Minutes:
Damian Wilson, Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment, gave a verbal update on Cemeteries and Crematorium – Dignity PLC – including the background as to how the decision had been made to outsource the Service.
The contract had been in place since 2004. A lot of work had taken place at the time to assess the state of Rotherham’s Cemeteries and Cremation Service which had required significant investment not least because of the Environmental Legislation which had changed in relation to cremations.
The Council had taken the opportunity to explore different options available to deliver that Service in the future one of which was a partnership arrangement where another organisation would deliver the Service. It had been subject to tender and considered through the Council, Cabinet and Scrutiny process in September 2007. The 35 year contract was entered into by the Council with Dignity in 2008.
Dignity had taken over the cemetery and crematorium at East Herringthorpe and the 8 municipal cemeteries around the Borough. There were certain requirements that the company had to satisfy as part of the contract initially around East Herringthorpe i.e. upgrade of the cremators, improving the Chapel and reception facilities, car park and overspill, administration services, development of crematorium grounds especially around memorials and grounds maintenance depot. Most of the investment was now completed - £3m overall.
In relation to municipal cemeteries, there was a need to identify additional burial space, improved security/management and development of sites, management and maintenance of those cemeteries and to develop the grounds linked to memorials to allow areas of contemplation.
The contract was different to that of a normal contract. In this instance, the contractor paid the Council for the privilege of running the Service but would take the income as they had made significant investment. However, due to historically the Council making a surplus on the Service (£350K), there was an agreement that Dignity would pay the Council a fee that would be no less that £375K per annum (index linked to inflation) – currently standing at £435K a year. There was also a profit share arrangement which saw the Council receiving 20% of any further growth in the rate of return taking into account their external rate of return as a company netting off their investment.
Members had raised a number of concerns/complaints on issues e.g. grass cutting, grounds maintenance generally, dog fouling, anti-social behaviour, Muslim burial times, cost of burials, cost of memorials. Investigations had revealed that the complaints were related to the “under-management” of the contract by the Council and a lack of democratic oversight and information to Members. Dignity had been reluctant to meet at first but, once the issues had been explained, had been very helpful and forthcoming and flexible in their willingness to work with the Council. There had been an “under-management” by the Council of the contract and an “under scrutiny” of what Dignity’s expectation was.
It had been suggested to Dignity that they submit an annual report which they were in agreement with and would provide their proposed investment plans.
Resolved:- That the report be noted.
(2) That the name and contact details be provided to Members of the Dignity Liaison Officer.