This report provides a performance summary for the period April to June 2019 and financial data / analysis to May 2019. It also covers operational activity across all work streams. The financial appendix is exempt.

In response to questions Simon Howick said the Motor Transport business was largely, but not exclusively, with public bodies such as the County Council and for commercial HGV testing. Developing expertise in the field of electric vehicle maintenance would prove to be very significant, not least because ODS provided the only local facility for servicing the London Electric Cab and its role in installing EV charging points.

Oxford Direct Services Limited (ODSL), was not, under the ‘Teckal’ rules, permitted to undertake more that 20% of external (ie non Oxford City Council) work. At the moment the value was comfortably less than 20% so the attribution of work to either ODSL or Oxford Direct Services Trading (ODSTL) was not critical.

In relation to recycling and waste, ODS was estimated to have about 30% of the market share. This was a fickle and competitive market with a lot of churn but one in which there was seen to be potential for growth. The difference in gate fees of over £60 per tonne between the unit costs for  processing  recycled material and  waste was considerable and a great deal of time and energy was devoted to educating householders, some of which was informed by analysis of disposal habits.

The Chair was pleased to see that the KPI in relation to street cleanliness provided  a more realistic view than that which had sometimes been given in the past, and its  recognition that some work needed to be done.  Simon Howick said he was keen that KPIs should be seen as  a useful and positive stimulus for improvement. The Chair suggested that footnotes to  indicate if targets were based on national criteria would be helpful.

The trial introduction of static cleaners in City centre toilets was going well. The Chair suggested that this was something which was worthy of publicity.

The turnover of staff in the contact centre was not unusual for work of that nature (the staff in the contact centre are Oxford City Council staff, using the same facilities.)

Simon Howick was committed to the  aspiration that  10% of ODS’s workforce (c.70 staff) should eventually be apprentices of one kind or another. The current figure is around 20.  He noted that they would not all, necessarily, be the younger ages commonly associated with apprenticeships. This was, in part, a  response to an aging workforce. If, at the end of an apprenticeship,  a position within ODS could be offered that would be all to the good, if not there was still great value in having equipped someone with skills to be able to make a contribution elsewhere. The Chair suggested that it might be helpful to re-configure this target to be delivered on a phased basis over a period of time.

Simon Howick reminded the Panel of the new regime for graffiti removal in which the focus was on swift removal.  In the case of private property, once permission was granted, the work was undertaken without waiting to pursue a fee for doing so. The Panel commended the company for this approach but  suggested that a more robust approach to  pursuing costs from corporate owners of other items/buildings, such as utility boxes, where agreement had not already been reached should be considered. The Legal Services Manager, Lindsay Cane, said that while a legal right to recover costs in these cases could be created, the process was somewhat complex and, in practice, it  would often not be cost-effective to do so.

Simon Howick said ODS was looking to drive efficiency in Building Services and maximise the work for ODS from the City Council, notably in relation to building work. New staff with the necessary expertise had been recruited to help with this.

Two staff had been recruited on a temporary (6 month) basis to address the issue of staff sickness.

The Housing Group representatives left the meeting  at the end of this item.