding granted to this scheme had been repaid in 2011/12 from underspends elsewhere within the Environment Portfolio, and Members were concerned that this had undermined the aims and objectives of the Invest to Save scheme.  The Chief Accountant confirmed that the savings and benefits arising from this scheme would be monitored against the total investment of £220k.  Another Member noted that this scheme comprised two distinct elements and requested that they be detailed separately in the post completion review report when the scheme had concluded.

RESOLVED that the progress of Invest to Save Schemes be noted.