Policyminutes19032008

Minutes of a meeting of the Policy & Resources Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Radstock Lane, Earley, Berkshire on Wednesday, 19^th March commencing at 7.45 pm.

Councillors Mrs L Chambers, C J W Edmunds (from 8.00pm), M J Firmager, Mrs J Lissaman and N Jorgensen.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs A Ames (Sickness), A T Bradley and T Maher (Work Commitment).

The Minutes of the meeting of the Policy & Resources Committee held on 23^rd January 2008 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

Consideration was given to the Minutes of the Youth & Community Sub-Committee meeting held on 22^nd January 2008, a copy of which is appended to these Minutes for the information of Members only.

With regard to Minute 3.2 of that meeting, it was suggested that the matter be referred to the next meeting of the Amenities & Leisure Committee for further consideration. In respect of Recommendation 1 of that Minute, Members noted that the Youth & Community Sub-Committee was of the opinion that Sol Joel Park would be the most suitable location and, therefore, further consideration should be given to that site by the Amenities & Leisure Committee.

In respect of Recommendation 2 of the above-mentioned Minute, it was suggested that the matter be referred to the next meeting of the Amenities & Leisure Committee for further consideration and that it be requested to work together with Wokingham Borough Council in an endeavour to reach a solution.

Further to Minute 4.2 of the Youth & Community Sub-Committee meeting, Members noted that the Thames Valley Police, its PCSO’s and local affected residents were all of the view that the seat should be removed.

Some Members of this Committee were of the opinion that, when the seat was installed some years ago, the current problems were not experienced but, unfortunately, times had changed and the overall impact on local residents needed to be considered. Therefore, despite the good intentions of Members at the time of installation, it was now felt that it was the Town Council’s responsibility to remove the seat.

2. with regard to Recommendation 3.2.1, the matter be referred to the next meeting of the Amenities & Leisure Committee for further deliberation and that it be requested to give consideration to the utilisation of Sol Joel Park as the most suitable location

3. in respect of Recommendation 3.2.2, the matter be referred to the next meeting of the Amenities & Leisure Committee for further consideration and that it be requested to work together with Wokingham Borough Council in an endeavour to reach a solution

4. enquiries be made with Woodley Town Council in respect of the costs involved with regard to the supply, installation and maintenance of its Graffiti wall.

Consideration was given to the Minutes of the Youth & Community Sub-Committee meeting held on 4^th March 2008, a copy of which is appended to these Minutes for the information of Members only.

With regard to Minute 4.1 of that meeting, the Town Clerk reported that there had been a change of personnel at the Loddon Valley Police Station and he had received a holding reply from the replacement Inspector, John Simpkins. The Neighbourhood PCSO Co-ordinator, Stuart Loudwell was, also, leaving his post.

Further to Recommendation 5, consideration was given to a suggestion that, future meetings, from 2009/10, be scheduled to take place prior to each of the Policy & Resources Committee meetings and that they be included on the “Notice of Meetings” schedule.

2. a letter be sent to Inspector Simpkins, expressing the Town Council’s appreciation of the work carried out by P.C. Loudwell.

RECOMMENDED that the 2009/10 meeting dates be scheduled as suggested above and be included on the “Notice of Meetings” schedule.

Members were reminded that, at Minute 46.1 of the last meeting of this Committee, it was resolved that the Town Clerk seek clarification and guidance on a number of matters.

Further thereto, the Committee noted that the Office Equipment Revenue Budget covered a number of headings, including furniture, some computing equipment, telephone equipment and other items of office machinery. The upgrading/networking provision in the capital budget was specifically earmarked for the new server as referred to in Minute 55 below.

With reference to the guidance from the Internal Auditor with regard to a maximum monetary limit for small capital items purchased and funded from the Revenue Budget, Members further noted that there was no monetary limit. Because the Town Council was a "Band 2" Audit Council, no distinction was made between capital and revenue expenditure for audit purposes. If the Council did progress to the full audit regime for Councils with a turnover in excess of £1m, this distinction would still not be significant for purchase purposes. However, any items over £500 were included in the capital assets register of the Council and, as such, had to be re-valued and depreciated in accordance with the provisions of the Audit Commission that applied to these "Band 3" Councils. While this Council was still in the intermediate band, Officers had decided that it was prudent to maintain the Capital Assets Register as if Earley was a "Band 3" Council, with the expectation that, at a time in the not too distant future, turnover was likely to exceed £1million.

Members were reminded that there was an allocation in the 2008/2009 budget of £4,700 for the purchase of a new server for the Council Offices.

The current server was in excess of eight years old and, in recent months, had been the subject of breakdowns and, on several occasions, failures to back up data. The systems which were in place meant that any failed back-up would be spotted relatively quickly and any necessary remedial action could be taken. However, it was the view of Council Officers and the IT support company that this server was now reaching a point when it should be replaced before a more catastrophic breakdown was experienced.

Since the Town Council’s IT systems became fully networked in the late 1990’s, Versatile Solutions had been used as its IT support company. During that period the company had proven to be extremely competent and reliable and had the advantage of knowing how the Town Council’s systems worked. It also had the ‘inside knowledge’ concerning details of the Town Council’s ISP and web page host. Additionally, the company had consistently remained very competitive, both in terms of its fee for IT support and for the supply of any new hardware and software purchased.

For the above reasons, Versatile Solutions was the only company approached to provide a quotation for the supply and installation of a new server. It had been requested to quote for hardware with a reasonably high specification, to ensure that it would not become outdated too quickly, and would, also, give heightened security in the event of data loss. This would be achieved by data being spread over several discs with each disc being mirrored. The quotation included hardware, back-up facility, software (including the necessary licences) and four days installation at a cost of £4,699.50.

Consideration was, therefore given to the agreement of the suspension of Financial Standing Order 11.1 (b) (i) which negated the need to seek two further quotations for the work, for the reasons stated above. In response to questions from a Member, the Town Clerk clarified the terms of the suspension of Financial Standing Orders as outlined in the Members’ Handbook.

Members were of the opinion that, from a “Risk Management” point of view, it would be advantageous to use the same company for the supply and installation of a new server as already used for the IT support. Furthermore, the new equipment could be integrated with the current system and, in the event of any breakdowns, there would be no disputes between two rival support companies.

2. the quotation of Versatile Solutions in the sum of £4,699.50 +VAT be approved.

Members noted that the Audit Commission had completed the audit for the year ending 31^st March 2007. A copy of its letter and completed duly audited annual return was attached to the Agenda for the information of Members only.

The Committee was pleased to note that there were no matters of concern but it had been recommended that the Town Council should review its level of Fidelity Guarantee Insurance cover.

1. a review of the level of Fidelity Guarantee Insurance cover be undertaken by the Town Clerk in collaboration with Councillor M Firmager

2. a quotation be sought for the increased cover as suggested by the Audit Commission.

The Committee noted details of Orders for Payment paid since the last meeting of the Town Council.

RESOLVED that the various accounts set out on the attached list (Vouchers 492 - 566) be paid in the sums as stated and details of the Imprest Vouchers (206 - 246) be noted.

The Committee noted that the following items had been received and were available for viewing in the Council Chamber: