Capital Bids 2010_11 - COM - 120110

Copyright 2009 Elmbridge Borough Council

cap bids 10_11 template 1

1. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Environment & Economy PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Glenn Dearlove HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Environmental Care BID OBJECTIVE: Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: Recycling Containers Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A6 Priorities: P5 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 70,000 30 30 30 10 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process Tender Evaluation

Local Authority Procurement Framework Agreement Purchase

Order Placed x x x x Works Commence Works Completed x x x x What will be achieved? The ongoing provision of sets new and replacement recycling containers to new and reoccupied properties, and provision of wheeled bins for the introduction of the elm bridge bin collection service to up to 7,500 communal properties where the service has yet to be introduced.

Recycling Containers Approx Number Cost s

Recycling & Food Bins (Communal Properties) 7,500 25,000 Recycling Bins (Replacements) 1,000 30,000 Food Bins New (New Props & Replacements) 1,000 5,000 Garden Waste Sacks (New Customers & Replacements) 10,000 10,000 Total 70,000



Who will benefit from implementation? Residents of new and reoccupied properties and communal properties. New and existing sack customers of the garden waste collection service. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? The Council would not be able to continue to provide recycling containers, as part of its commitment to further increase recycling levels. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? The Council could adopt a policy of requiring households to provide these containers (as already the case for refuse containers). Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: The cost of bin deliveries to communal properties can be met from the remaining operational contingency and existing recycling bin delivery budgets. How much revenue budget growth is required and which year(s) will the budget growth be incurred? None

You need to complete a Revenue Growth form and cross-reference it.

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000

Revenue Costs Revenue Savings

Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment 90,000 Revenue costs over life 45,000 (one off cost - delivery of bins) Less revenue savings over life (0) 135,000 Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? Yes Planning S106 Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring : HEC Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

No Score

0

2. Is the scheme required to meet statutory obligation?

No Score

0

5-10 years



3. Does the scheme help to meet the Councils vision and priorities?

Vision: A6 Priorities: P5

Score

10

4. Impact on performance indicators

Recyclable tonnage from recycling litterbins negligible. Garden waste sacks to be purchased as replacements and for new customers. 7500 additional properties on EBC will result in an additional 800 tonnes of food waste collected. This will increase the councils recycling and composting rate by a further 1.5%

Score

5

5. Is the scheme working in partnership and as a result levers in other resources?

No Score

0

6. Does the scheme link with other reviews (eg VFM)?

Waste Value for Money Review. Action to implement AWC and food waste collections borough wide to achieve recycling and composting rate of 50%

Score

5

7. Does the scheme result in a future revenue saving? No

Score



2. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Environment & Economy PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Glenn Dearlove HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Environmental Care BID OBJECTIVE: Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: Recycling Litter Bins Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A6 Priorities: P5 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 20,000 30 30 30 10 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process Tender Evaluation

Local Authority Procurement Framework Agreement Purchase

Order Placed x x x x Works Commence Works Completed x x x x What will be achieved? The further introduction of recycling litter bins to town and village centres.

Recycling Containers Approx Number Cost s

Recycling Litter Bins 40 20,000 Total 20,000

Who will benefit from implementation? Visitors to town and villages will be able to recycle item of litter.



What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? The Council would not be able to continue to provide recycling containers, as part of its commitment to further increase recycling levels. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? Could continue with refuse only litterbins across the borough, although this would not promote recycling. Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: None. Litter bins to be installed by Street Smart team. No increase in cost for emptying.

How much revenue budget growth is required and which year(s) will the budget growth be incurred? None You need to complete a Revenue Growth form and cross-reference it.

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment Revenue costs over life Less revenue savings over life (0) Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? Yes Planning S106 Tarriffs Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring : HEC Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

No Score


No Score



Score

0

0

5

10 years Years




Recyclable tonnage from recycling litterbins negligible.

Score

1


No Score

0


No Score

7. Does the scheme result in a future revenue saving? No

Score



3. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Highways & Transport PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Clr David Archer HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Environmental Care BID OBJECTIVE: Invest to Save and Increase Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: Various Car Parks Improvements (see list below) Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A1, A2, A5, A6 Priorities: P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 93,000 25 50 25 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process x Tender Evaluation x Order Placed x x Works Commence x x Works Completed x x What will be achieved? Improved environment in car parks. Reduction in light pollution. Reduction of crime and fear of crime. Improved safety. Who will benefit from implementation? Visitors, residents, businesses. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Failure to maintain car parks as a safe environment. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No

How much revenue budget growth is required and which year(s) will the budget growth be incurred? You need to complete a Revenue Growth form and cross-reference it.



2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000

Revenue Costs 0 0 0 0 Revenue Savings 0 0 0 0

Anticipated Life of Asset: 15 years Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment 93,000 Revenue costs over life Less revenue savings over life 93,000 Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

Risk of accident and additional crime Score

10


Requirement to provide lighting to an approved standard

Score

10


A1, A2, A5, A6, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 Score

10


Reduction in crime (Surrey Police KPI) Score

10


In partnership with Surrey Police and British Parking Association, promoting the Park Mark safer car parks award scheme

Score

5


General support for maintaining and further developing quality services

Score

10

7. Does the scheme result in a future revenue saving?

Score 5



Car Park Improvement Plan (2010-11)

Car Park Type Capital Works s

Churchfield Road, Weybridge Town

Replace obsolete high utility type lamp columns with lower level architectural high efficiency lamp columns. These will be sympathetic to the Weybridge Conservation Area, in particular the view towards St James Church.

50,000

Drewitt's Court, Walton On Thames Town

Refurbish the stairwell and lift lobby areas including replacing lighting and redecorating walls, floors and ceiling. Improvements to lighting on ground floor and upper deck.

15,000

15,000

Halfway Town New lighting to improve lighting efficiency, reduce light pollution, help reduce crime and fear of crime and increase safety.

3,000

Manor Road Town New lighting to improve lighting efficiency, reduce light pollution.

10,000

Total 93,000



4. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Highways & Transport PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Clr David Archer HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Environmental Care BID OBJECTIVE: Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: Installation of new and Replacement of Obsolete Cycle

Storage Facilities Serving Three Commuter Stations: Heath North and South car parks (Weybridge Station) Mayfield Road and Station Avenue car parks (Walton on

Thames Station) and Walton Park car park ( Hersham Station)

Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A1, A2, A3, A5, P1, P2, P3, P5 Priorities: P1, P2, P3, P5 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 25,000 50 50 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process x Tender Evaluation x Order Placed x Works Commence x x Works Completed x x What will be achieved? Support sustainable travel, reduce use of cars and reduce cycle theft Who will benefit from implementation? Local commuters and residents travelling from rail stations in Elmbridge What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Increased clutter for cycles locked up by stations not equipped with adequate cycle storage facilities. Cycles using our obsolete cycle racks are vulnerable to theft as only one wheel can be locked Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No




2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset: 15 years Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment 25k Revenue costs over life 0 Less revenue savings over life (0) 25k Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? s106 Contribution, non-revenue Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring John Strachan, Parking Services Manager Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

Reduction of crime Score

15


No Score


A1, A2, A3, A5, P1, P2, P3, P5 Score

15


Reduction of Surrey Police Car Park Crime Score

15


With SCC Transport Officers Score

15


Overall Car Parks Improvements Score

15




No Score



5. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Leisure & Culture PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Jan Fuller HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Leisure & Cultural Services BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: Replacement Landrover for Countryside Team Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A1, A2, A6 Priorities: P1, P2, P4, P5 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 28,000 100 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April June July Sept Oct Dec Jan March Pre Tender Process X Tender Evaluation X Order Placed X Works Commence Works Completed What will be achieved? Replacement Landrover for countryside team as existing W Reg vehicle is coming to the end of its life. Who will benefit from implementation? Continued improvements to countryside estate to benefit the general public. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Reduction in capacity of countryside team to carry out improvement works/reactive works around flytip. Danger of not maintaining the required management works to ensure success of Esher commons SSSI management plan.



Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment x Revenue costs over life x Less revenue savings over life (x) X Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? No. Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring Ian Gayton, Parks and Recreation Manager Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

Score

12


Score

12


Vision: A1, A2, A6 Priorities: P1, P2, P4, P5

Score

10


Score

3


10



Score

5


Score

5


Score 10



6. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Leisure & Culture PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Mrs Jan Fuller HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Leisure and Cultural Services BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: Play Area Enhancement Scheme Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A1, A2, A3, A6 Priorities: P1, P2, P3 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 80,000 50 50 2011/12 130,000 50 50 2012/13 130,000 50 50 Later years 130,000 50 50

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process X Tender Evaluation X Order Placed X Works Commence X Works Completed X What will be achieved? In 2010/11 the refurbishment of Molesey Hurst Recreation Ground and Station Road Open Space is due to take place as part of the Councils approved 16-year rolling replacement programme. Members will be aware, a review of the Capital Programme for Childrens Playgrounds took place in January 2006 due to the high cost of refurbishment, resulting in a 16 year rolling programme at 180,000 plus inflation each year. The revised 16-year programme is attached at Appendix A. Who will benefit from implementation? Young People up to the age of 14. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item?



Health and safety issues which could result in playgrounds becoming unsafe or closed for periods of time. Loss of facilities for young people. Potential increase in revenue cost to maintain existing, higher repairs and maintenance costs as well as increased costs for safety inspection. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No. Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No, met within existing budgets.


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment x Revenue costs over life x Less revenue savings over life (x) X Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? Possible future use of S106 tariff. Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring Ian Gayton, Parks and Recreation Manager Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

Score

15


Score

15


Vision: A1, A2, A3, A6 Priorities: P1, P2, P3

Score

15


15



Score

15


Score

5


Score

10


Score 10



Appendix A

CHILDRENS PLAY AREAS REFURBISHMENT PROGRAMME

Childrens Play Area Rolling Programme

Financial Year Site 2008/09 Hersham Recreation Ground

Stoke Recreation Ground 2009/10 Downside Common

Nielsons Field 2010/11 Molesey Hurst Recreation Ground

Station Road Open Space 2011/12 Thrupps Lane Open Space

Summer Road Recreation Ground 2012/13 Hurst Meadows

West End Recreation Ground 2013/14 Graburn Way Open Space

Oatlands Recreation Ground 2014/15 Grovelands Recreation Ground

Hamilton Avenue 2015/16 Elm Grove Recreation Ground

Giggs Hill Field (Thames Ditton) 2016/17 Churchfields Recreation Ground

Long Ditton Recreation Ground 2017/18 Lower Green Recreation Ground

Thamesmead Recreation Ground 2018/19 Vaux Crescent Open Space

Lynwood Road Recreation Ground 2019/20 Riverhouse Gardens

Hersham Green 20020/21 Coronation Recreation Ground

Claygate Recreation Ground 2021/22 Littleheath Recreation Ground 2022/23 Cricket Way Open Space

Brooklands Community Park



7. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Leisure & Culture PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Mrs J Fuller HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Leisure and Cultural Services BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: Community Planting\ Environmental Enhancement Scheme Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A1, A2, A3, A5, A6 Priorities: P1, P2, P4, P5 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 14,000 50 50 2011/12 14,000 50 50 2012/13 14,000 50 50 Later years TBC

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process Tender Evaluation Order Placed X Works Commence X Works Completed X What will be achieved? The first year of additional planting was approved in 2007/08 with 14,000 allocated to the planting programme. In addition to involving local communities in the planting of new trees, local groups are to be encouraged to improve their local areas with additional planting. This is to include the planting of perennial plants (life span of seven years or longer, which includes trees) as part of the environmental and landscape improvement planting schemes throughout the Borough. The emphasis is to encourage more community involvement in the planting of these schemes and the ongoing maintenance of these areas.



Who will benefit from implementation? Local residents, users of the parks, recreation grounds and the greening of the environment overall. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Possible reduction in the overall tree population and soft landscape features within the parks and recreation grounds. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No. Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No, contract for tree planting includes the first two years maintenance as part of the works.


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000



Score

8


Score

1


70



Vision: A1, A2, A3, A5, A6 Priorities: P1, P2, P4, P5

Score

15


Score

5


Score

5


Score

10


Score 5



8. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Leisure & Culture PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Jan Fuller HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Leisure & Cultural Services BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: To provide three new water points in the extension area of Burvale Cemetery Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A2 Priorities: P1 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 10,000 100 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process Tender Evaluation Order Placed X Works Commence X Works Completed X What will be achieved? Provision of 3 new water taps in extension area of Burvale Cemetery to enable visitors the cemetery to collect water to tend to their graves. Who will benefit from implementation? Visitors to the cemetery What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Visitors including the elderly will have to walk longer distances to access water



Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? Water is currently limited to the use of the single water butt by shelter but this is not adequate during dry periods. The Cemetery Custodian currently places filled cans in extension area to minimise the inconvenience. Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No. Can be met from existing revenue budget for leaks etc.


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment x Revenue costs over life x Less revenue savings over life (x) X Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? No Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring Ian Gayton, Parks and Recreation Manager Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

Score

3


No Score

0



Score

5


No, but included in Service Delivery Plan L5 Number 6 (consultation with users)

Score

1

10




No Score

0


Feedback from cemetery questionnaires Score

5


No Score 0



9. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Leisure & Culture PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Jan Fuller HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Ian Burrows/Alex Williams BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Statutory Requirements/Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: Repair of Ditton Slipway and Retaining Wall Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A1, A2 Priorities: P1, P2 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 87,500 50 50 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process X Tender Evaluation X Order Placed X Works Commence X Works Completed X What will be achieved? Funding will enable officers to oversee the repair of Ditton Slipway and adjacent retaining wall. Who will benefit from implementation? Local residents and users of the public slipway and riverbank. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Possible risk of personal injury claims against the Council. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No. Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so:




2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment x Revenue costs over life x Less revenue savings over life (x) X Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring Martin Fox, Senior Surveyor/ Ian Gayton, Parks & Recreation Manager Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

Score

12


Score

3


Vision: A1, A2 Priorities: P1, P2

Score

12


Score

3


Score

5


Score

5

15




Score 5



9. Options in priority order All three are high priority, because of the potential risk to local residents and visitors. The area is well used by local residents and residents from the elderly persons home who use the riverbank. Other users are anglers and 2 Sea Scout Groups and a boat business, the area is like a mini marina. 1. Slipway- (Essential\ Health and Safety concern) Currently in a very poor state of repair and currently unusable, as poses a real risk to cars\trailers going into the river. a Cost to construct new slipway 40K b repair option? 20K Professional Fees 4.5K Total 44.5K or 24.5K 2. Retaining wall. (Essential\ Health and Safety concern) Becoming a health and safety risk to users Cost to repair & repoint the wall 17K Professional Fees 3K Total 20K 3. Bank repairs (Essential\ Health and Safety concern) Currently in a poor condition through flow of the river. Cost to repair 12.5K Professional Fees 2.5K Total 15K 10% contingency to apply to each cost in normal circumstances. Capital Bid Total 87,500 Although each element of repair is not dependant on the others, each element will require consultation with the Environment Agency, project management from specialist structural engineers, site works and possible river controls\ temporary pontoons and so there is some element of cost efficiency in completing all tasks together. Procurement costs and amount of EBC officer time will be significantly increased if these works are undertaken as separate projects.



10. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Leisure and Culture PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Mrs J Fuller HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Leisure and Cultural Services BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: Replacement of Existing and Provision of New Notice

Boards in Parks and Recreation Grounds Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A1, A2 and A6 Priorities: P1, P2 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 26,000 50 50 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process X Tender Evaluation X Order Placed X Works Commence X Works Completed X What will be achieved? The implementation of a 5-year programme to replace all notice boards in the parks and recreation grounds of the Borough was started in 2007/08. This item was raised in the Light Touch Best Value Review of Green Spaces (July 2003) in the extensive consultation undertaken. The local community has requested upgraded notice boards, in keeping with the natural environment, to provide information, contact details, and more information. In addition, the Division was awarded its 4th Charter mark in November 2005. The assessor raised the quality of notice boards in both the parks and cemeteries as one item for the Council to consider within its action plan.



Eight remaining notice boards are in need of replacement, which can be achieved during 2010/11. This will complete the renewal of all the notice boards throughout the parks and cemeteries. Who will benefit from implementation? All users of the parks and recreation grounds in the Borough. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Failure to address this service shortfall would result in lower satisfaction levels for customers and loss of quality awards such as In Bloom, Green Flag and Charter Mark. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No. Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000



Score

12


Score

3

20




Vision: A1, A2 and A6 Priorities: P1, P2

Score

12


Score

8


Score

5


Score

10


Score 10



11. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Regulatory Affairs PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr. J. Butcher HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Building Control BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Statutory Requirements/Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: Provision of Street Name Plates Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A6 An Elmbridge which retains its attractive, green and unique character Priorities: P5 Commitment to the environment Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 32,000 25 25 25 25 2011/12 32,000 25 25 25 25 2012/13 32,000 25 25 25 25 Later years 32,000 25 25 25 25

Proposed Project Timetable: The following timetable is not relevant as this is a rolling and on-going project Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process Tender Evaluation Order Placed Works Commence Works Completed What will be achieved? At the VFM Review of the Building Control Division, concern was expressed by elected members that the budget for the procurement of street name plates had not been increased for a number of years. A consequence of having such a static budget is that given higher production costs a lower number of signs can be procured. A recommendation was therefore made that a bid be formulated in respect annually increasing the base street nameplate budget to prevent inflationary erosion. Members of the review panel concluded that having regards to the administrations desire to enhance the Borough there should be an adequate budget for the provision of street nameplates. From an analysis of sign replacement data there is a 50/50 split between replacing damaged/defective/vandalised signs and those that are unattractive in appearance,



e.g. due to age or failing to fulfill their purpose e.g. because the lettering has faded with age. It was therefore concluded that it would be appropriate to fund damaged/defective/ vandalised signs from Revenue with worn-out signs that have reached the end of their useful life being funded from Capital which is the subject of this bid. Who will benefit from implementation? Given the implementation of the Street Smart initiative, the replacement of street name plates that are unattractive in appearance, e.g. due to age or failing to fulfil their purpose e.g. because the lettering has faded with age, will help to contribute in enhancing the appearance of the street scene within the Borough. Therefore all residents and visitors will benefit thereby improving and heightening their perception of a well managed Borough. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? The consequence of not proceeding is that street nameplates will detract from the street scene Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so:


Not in relation to this bid as the Revenue budget to fund damaged/defective/ vandalised signs was established last year.

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment x Revenue costs over life x Less revenue savings over life (x) X Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

10



In relation to this particular bid there are no strategic risks involved

Score


Section 19, Public Health Act 1925 Score


Vision: A6 An Elmbridge which retains its attractive, green and unique character Priorities: P5 Commitment to the environment

Score


No impact Score


None Score


Building Control VFM Review July 2008 Recommendation 2 To review the Street Name Plates budget for 2009/10 to ensure its adequacy for ongoing levels of repair/replacement, with subsequent annual reviews to prevent future inflationary erosion.

Score


Possibly depending upon numbers of reported and subsequently replaced damaged signs

Score

X

15

15

X

10

X

X



12. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Resources PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Councillor R Whittaker HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Asset Management & Property Services BID OBJECTIVE: Statutory Usefulness/Requirements of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: Capital Works arising from 2008 Condition Surveys Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: Priorities: Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 0 2011/12 230,000 25 25 25 25 2012/13 185,000 25 25 25 25 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable 2010/11 Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process x Tender Evaluation x Order Placed x Works Commence x Works Completed x What will be achieved? Delivery of CS 2008 Capital Programme of Works Who will benefit from implementation? All users of our Public Buildings What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Mayor impact on both staff and public arising from failure of M&E services and elements of our building fabric. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No



Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: Cost savings will be achieved as detailed in the report to CMB dated 20/11/2009. Whole Life Costs will be estimated for condition survey items over 50K prior to procurement. These items only include the Civic Centre boilers, HVAC Controls and BMS System for which a working group is being set up to analyse the funding and installation requirements in detail. Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? No Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

Score

11


Various statutory obligations and sustainability/ energy efficiency commitments

Score

15


Score

4


Score

6


No Score


Score

7


Score 5



13. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Resources PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Councillor R Whittaker HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Asset Management & Property Services BID OBJECTIVE: Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: The replacement of the franking machine within the Mail Room

at the Civic Centre. Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Priorities: Commitment to value for money (P2) Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 20,000 100 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process X Tender Evaluation X Order Placed X Works Commence X Works Completed X What will be achieved? The existing franking machine within the Mail Room was purchased in February 2005 and will require replacement in 2010 to ensure that replacement parts can be provided during the life of the machine. Who will benefit from implementation? All staff and Members of Elmbridge Borough Council. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? As the existing franking machine is over 5 years old, the availability of spare parts cannot be guaranteed. If a replacement franking machine is not purchased, PPI [Printed Postage Impressions] can be implemented but at an additional cost as detailed below.



Cost of Franking Machine per annum

Alternative quote to print annual supply of envelopes in batches of 1,000

Alternative quote to print annual supply of envelopes in batches of 5,000

4,000 15,245 6,900 Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? Yes by implementing PPI but with increased costs as detailed above. Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: Not applicable


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment x Revenue costs over life x Less revenue savings over life (x) X Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? No Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring : Ann Johnson Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

Score

5


Score

0


Score

5

5 yrs



4.

Impact on performance indicators

Score

5


Score

0


Score

5


Score 5



14 (i) 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Resources PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr R Whittaker HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Frances Pearce BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Invest to Save/Usefulness of Operational Assets SCHEME/PROJECT: IT Development Programme Technical Infrastructure Projects Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A2 Priorities: P1 - P5 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 100,000 25 25 25 25 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process Tender Evaluation Order Placed Works Commence Works Completed Note More than one project with different timescales are included within Technical Infrastructure Projects. Individual Business Cases will be submitted to the IT Programme Board for approval prior to the Pre-Tender Process. What will be achieved? Funding for IT Projects is largely through the IT Development Programme, which has seen substantial investment over the years building on the original IEG Programme (2001-2005). A number of Corporate and Departmental IT Projects are currently active such as improved Customer Access Channels (Web Services and telephony), Content Management System and e-Forms Development, Information Management and Information Security, EDRM and Work flow, the Financial Information Systems Upgrade, e-Procurement, GIS and Gazetteer and Mobile Working Projects. A largely



hidden but substantial technical infrastructure underpins and connects these business information systems via the internal IT network and via the Internet to third party providers e.g CBL, Parking System and as such each year the Technical Infrastructure Project is a significant project area within the IT Development Programme. The Technical Infrastructure Projects includes Business Continuity Back up & Recovery Strategy Review, server upgrades (ongoing server virtualisation project), shared storage (SANs) technology, Citrix farm migration, desktop refresh and virtualisation and network upgrades including links to Surrey network for partnership working. In 2010-11 investment is required in the following project areas: 1) Migrate the existing Citrix Metaframe environment (thin client) to the latest version of Citrix Presentation Server. This technology was originally installed in 2004 to support remote working and a software upgrade is required, as this version is no longer supported. Additional licences are required to support a growing and significant number of officers who use the facility to support the Councils Flexible Working Policy as well as remote sites (e.g. the Centres, Museum, shared posts with Spelthorne BC and Epsom and Ewell BC) who use the technology to access corporate systems. The benefits will include improved:

Application Packaging and Delivery Centralised Administration Centralised License Management Client Management Printer Management Scalability Performance User Experience and Productivity Security and Regulatory Compliance

2) Linked to Project 1 above and the Desktop and Software and Hardware Upgrade Project is the opportunity to use the thin client technology to virtualise the desktop with the objective reducing overall cost of hardware and electricity consumption and support hot desking. 3) Upgrade Internet Bandwidth and progress Phase 2 (Business Continuity) of the 2009-10 Server Virtualisation and Shared Storage Project by provisioning for the off site mirroring of the virtualised servers and storage. The increased use of the Internet, particularly the increased use of application services provided remotely, plus the requirement to implement improved business continuity arrangements require an upgrade to the Current Internet Service Provider. Several options are being investigated including joining the East Surrey Improvement Partnership (ESIP) Network. Who will benefit from implementation? All users of the Elmbridge IT network .



What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Do nothing is not an option. All of the three project areas identified above require upgrades to existing facilities. The solutions proposed will (a) contribute to the Councils Business Continuity Plan and mitigate the risks in the event of a disaster (b) Improved performance of the network will increase productivity of staff and systems availability (c) lost opportunity to meet the benefits achieved by facilitating remote working and supporting the Councils Flexible Working Policy. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? The upgrades are required and a Business Case will be produced for each of the proposed projects areas. Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred No revenue growth is anticipated if so:


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. Individual Technical Infrastructure Projects should not exceeds 50,000 over a 5 year life cycle and will have individual Business Cases. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment x Revenue costs over life x Less revenue savings over life (x) X Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? NO Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring: Head of Information Systems Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority? YES - significantly

5



The upgrade to the network and the provision of thin client technology significantly mitigate against the risk of losing IT services (see Corporate Risk Register

Score

15

2. Is the scheme required to meet statutory obligation? Moderately

No specific requirement but underpins statutory requirements including Civil Contingencies Act, DPA and FOI

Score

6


A2 efficient public services and A5 reduction in carbon foot print. Underpins all priorities P1-5 .

Score

10


Underpins service and therefore performance improvement. Interms of local PIs will improve IT service availability to all users of the IT network.

Score

7


Yes the intention is to join the Surrey network (if represents VFM), provide DR strategy with partners and utilize a Surrey framework agreement for the desktop refresh procurement

Score

10


The project underpins other reviews. Score

5


Desktop virtualization (like the server virtualization project) has the potential to make actual revenue savings in terms of reduced energy costs and centralising management control. The proposed measure will set up an infrastructure that will support partnership working.

Score 10



14 (ii) 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Resources PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr R Whittaker HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Frances Pearce BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Invest to Save/Statutory Requirements/Usefulness of Operational Assets/Approval to Spend (Externally Funded) SCHEME/PROJECT: IT Development Plan Community Support Services Vulnerable People Single Assessment Process Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: Priorities: Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 25,000 50 50 2011/12 25,000 TBC 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process Tender Evaluation Order Placed Works Commence Works Completed What will be achieved? See attached original bid - the HoCSS advises that work with the County will restart regarding the Single Assessment Process and a shared database with Surrey County. Who will benefit from implementation? What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so:




2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000



Score


Score


Score


Score


Score


Score




Score



15. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Social PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Mrs Cowin HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Community Support Service BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Invest to Save/Statutory Requirements/Usefulness of Operational Assets/Approval to Spend (Externally Funded) SCHEME/PROJECT: Kitchen Refurbishment Project for Centres for Retired People Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A1, A2, A3 and A4 Priorities: P1, P2 and P3 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 40,200 58 25 17 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process Tender Evaluation Order Placed x Works Commence x Works Completed x What will be achieved? The majority of the centres commercial cooking equipment e.g. ovens, steamers etc, are part of the original build and therefore are now in some cases in excess of 25 years old. In recent years it has become increasingly difficult to purchase spare parts for the equipment and the reports from the Service Contractor this year has identified items that are coming to end of their natural life. Technology has progressed with the introduction of new combination ovens, which incorporate steamers and cooking facilities. There is a genuine concern regarding the robustness of some kitchen equipment in maintaining the Centre and Meals on Wheels services. Cobham Centre would like to:

Purchase and install new Gas Fryers



Total Cost 3,000 Molesey Centre would like to:

Purchase a commercial Pass Through Dishwasher. Molesey Centre historically prepares the highest number of Meals on Wheels on a daily basis and provides the weekend service for the East of the Borough. 9,000

Replace their existing fryers 3,000 Purchase a new potato peeler 1,500

Total Cost 13,500 Hersham Centre would like to:

Replace their waste disposal unit which has been out of action for a period of months. 1,200

Total Cost 1,200 Weybridge Centre would like to:

Replace the main oven with a combination oven to incorporate steaming and roasting. This oven and steamer provides a 5 day a week Centre and Meals on Wheels Service and the current oven is coming to the end of its natural life.

Total Cost 10,000 Claygate Centre would like to:

Replace the main oven with a combination oven to incorporate steaming and roasting. This oven and steamer provides a 5 day a week Centre and Meals on Wheels Service and the current oven is coming to the end of its natural life.

Total Cost 10,000 Walton Centre would like to:

Replace their existing domestic microwave oven with a commercial oven and replace their food processor. Walton Centre is currently providing the highest number of Centre Meals.

Total Cost 2,500 Who will benefit from implementation?

Service Users Staff Volunteers

Community Support Services has performance indicators in relation to contractual support provided. This will ensure we can maintain our high need contract with Surrey County Council. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Potential failure to provide the level of meals at all centres. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No.



It should be noted that we have a Furniture and Equipment budget of 13,000. A schedule is produced to allocate funds for specific purchases each year with an unallocated amount kept for emergency purchases. Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment x Revenue costs over life x Less revenue savings over life (x) X Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? No. However, monies achieved 240,000 through LPSA. Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring Centre Services Manager Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

Score

15


Score

2


P1, P3, P4 Score

8


Score

8


10 years



SCC Score

10


No Score


No Score



16. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Resources PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Whittaker HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Finance BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Invest to Save/Statutory Requirements/Usefulness of Operational Assets/Approval to Spend (Externally Funded) SCHEME/PROJECT: CORPORATE INITIATIVES Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: ALL Priorities: ALL Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 150,000 TBC TBC TBC TBC 2011/12 TBC 2012/13 TBC Later years TBC

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process Tender Evaluation Order Placed Works Commence Works Completed What will be achieved? The flexibility and means to respond rapidly to an urgently identified need for capital investment. It is proposed that schemes should only be put forward to Cabinet for approval on the joint recommendation of the Leader of the Council, the Portfolio holder for Resources in consultation with the relevant chair of the O&S and the Strategic Director Resources or their deputies if appropriate. Cabinet approval will be subject to the normal call in procedures. (Unallocated balance of 2009/10 Budget = 183.7k)

Who will benefit from implementation? What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means?



Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No all projects considered for funding from this source would be of an Invest to Save nature.


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000



Score


Score


Score


Score


Score


Score




Score



17. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Community Development PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Rachael Lake HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Chief Executive BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Invest to Save SCHEME/PROJECT: CCTV-Operation Transferred to Runnymeade BC Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A1, A2 Priorities: P2 , P3 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 100,000 TBC TBC TBC TBC 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process Tender Evaluation Order Placed Works Commence Works Completed What will be achieved? The provision of control room modifications, recording equipment and BT line connection to enable shared delivery with a neighbouring authority. Review current provision of CCTV in the borough with a view to shared delivery with a neighbouring borough. Discussions are currently ongoing with Surrey Police and Runneymede. Current provision includes monitoring the CCTV cameras throughout the boroughs of Elmbridge and Epsom & Ewell to assist with the prevention and detection of crime and anti social behaviour. This also provides an opportunity for joint working and shared service provision with another Surrey District Who will benefit from implementation? Elmbridge residents due to the revenue savings achieved.



What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? The operation would need to remain inhouse and the revenue savings would not be achieved. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment x Revenue costs over life x Less revenue savings over life (x) X Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? No Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring ??? Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

Score


Score

0


Save money by better procurement Score


Score

0

0

15

0




Score


Score


Score

0

0

15



18. 2010/11 2012/13 External Funding Awarded For Capital Programme PORTFOLIO: Leisure & Culture PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Mrs Jan Fuller HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Leisure and Cultural Services BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Approval to Spend (Externally Funded) SCHEME/PROJECT: Surrey Playbuilder Natural Play Improvements Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A1, A2, A3 and A6 Priorities: P1, P2, P3, P5 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 50,000 100 2011/12 50,000 100 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process X Tender Evaluation X Order Placed X Works Commence X Works Completed X What will be achieved? In 2010/11 to improve the natural play facility at Grovelands Recreation Ground and in 2011/12 to improve the natural play facility at Elmgrove Recreation Ground as part of the Surrey Playbuilder funding programme. This is funded through the DCSF (Dept for Children, Schools and Families) drive to proved high quality safe places to play across England. Who will benefit from implementation? Young People up to the age of 14 in areas with higher indices of deprivation. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Loss of the 100,000 external funding to help improve natural play.



Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No. Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No, as contained within existing recreation grounds and will be maintained by existing contract.

No, will be managed as a part of the ongoing maintenance of the play areas. How much revenue budget growth is required and which year(s) will the

budget growth be incurred? You need to complete a Revenue Growth form and cross-reference it.

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000



Score

15


Score

15


Vision: A1, A2, A3 and A6 Priorities: P1, P2, P3, P5

Score

15


10



Score

15


Fully funded by Surrey Playbuilder scheme Score

15


Score

10


Score 10



19 & 20 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Housing PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr OReilly HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Finance/Head of Housing BID OBJECTIVE: *please delete as appropriate Approval to Spend (Externally Funded) / Grants SCHEME/PROJECT: Housing Disabled Facilities Grants Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A2, A4 Priorities: P3 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 493,000 10 20 35 35 2011/12 493,000 10 20 35 35 2012/13 493,000 10 20 35 35 Later years 493,000 10 20 35 35

Proposed Project Timetable: Please indicate with an x relevant quarter Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process Tender Evaluation Order Placed Works Commence Works Completed

As these are grant payments these milestones are not relevant. Applications are received and approved throughout the year.

What will be achieved? The Council will ensure that in line with government expectation they are making provision for a 40% matching provision from their own resources to fund disabled facility grant claims. Who will benefit from implementation? Residents within the borough that fit the grant claim criteria. What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Risk of reduced government funding in future. Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No. Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so: No




2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment x Revenue costs over life x Less revenue savings over life (x) X Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring ????? Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

Score


Score


Protect our vunerable people Score


Score


Yes central government Score


Score


N/A

0

15

0

15

0

5



Score

0



21. 2010/11 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REQUEST PORTFOLIO: Environment & Economy PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Cllr Glenn Dearlove HEADS OF SERVICE PREPARING BID: Head of Environmental Care BID OBJECTIVE: Approval to Spend SCHEME/PROJECT: Electric Pool Car Pilot Which aspect(s) of our vision and priorities will be supported? Vision: A5 Priorities: P5 Proposed expenditure and planned spending pattern (profile)

Year

Amount

April-June %

July-Sept %

October-

December %

January-

March %

2010/11 25,000 100 2011/12 2012/13 Later years

Proposed Project Timetable: Milestones April - June July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - March Pre Tender Process x Tender Evaluation x Order Placed x Works Commence x Works Completed What will be achieved? The purchase of two electric cars to be piloted as pool cars by the Environmental Care Divisions Environmental Services Officers. There are three Environmental Services Officers (ESO) who carry out various duties in the Borough with regard to the Councils waste collection, recycling and street cleaning services. These include: site inspections, visits to householders and contract monitoring. It is proposed to provide two electric pool cars for the ESOs to share as part of a 1-2 yr pilot scheme. For the period of the pilot the ESOs would be expected to use one of the pool cars whenever possible. For the period of the pilot the two cars could be accommodated in sub standard (small) bays in the underground car park. However, minor electrical work would be required to install suitable (overnight) charging points using mains electricity, which could also be made available to other staff using eclectic cars of their own. Each pool car could carry a high profile livery promoting the Council and its Carbon Reduction Initiatives.



In recent years electric car technology has greatly improved allowing for the development and availability of a number of small electric cars. For this reason they are becoming popular in more urban areas. At present a typical electric car:

Can be purchased for approx 10,000 (OTR). Has a range of 40-70 miles (per charge), and a max speed of 40 mph. Can be fully recharged over night (5-8 hrs). Generally classed as Group 1 insurance (lowest). Has fuel & maintenance running costs of just 6.5 per mile (compared to 20p per

mile for a petrol car). The pilot would help establish the practicability and potential cost implications from sharing a suitable electric pool car(s) amongst a number of officers. If successful the pilot might allow the development of pool cars to dramatically reduce work related travel costs and contribute to CO2 reduction targets. Who will benefit from implementation? An electric car run on conventional electricity from a coal-fired generator produces a third of the emissions of a conventional petrol car (64g of CO2 per km compared to 176g CO2 per km) and just over half the emissions of a diesel. In this regard the pilot would:

Align with the Councils corporate priority to tackle and respond Climate Change issues.

Contribute towards the development of an action plan (Carbon Footprint reduction group) in meeting the CO2 reduction targets in the LAA.

Be a visible demonstration of positive innovative action by the Council.

What would be the impact/consequence of not progressing this item? Unable to pilot electric cars Can the desired outcome be achieved by alternative means? No Is there any requirement for revenue expenditure also to be incurred, if so:

How much revenue budget growth is required and which year(s) will the budget growth be incurred? Nil You need to complete a Revenue Growth form and cross-reference it.



2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 On-going 000 000 000 000


Anticipated Life of Asset 5-6 years Whole Life Costs:* To be completed for all schemes greater than 50,000. The whole life cost is calculated as: Initial Capital Investment x Revenue costs over life x Less revenue savings over life (x) X Are there other potential sources of capital funding (and if so revenue funding)? LPSA Capital Rewards Monies Officer responsible for delivery and post implementation monitoring : HEC Scoring Matrix - See Separate Guidance Notes to assist with Completion 1. Does the scheme manage a strategic risk of the authority?

No impact on strat

Documents

Capital Bids 2010_11 - COM - 120110