/ Schools Forum / Item 5a /
/ 13 December 2012 /
/ School Funding Reform – CERA for Non Buy Back Schools /
/ Report of the Director of Corporate Resources – Corporate Services and Director of Children’s Services /
Contact: Martin Kent, 01962 847926; ;
1 Summary
1.1 This paper details proposals to address the requirements set out for Schools Forum on 23 October for fair and transparent access for non buy-back schools and Academies to CERA funds.
1.2 The proposals contained in this paper do not impact on the agreed pooling arrangements for schools and Academies buying back the Property Services SLA or Academy contracts.
2 Background
2.1 The background to this paper is set out in the Schools Forum paper dated 23rd October 2012 “School Funding Reform – Central Services”.
3 Capital expenditure met from revenue account (CERA)
3.1 The Property Services revenue Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Academy Contracts, which 96.5% of schools in Hampshire buy into, incorporate a fully integrated suite of property services, including access to a range of technical and professional property services. It also includes the management of the Capital Expenditure from Revenue Account (CERA). The SLAs are for a five year period from 1 April 2012 and the Academy contracts have periods defined, usually commencing from their conversion date.
3.2 The overall funding arrangements for the property services delivered for schools who buy into the SLA and Academy contracts are pooled and used against the highest know risks and liabilities at any one time. The benefits of pooling capital and revenue funding across schools are set out in the current Property Services SLA documentation and contracts with Academies. Some of the key benefits for schools include:
· Demonstrable risk management strategies for liabilities which exceed annual funding at individual school level.
· Pooled funding has delivered meaningful reactive and planned repairs prioritised by greatest need.
· Consistent and reliable services.
· Term Maintenance Contracts with the building industry that are robust, reliable and available 24/7/365.
· A seamless service from day to day repairs through minor capital repairs.
· Coordinated and structured inspection and testing programmes and response to any findings.
· Cyclical programmes of external decoration and minor repairs which aggregate a range of smaller scale external issues, giving cost effect responses and a good level of preventative maintenance.
· Ready availability of building professionals with an extensive knowledge of the building issues across Hampshire.
3.3 Schools Forum on 23rd October concluded the CERA budget allocation should be retained centrally with equal access maintained to all schools and Academies across Hampshire. For schools and Academies purchasing the Property Services SLA this would be straight forward and the current Property Services SLA would remain as it currently is. It was left that fair and transparent proposals to access the CERA resources should be developed for those few schools who do not buy into the Property Services SLA or Academy contracts (3.5% of schools).
3.4 Further work has now been completed on potential proposals for non buy back schools and two options are set out below for Schools Forum to agree.
4 Financial Implications
4.1 There are 17 schools in Hampshire who do not purchase the SLA or an Academy contract. The table below gives a breakdown across sectors of the non buy back schools:
Schools Sector
/Non Buy Back Schools
Secondary Academies
/7
Primary Academies
/4
Local Authority Secondary
/2
Local Authority Primary
/1
Primary Foundation
/2
Aided Primary
/1
4.2 A split of contractually committed and non committed elements of the CERA budget is set out in the Schools Forum paper 23 October 2012. Following that split and from the numbers on roll at non buy back schools a fair allocation to these schools would total £895,000 (excluding Professional fees which are in the contractually committed part of the budget). This figure is based on current estimates based on the known numbers on roll and will vary year on year according to the overall schools population.
5 Option 1- An annual Bidding Process
5.1 One option would be to establish an annual bidding process against a ring-fenced sub pool fund of £895,000 which is equivalent to a per pupil based budget share. Non buy-back schools would be asked to submit a bid to Property Services which could then be assessed against other bids submitted and known priorities. Property Services would assess bids based on current prioritisation processes within the department. This would give the non buy back schools an option for at least some of the advantages of a limited and capped pooled arrangement, without unfairly affecting the greater collective pool of funding for the buy back schools.
6 Option 2- Budget Share Delegation
6.1 A second option would be to delegate out the per pupil based budget share of £895,000 to the non buy back schools.
6.2 For Academy schools who do not wish to benefit from the collective strength of pooled arrangements and have full responsibility for their buildings, this option would be relatively straight forward. This amounts to £704,836.07 in total across the 11 Academies.
6.3 For Local Authority and Foundation schools there are further implications to consider under this option. The County Council will still have overall responsibility for the health and safety of the buildings. The collective arrangements are currently used to deliver these responsibilities (e.g. joint Fire Safety auditing with HFRS, electrical test and inspection – fixed wiring). Since these arrangements are in part contractually committed (£119, 000) going forward into 2013/14 only the proportion of the non committed budget could be delegated. This non committed proportion of the budget for the LA and Foundation schools is £81,000. This delegation would have to be made on the understanding that the recipient schools would also have further delegated responsibilities for their buildings which would need defining in detail.
7 Recommendation
7.1 It is recommended that Schools Forum agrees that options 1 and 2 should be offered to non buy back schools and that Property Services implement the preferred option as agreed by each of the affected schools.
7.2 It is possible some of the non buy-back schools would opt for option 1 and some for option 2. If this is the case it is recommended Property Services implement both options and manage the outcome respecting the wishes of each of the non-buy back schools.
- 4 -