To receive any written questions.

The Chairman advised that ten Councillors had lodged written questions with the Assistant Chief Executive, Legal and Democratic by the deadline date and time.

 

1              Question from Councillor A Seldon to Cabinet Member Resources

Earlier this year Bromyard and Winslow Town Council completed the purchase of the Council offices in Rowberry Street, Bromyard.  This was not without controversy as the buildings had originally been bought from the Church by the then Bromyard Rural District Council.  Some people feel that they have paid for this site twice in the last 50 years.  During the negotiations with this Council, there was never any hint that there could be mechanisms for discounts to the value of the site as determined by the District Valuer.  Bromyard and Winslow Town Council accepted this as they realised that this Council has a duty to the Council Tax payers of Herefordshire to obtain “best value” for their assets.

 

A little later in the year, the Grange in Leominster was sold by this Council for the sum of £1.00 in the blaze of much publicity.

 

In his report, what value does the District Valuer give to The Grange?

 

Answer from Councillor H Bramer, Cabinet Member Resources

 

1       The situation of the transfer of the Grange is different to the disposal at Bromyard. Following the Quirk Review, it is permissible to transfer surplus assets to charitable community organisations at less than market value. The Grange will be transacted under those terms. Town Councils are specifically excluded and as such the Bromyard disposal was at market value.

Supplementary question from Councillor Seldon

Did selling The Grange for £1.00 demonstrate best value for the Council Tax payer?

Answer from Councillor H Bramer, Cabinet Member Resources

The Cabinet Member Resources stated that in some cases buildings should not be considered as assets, but as liabilities.  The Grange would fall into the latter category.  The transfer of the Grange to a charitable community organisation demonstrated best value for the community it would now serve.

2       Question from Councillor PJ Edwards to the Cabinet Member Corporate and Customer Services and Human Resources

2.1       When will the Key Officer Contact List be available as diary pages?

 

Answer from Councillor JP French Cabinet Member Corporate and Customer Services and Human Resources.

 

2.1       Members’ Support were currently working with the printers to provide the Key Officer Contact List as diary pages.  It is hoped that the diary pages will be available to Members in August.

Question from Councillor PJ Edwards to Cabinet Member ICT, Education and Achievement

2.2       Given that it appears estimated costs to accommodate Dedicated School's usage of The Hereford Leisure Pool could cost equal or more than basic repair / update costs of The Dedicated LEA Pool, why have these essential repairs not been carried out as a matter of urgency and the Pool reopened?

 

Answer from Councillor PD Price Cabinet Member ICT, Education and Achievement

 

2.2    The Cabinet report of 31 July 2008 details the capital costs estimated for the LEA swimming pool and for the Hereford Leisure Pool.  The figures do not show that the improvements to the Hereford Leisure Pool would cost more than the LEA swimming pool.  The future of the LEA swimming pool has to be sustainable if it is to re-open and we need to carefully consider the cost of running the pool, alongside income from schools and possible income from other groups.  We will be unable to open the pool as an ongoing concern if it operates at a loss.  Cabinet will consider the way forward at its meeting on 31 July.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor PJ Edwards

 

The Cabinet was asked to consider the value of a child’s life as children were tempted to learn to swim in the Wye.  He additionally stated that he was not satisfied with the figures received on this issue.

 

Answer from Councillor PD Price Cabinet Member ICT, Education and Achievement

 

The Cabinet Member noted the comments and stated that the issue would be fully discussed at Cabinet on 31 July 2008.  He additionally advised that Halo would meet the criteria required from schools and the provision of lessons.

 

3       Question from Councillor A Oliver

 

3.1.1   What was the total cost of salaries paid by the Council in each of the years to 31 March 2006, 2007 and 2008 (excluding teachers and other staff employed within the Schools Budget)? 

 

3.1.2   What were the total number of employees and the unfilled vacancies at each of these dates? 

 

3.1.3   Would you also break down this information between each of the Council’s Directorates at these dates? 

 

3.1.4   Would you also advise the number of employees at each of these dates whose salaries were between:

 

£70,000 to £100,000

£100,000 to £150,000

£150,000 and above

 

Answer from Councillor JP French Cabinet Member Corporate and Customer Services and Human Resources

Cabinet Member Corporate and Customer Services and Human Resources advised the Council that the answers to the questions were of a detailed nature and that, following prior consultation with Councillor Oliver, a written response would be provided.  The Cabinet Member thanked staff for drawing together the comprehensive response.  The formal response is attached as appendix 1 to the minutes of the meeting.

 

Question from Councillor AT Oliver

 

3.2.1   At the Council meeting on 16 May 2008 the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation reported the estimated final cost of the relief road as £12,780,000.  Did this forecast include the additional capital expenditure of £1,390,000 identified at the Environment Scrutiny Meeting of Monday 9 June 2008?

 

3.2.2   What are the compensation events to be agreed, and what is the current estimated cost of the access road?

 

Answer from Councillor DB Wilcox, Cabinet Member Highways and Transportation

 

3.2.1 & 3.2.2

         The amount of £1,390,000 identified at the Environment Scrutiny Meeting of 9 June 2008 is not additional expenditure. It results from a re-profiling of spend for this scheme across the budget years of 07/08 and 08/09 due to revisions to the scheme programme. The re-profiling of spend indicates an increase in spend in 08/09 linked to a decrease in spend in 07/08 but does not represent an overall increase in capital expenditure.

 

I have previously reported the estimated cost of the scheme as £12,780,000. Expenditure on the scheme has been carefully monitored throughout the project and although some costs have arisen during the project in association with certain aspects of the scheme, for instance relating to the discovery of the Rotherwas Ribbon, final accounts for the scheme have not yet been assessed.  It is therefore too early to confirm the final out-turn costs.  The scheme costs are being carefully scrutinised by the Council’s officers and our agents, Amey Consulting, to minimise any increase in the final out-turn cost.   It is anticipated that any increase would be the subject of a formal report in due course when the final out-turn is known.

 

The Compensation Events referred to are a standard element of the type of engineering contract for the construction of the road that the Council has with the main contractor for this scheme Carillion (formerly known as McAlpine). This terminology refers to events during the contract that, if they occur, and do not arise from the Contractor’s fault, entitle the Contractor to additional payments. This part of the contract provides an effective procedure for assessing and agreeing the time and cost effect of these events as they occur and in a timely manner during the contract period.  Throughout the supervision of this contract such applications for compensation events are being carefully scrutinised and assessed to ensure they are justified.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Oliver

 

Councillor Oliver thanked the Cabinet Member for his detailed answer and asked whether he could confirm the final prudential borrowing on the project.

 

The Cabinet Member Highways and Transportation stated that nothing had changed since the previous Council Meeting in May, and if there was to be an overspend this would be identified and Members would be advised of the situation.

 

Question from Councillor AT Oliver

 

3.3.1It is now a year since the Cabinet promised full support for further investigation of the Rotherwas Ribbon site.  Would the Cabinet Member for Environment and Strategic Housing provide an update as to the current position?

 

Answer from Councillor JG Jarvis Cabinet Member Environment and Strategic Housing

 

3.3.1   English Heritage have agreed in principle to fund further investigation of the paved burnt stone feature found in 2007, according to a staged programme.  An application has been submitted for funding for the first stage of this work, a multi-component advanced geophysical and laser imaging survey. Worcestershire County Archaeology Service have submitted a report on post-excavation results from 2007 that have considerably advanced understanding of the monument, the substance of which was issued as a Press Release and was widely reported in the media.  More information is available via the Council’s website.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Oliver

 

Councillor Oliver sought assurance that following work on the landscaping, that the site of the Rotherwas Ribbon was being preserved.

 

This situation was confirmed by the Cabinet Member.

 

4              Question from Councillor TM James to the Cabinet Member Resources

 

4.1    Can the Cabinet Member inform Members of the total level of all Council borrowing at 1 April 2008 and the predicted level of borrowing at 31 March 2009.

 

Answer from Councillor H Bramer Cabinet Member Resources

 

4.1    The council's borrowing at 31 March 2008 was £105,888,614 of which £12.5m was borrowed in 2007/08. At this point we expect the total amount of borrowing at 31 March 2009 to be £126.5m.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor James

 

Councillor James stated that he was grateful for the clarity of answer to the question as different figures had been presented to Members in other meetings on the same issue.

 

Cabinet Member Resources assured Council of the figure and stated that included unsecured prudential borrowing and supplementary borrowing.

 

5       Question from Councillor RI Matthews

 

5.1    On the 27 and 28 May 2008 the Cabinet spent two ‘Awaydays’ at ‘Allt-yr-Ynys’.  Can you please tell Members what was the total cost of this event, including all travel costs?

 

Answer from Councillor RJ Phillips, Leader of the Council.

 

5.1    It would be artificial to isolate the costs of this development session alone as it is an integral element of the overall member development programme being put in place with support from the Leadership Centre for Local Government. The programme incorporates Executive, Scrutiny and front line member development and is being shaped to meet the various requirements and expectations being placed on councillors in Herefordshire as identified in the report produced at the end of last year by Ian Crookall. Details of the programme are being progressed through the Leadership Centre.  External funding to support this programme is also being sought.

 

However, excluding facilitation (for reasons outlined above) the total cost is expected to be not more than £1,900 equating to some £211 per Cabinet Member attending.  ‘Away days’ had been used in the past under previous administrations.

 

 

Supplementary question from Councillor RI Matthews

 

In these difficult financial times it would have been a better example to staff for such an event to be held in Council accommodation.

 

In response, the Leader of the Council stated that a matter of judgement was taken with professional advice.  Collectively the Cabinet Members got as much out of the away-day (which was held in Herefordshire) as possible.  

 

Question from Councillor RI Matthews

 

5.2    As of today what is the total amount of borrowing which the Council has, and how much of this has been borrowed during the past twelve months?

 

Answer from Councillor H Bramer, Cabinet Member Resources.

 

5.2    The council's borrowing at 31^st March 2008 was approximately £106m of which £12.5m was borrowed in 2007/08. At this point we expect the total amount of borrowing at 31^st March 2009 to be £126.5m.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor RI Matthews

 

Councillor Matthews stated that he has sought clarification of the figure as there would be difficult times ahead and that it was important to ensure a sufficient stream of borrowing as necessary. 

 

Cabinet Member Resources assured Members that there was a sufficient steam of borrowing to support the Council and stated that the Treasury Management Strategy included two important indicators of relevance when considering the Council’s borrowing position. One indicates the absolute level of debt the Council may incur and should only be reached in exceptional circumstances.  In 2008/09 this is £185m. In 2009/10 it is £205m. In 20010/11 it is £220m

 

            The second indicator shows the ‘prudent’ level of maximum external debt. This is £158m in 2008/09, £170m in 2010/11 and £180m in 2010/11. It is this indicator that informs the day to day levels of borrowing we enter into.

 

6       Question from Councillor WLS Bowen

 

6.1    Does the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation realise that the County boundary signs for Herefordshire are tautologous and demonstrate a very poor use of the English language.  Could (and should) these signs be changed either to “The County of Hereford” or to “Herefordshire”?

 

Answer from Councillor DB Wilcox Cabinet Member Highways and Transportation

 

6.1.1In referring to a suggestion from Councillor Bowen that the entrance sign to the County could read ,’The County of Hereford’, it was stated that one could take the Hereford out of Herefordshire for the City, but one cannot take the Shire out of the County.

 

As with all road signs, boundary signs must comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, unless specific exemption is sought from the Department for Transport.  The legend the ‘County of Herefordshire’ fits exactly with the requirements of these regulations. 

 

The signs were erected in April 1998 and reflect the reinstatement of Herefordshire as a county in its own right and no longer joined with Worcestershire.

 

I do not agree that the suggested alternative wording would be more appropriate and believe that the existing signs effectively communicate our welcome to the county.  The replacement of these signs, merely to change their wording, would involve significant expenditure that I do not consider would represent good value for money at the present time.

 

6       Question from Councillor WLS Bowen

 

6.2    Am I correct in thinking that my suggestion that Herefordshire should attempt to become a plastic bag free County was well received?  If so, what is being done to put this matter into practice?

 

6.3.1Am I also correct in thinking that my suggestion that much higher standards of insulation, energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources in all new developments in Herefordshire would be required and that these standards would be well above the national guidelines? 

 

6.3.2   If so, what is being done to implement these proposals? 

 

6.3.3   Is the Cabinet Member aware that Local Authorities can set their own standards and that other Local Authorities have already done so?

 

6.3.4   Why has nothing been done so far?

 

Answer from Councillor JG Jarvis Cabinet Member Environment and Strategic Housing.

 

6.2.   I am taking a report to Cabinet next week that will reduce the county’s use of plastic bags by 2.25M. If Cabinet agrees the report’s recommendations the County will not only keep its much valued weekly refuse collection but will see kerbside recycling being extended to nearly every home in the county. Having set a good example ourselves we will be approaching all the major supermarkets to discuss what they can do to reduce our county’s bag use still further.

 

6.3.1 to 6.3.4

 

         Much work remains to achieve the highest standards of building insulation.

 

The planning process is currently seeking to achieve Sustainable Code 3 status for all major new residential developments. This level is beyond the current Building Regulations

 

Both officers and Members are aware that other councils have set their own standards in this regard. The London Borough of Merton is a well known example. These authorities have achieved their successes due to having a strong policy basis for so doing in their adopted UDPs/local plans. This has generated equivalent support from the Planning Inspectorate.

 

This Council does not have such a policy in its UDP. This matter is being addressed in the evolving Local Development Framework

 

Supplementary Question from Councillor Bowen

 

Councillor Bowen commended the Cabinet Member for the action taken to date and asked whether any amendment would be made to the UDP in respect of this issue?

 

In response Cabinet Member for Environment and Strategic Housing accepted the comments made, and whilst amending the UDP would be desirable it would not be possible to take forward.

 

6       Question from Councillor WLS Bowen

 

6.4.1   Why has Herefordshire Council abandoned its use of Green Electricity?  Would you agree that this gives a very poor example to the rest of the County?

 

6.4.2   Do we yet know what the energy usage is for all our Council buildings?  Are they all metered?  If we do not know these basic parameters – why not?

 

6.4.3   How can we make progress in more efficient use of energy if we have scant knowledge of how much or where energy is being used?

 

Answer from Councillor H Bramer Cabinet Member Resources

 

6.4.1Herefordshire Council switched from electricity from renewable sources to energy from Good Quality CHP (Combined Heat & Power) for its offices and schools last autumn because of increased differentials between renewable electricity and other supplies. The overall cost saving from the switch was £55,000 per annum. This does not affect the Council’s emissions calculated under the new National Indicator 185 (NI185) as reduced emissions can only be claimed for on-site renewables and CHP generated on site.

 

The Council actively promotes energy efficiency to householders through its HCEA programme, which sets out the important contribution such measures make to reducing climate change.  The Herefordshire Partnership has also set a target for per capita carbon reductions (NI186) in the incoming Local Area Agreement so has given climate change a high corporate priority.

 

6.4.2Yes

 

Supplementary Question from Councillor Bowen

 

Should more efforts be made so that Council buildings could create their own energy?

 

In response, Councillor Bramer stated that climate change was an issue being addressed through the Local Area Agreement.

 

7       Questions from Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes

 

7.1       What actions does the Leader intend to take arising from the judgement by Mr Justice Collins in the case of the Dinedor Hill Action Association v. Herefordshire Council?

 

7.2       It was recently reported in the press that Brockington would be sold but the Town Hall would not.  Can the Leader reassure me that this is the case?

 

Answer from Councillor RJ Phillips Leader of the Council

 

7.1    The Council is naturally disappointed to learn of the decision of the High Court in connection with a Judicial Review brought by Dinedor Hill Action Association Limited which challenged the Council’s decision to allocate land at Bullinghope for residential development.

 

         In yesterday’s Judgment the Honourable Mr Justice Collins allowed only part of the Association’s claim.  The Judge decided that the Council should have more fully set out its reasons when allocating the land for residential development.  However, His Lordship went on to reject the Association’s request to exclude the Bullinghope land from the new and wider City boundary.  The Judge further rejected the Association’s claim that an additional public enquiry should have been held following the Council’s decision.

 

         The Council will now be studying a detailed transcript of the Judgment with senior Legal Officers in order to explore grounds of appeal.  It would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this juncture.

 

7.3       The Council is currently undertaking an options appraisal in respect of the provision of back office accommodation for the joint organisations of the Council and PCT. This appraisal will also look at the options for retention and continued use of the Shire Hall and the Town Hall.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Lloyd-Hayes

 

Councillor Lloyd Hayes stated that her understanding of the judgement differed to that of the Leader’s.  Would the Leader adopt a ‘cards on the table’ attitude as advised by Justice Collins?  Additionally, concern was expressed in respect to the cost to the Council of supporting the legal case.  Assurance was also sought that Hereford Town Hall would not be sold.

 

In response, the Leader stated that a decision, which was supported by 43 Councillors, took place as Government had turned down funding for the Rotherwas Access Road.  In the development of the LDF the authority was required to identify sites for 8,000 homes which had been undertaken in an honest and transparent manner.  In addition to the identification appropriate sites for housing, consideration needed to be given to the impact on the City and the wider County on the infrastructure and how this increased burden could be overcome.

 

Responding to the comment regarding the Town Hall, the Leader stated that the building was important to the life of the community and that a consistent message had been given that it would not be sold

 

8              Question from Councillor GFM Dawe

 

The number of jobs at Rotherwas has been recorded differently. The Owen Williams business case for the Rotherwas Access Road submitted with the planning application for the road said there were 2,200 to 2500 jobs at Rotherwas. A GVA Grimley report, in 2006 revised this figure to 4,200 (letter from Jon Payne AWM Oct 2006). More recent Council meetings have put the number back down to around 2000.

 

The Department for Transport advised that the estimated number of ‘jobs created’ consequent on the building of the Rotherwas Access Road to the Rotherwas Industrial Estate should be reduced from Herefordshire Council’s estimate of 1,030 to 290 (Rotherwas Access Road Major Scheme Business Case (RARMSBC), July 2005. Herefordshire Council and Owen Williams consultants, page 5). Herefordshire Council ignored this advice.

 

Recently, at the Community Services Scrutiny Committee meeting of 17 July 2008 the Tory Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Community Services, Councillor Blackshaw, stated that the Rotherwas Access Road will lead to a 100% increase in jobs at Rotherwas. He was backed in this assertion by several other Conservative councillors.

 

In view of the large investment in the road (£12m) it is important to clarify and monitor the situation. Can Herefordshire Council provide job numbers, full time and part-time at Rotherwas Industrial Estate broken down by:

 

a) Council employees;

b) Amey Laing employees;

c) Remaining independent firms’ employees.

 

8.1    Can these be provided for the years:

 

2002; 2003; 2004; 2005; 2006; 2007; 2008 –current

 

Answer from Councillor AJM Blackshaw Cabinet Member Economic Development and Community Services

 

8.1    The number of employees on the Rotherwas Estate fluctuates by season and as businesses come and go. For the Rotherwas Futures study conducted in 2005 our consultants, GVA Grimley, calculated the number of employees from information provided by the Chamber of Commerce and backed up by phone calls to companies missing from that database. This work was done around the end of 2005 and established that there were approximately 3,364 employees working from 130 businesses in 80% of the accommodation from which information could be gathered. This was extrapolated to provide a total estimated number of employees of 4,207, with no breakdown of full and part-time workers.

 

         Based on this work and the selected option from the report, the further development of Rotherwas could provide 2,194 new jobs.  Since companies currently on Rotherwas are under no obligation to provide numbers of employees, and the information is not usually essential to Council business, the employee numbers are not monitored and updated.  However, the ground leases for new plots will have a clause obliging companies to provide employee data on an annual basis so that the number of new jobs created can be monitored.  The full development of Rotherwas is beyond the scope of the current agreement, and therefore the number of new jobs to be created through the Rotherwas Futures project has been set at 850.

 

         The figure of 2,500 existing jobs at Rotherwas is still used as a conservative estimate of numbers to take account of seasonal fluctuations and company closures, although there have been extensive developments on the estate in recent years so this is undoubtedly a minimum figure.  There are currently 150 Council staff and 64 Amey staff working from the estate. This suggests that there are currently between 2286 and 3993 independent firms’ employees on the estate. The opening of the new Rural Enterprise Centre in August or September will provide an opportunity for over 90 new jobs.

 

Question from Councillor GFM Dawe

 

8.2    Would the Cabinet Member for Environment and Strategic Housing, Cllr. Jarvis, list the housing completions expected for developments of 250 houses or more between now and 2011?

 

Answer from Councillor JG Jarvis Cabinet Member Environment and Strategic Housing

8.2    The current sites of more than 250 dwellings which as of end of March 2008 were yet to be completed but have planning permission or are allocated in the UDP are:

 

Bradbury estate - estimated around 250 left to be completed (most under construction).

Barons Cross Camp Leominster - 425 (not started)

Land at Holmer, Hereford - 300 (not started)

Land at Bullinghope - 300 (not started).

 

The latter sites’ future is dependent on the current judicial review of its allocation in the UDP.

 

Supplementary Question from Councillor Dawe

 

Councillor Dawe stated that to continue to include Bullinghope figures in the UDP was a misjudgement and confirmation was sought that Bullinghope would no longer be included in the projections.

 

In response Cabinet Member for Environment and Strategic housing stated that the outcome of the judgement did not restrict a planning application from coming forwards for consideration, however the authority would not be putting the 300 homes in future housing numbers summaries.

 

9              Question from Councillor ACR Chappell

 

9.1    What opportunity will Council have to consider the full outcome of the High Court decision concerning the inclusion of land at Bullinghope within the UDP?

 

Answer from Councillor JG Jarvis Cabinet Member Environment and Strategic Housing.

 

9.1       Councillor Chappell was referred the answer provided in response to Councillor Lloyd Hayes’ question.

 

 

Supplementary Question from Councillor ACR Chappell

 

Does the Leader agree that there should be an independent enquiry to determine; how the Bulllinghope homes were included within the UDP; why professional advice of officers were ignored; who made contact with Bloor Homes and why advice provided by Councillor Chappell was ignored on two occasions.  It was proposed that the Chairman of the Standards Committee be asked to lead an inquiry which would report back to a future Council meeting.

 

In response the Leader stated that the possibility of lodging an appeal was being considered and therefore at this time he was not in a position to answer the supplementary questions directly.  He reiterated the statement that Government had repeatedly refused to fund a relief road despite consistent delegations to the Department of Transport.  Further information was awaited regarding the judgement.

 

Councillor Chappell stated that the matter was of great importance and that a fuller response should be provided by the administration, whether or not the council appeals to the judgement.  He reminded Council that on two occasions it had been minuted that there were alternatives, however these alternatives had not been investigated further and therefore this lack of research needed to be looked into.

 

Responding to Councillor Chappell, the Leader stated that it would be necessary to review the case to asses whether an appeal would be lodged and a meeting of Group Leaders would be called following a review of the situation.

 

Councillor Chappell formally handed a letter to the Chairman, which had been signed by six Members of the Council calling for an extraordinary meeting of the Council.

 

The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the letter and the Legal Practice Manager confirmed that the letter would be treated in line with the processes as set out in the Council’s constitution.

 

10         Question from Councillor WU Attfield

 

10.1Would the Cabinet Member for Environment and Strategic Housing state what forecasts he has for completions of socially affordable housing between now and 2011?

 

Answer from Councillor JG Jarvis Cabinet Member Environment and Strategic Housing.

 

10.1The targets we are currently working to for the next three years in delivering affordable housing in Herefordshire are;

 

2008/9 – 200

2009/10 - 300

2010/11 – 350

 

Whilst we remain hopeful that we can meet the target of 200 in 2008/09 there is no doubt that the changing conditions in the housing market will make the delivery of our targets for following years extremely challenging.  We do rely on private sector housing developments coming forward as a key element of our work and as everyone will be aware, the market conditions are currently very difficult.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Attfield

 

Councillor Attfield stated that it was necessary to concentrate on ensuring that the number of affordable houses were maintained within the County and that appropriate building should be encouraged, though it was imperative not to go against the judgement.  Councillor Attfield asked why an officer of the Council gave the impression that socially affordable housing would be provided if the planning application went ahead?

 

The Cabinet Member Environment and Strategic Housing stated that the S106 was not finalised and that a planning application had not been considered.  Members would ensure that proper and appropriate affordable housing would be considered for the site should a planning application be received.  The Cabinet Member expressed the view that the number of affordable homes was a challenging target and he called on all Members to work together to bring to the attention of officers appropriate sites for consideration.