Agenda item

CCTV Officer Management Board report

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the Joint Executive:

(1) Noted the work carried out by the Officer Management Board since the last meeting of the Joint Executive.

(2) Commented on using Active and Re-Active categories for determining equivalent camera numbers.

(3) Commented on the principle of introducing a fixed element to how charges are split between partners.

(4) Confirmed that the Partnership will not fund police resource to download police evidence.

(5) Noted that East Herts have withdrawn the request to remove a large number of their cameras from the partnership.

(6) Noted the proposal on charges to the CCTV Company detailed in the report, and delegated to each Council’s Officer Management Board representative, in consultation with the relevant Executive Member from that Council, authority to agree the final proposal on charges to the CCTV Company.

REASON FOR DECISIONS: To give Executive members an opportunity to comment and give feedback regarding the work carried out by the Officer Management Board. To make decisions where they are required by the Terms of Reference of the Joint Executive

Minutes:

Ian Couper, North Herts Council, presented the report entitled ‘CCTV Officer Management Board Report’ and advised of the following updates:

· Acknowledged the request for an additional report regarding the finances involved.

· The CCTV company also have to agree any charges that we are seeking to charge them.

· Therefore negotiations began between the Officer Board and the Company Directors around what they would view as a suitable charge – detailed in 8.1 of the report.

· The complications around reopening this is that three parties would then be involved in the negotiations and this could not be done openly within the Committee meeting.

· If Members were inclined to reopen negotiations, it could be done.

Councillor Pervez Choudhury noted that the report does not state the costs to the Partnership of providing the services and does not provide evidence of profit margins, with no formula details. He suggested it would be helpful to see alternatives and models, for Members to decide the best way forward. None of the information that Members need to take a decision had been provided.

Councillor Jeremy Newmark noted that this process was far too opaque to be acceptable – a previous discussion did not appear in the minutes and limited details provided in reports. It would not be responsible for Members today to progress with the system as currently presented.

Councillor Joan Lloyd advised that the meeting would need to move into Part 2 to discuss the financials. If Members had questions ahead of the meeting, they should speak to their Officers at their District Councils beforehand.

Councillor Newmark noted that ideally this would have been the case, but both him and Councillor Choudhury only found out about the meeting earlier today from their Officers, and had only been provided the agenda at this point.

In response to points raised, Ian Couper advised:

· The charge is to the company is based on cost and the company then charges onto the end user of the cameras with the profit. The Partners will take benefit from the reallocation of costs, not profit.

· It covers the costs of the partnership, and any capacity the company takes is beneficial. Under the current arrangements they covered half the running, without using 50% of capacity.

· Needed to work out the charge for each camera and ensure this was a fair balance with the requirements of the company.

· The company would not necessarily accept whatever option the Partnership would suggest.

· Due to Hertsmere Councillors having not been provided the reports in time, it might be that the decision can be deferred.

Councillor Ian Albert highlighted that it was unfair to make Hertsmere colleagues take a decision this evening.

Ian Couper suggested that this could be taken as a Delegated Decision, with the relevant Executive Members from each of the Partnership Councils.

Councillor Choudhury advised that this would be a suitable compromise.

In response to a question from Councillor Jan Goodeve, Mike Bourne advised that it is not a binary choice between reactive and active and that some cameras are reactive in the daytime, but become actively monitored at night.

Ian Couper proposed the following wording as an additional recommendation ‘That the Committee note the proposal on charges to the CCTV Company detailed in the report, and delegate to each Council’s Officer Management Board representative, in consultation with the relevant Executive Member from that Council, authority to agree the final proposal on charges to the CCTV Company.’ This was supported by Members present.

Ian Couper continued with updates to the report, and advised:

· Recharge of the cameras to the company is one part and then need to recharge the remaining costs across the four partnership Councils.

· Stevenage had taken on some Housing Association cameras, which were reactive and would be unfair if these were charged at the same rate.

· Looked at charging reactive cameras at a lower rate (based on treating as 1/16^th of an active camera). Still need more work but indicators are that any changes in each Partners costs would mainly be driven by camera growth.

· Also looked at charging based on fixed and variable costs. Proposed not to take this forward as this would mean Stevenage Borough Council would reduce their contributions, with the other Councils making this up.

· Proposed that instead there would need to be a minimum number of cameras required for new members of the Partnership.

In response to a question from Councillor Pervez Choudhury, Ian Couper advised that roughly the increase in recharges to Stevenage Borough Council would be £30k and £10-15k in Hertsmere Borough Council. East Herts recharge would be reduced in line with Hertsmere and North Herts reduced in line with Stevenage. These figures were based on the number of cameras already used by Councils. Stevenage would see a reduction in their contributions, with others picking the difference up, but would be unfair to bring this as a recommendation at this stage, without further works.

Ian Couper advised that details and numbers would be provided at the next CCTV meeting.

Ian Couper provided the final updates from the report, and advised:

· Paragraph 8.10 onwards covered the Digital Asset Management System and the request from the Police to fund a resource in the control room. This had now been changed to offering support to volunteers from the police.

· It was positive to see the Town Councils in East Herts confirming their continued membership.

· Expansion of the Partnership is being explored, with conversations taking place with Watford and Welwyn Hatfield and if agreement is made that another meeting may be required.

· Financial position for 2021/21 is detailed, with the main variances being in supplies of services and income.

· Stevenage had reduced their overheads, which was positive for the overall financial position.

Councillor Pervez Choudhury noted that he would like to see more consideration given to meeting dates ahead of time.

The Chair moved to a vote, including the additional recommendation, and it was: