Council publish secret contracts report

The York Council has finally published the controversial report into payments to contractors over the last few years.

The publication was ordered by Councillors last week although Labour representatives made a last ditch attempt to keep the document secret.

Campaign against secrecy started 6 years ago

The Council have now issued the following statement

 “We’ve published the report from last week’s audit and governance committee meeting.

“It can be read and downloaded  by clicking here 

“A copy continues to be available for inspection at our West Offices.

“We’re sorry there has been a delay in making the report available.  

“We had to seek legal guidance from the office of the Information Commissioner because the report contains personal information.

“We take our duties under the Data Protection Act seriously, but, at the same time, we wish to be an open, honest and transparent council”

Some of the report has been redacted but it does provide a greater insight into how broken management systems at the authority were in 2014.

Another big York Council contract let in behind closed doors decision

£1 million plus contract for social care started on 1st February 2017 – authorised last week

In April 2016, the York Council considered a major shake-up in its housing support programme. The service had been costing York taxpayers over £2.5 million a year.

The users of this support programmes short term services include the homeless, young people at risk (16-25 year olds including care leavers and teenage parents) offenders, mental health, substance misuse and domestic violence.

Long term services support residents with permanent needs including older people; learning disabilities and mental health.

A report to the Council’s Executive last April said,

“The approach is one of “co-design” with the Council setting some minimum requirements but requesting providers to submit proposals that identify the added value that can be provided and setting out a five-year vision for service delivery which will further enhance provision across the City”

It was expected the the new approach would save taxpayers around £750,000 a year. The new approach anticipated an increase in activity by volunteers.

At about the same time the government announced a cap on the total amount of housing benefit payable to social housing tenants. At the time this was expected to impact heavily on supported accommodation services  like hostels.

The 2016 report said,

“There is however apprehension amongst providers and partners regarding the significant service change that will take place and any resulting reductions in capacity. Some customers have also expressed anxiety over potential change of providers but this will not be known until after the outcome of the proposed “tender” exercise”.

The services put out to tender were Community Wellbeing and Support Services for:

  • Adults (including Mental Health, Homeless, substance misuse, offenders and Young People)
  • Older Persons
  • Young People – Supported Lodgings

The expected total cost of providing these services was £1.27 million (a saving of £750,000)

It had been anticipated that the contract would be awarded in September 2016 with implementation from 1st February 2017.

It appears that the contracts have only recently been authorised although they were implemented at the beginning of the month. (There is a suspicion that the responsible Council official actually agreed the contract in December).

Papers were published on the Council’s web site on Friday but reveal very little either about the cost of the new contracts or their specifications (i.e. targets, outcomes).

September 2017 specification promise

There will be a suspicion that these have only been made public as an afterthought and were possibly prompted by last week’s revelations about previous contract failures.

The three contacts awarded were:

So, substantial contracts have been let apparently without the involvement of the responsible Councillors, with no visibility of the “vision”, the number of tenders received haven’t been reported, nor has the value of the individual contracts or the expected outcome specification/targets.

Some further explanations are needed we think!

*Bizarrely the report claims that the specification for this service will not be agreed until “Sept 2017”

Auditors slam York Council over contractor probe

Auditors have issued a critical report following complaints about how consultants were recruited during the term of the last Labour administration, which left office in May 2015..

The report will be discussed at a meeting taking place next week next week.

Officials involved in the scandal – and most of the Councillors that they reported to – are no longer with the Authority.

The audit report concerns how a consultant, who was employed in the public relations/culture activity area, was engaged.

The report concludes that there was no evidence of fraud but it says,

“Internal Audit undertook an investigation into the awarding of contracts to an external consultant. The investigation found that there was no evidence to show that written quotations had been received. A number of other breaches of the council’s Financial Regulations and Contract Procedures Rules were also identified including the absence of a signed contract, the failure to include the contract on the council’s contracts register, a payment in advance of the work being completed and inadequate contract monitoring”..

Part of the report is being withheld as it identifies the individuals involved in, what appears to amount to a case of maladministration 

Unfortunately the last Labour administration in York was mired in secrecy. Officials were given too much power and they seem to have exploited this to allocate work to their chums.

A copy of the external Auditors report can be found by clicking here

More recently there has been criticism of the present Council for allocating contracts for work on social care projects with little openness and even less regard for the rights of taxpayers 

The Council will be asked to consider what more can be done to prevent corruption in the future

Guildhall project set to get planning approval

Perhaps not surprisingly, the York Planning Committee is being recommended to approve major changes to the Guildhall complex in York.

The proposals involve alterations to, and the refurbishment of, the Guildhall complex to create conference rooms, meeting rooms and offices.

Revised Guildhall project layout plans

Guildhall project plans

The existing south range will be refurbished, and part rebuilt, to provide cafe and ancillary accommodation while an extension will be erected on the north side of complex to form a restaurant and office accommodation.

30 objections to the plans – including one from the York Conservation Trust – have been received. Only one letter of support has been lodged.

The proposal is controversial because of the risks to the public purse. The latest estimates suggest that Council taxpayers could be liable for around £12 million if the project flops. It is an investment – and risk – which could have been transferred to the private sector if a more flexible tendering system had been adopted.

York Guildhall

York Guildhall

Many of the proposed changes will be welcomed as they open up the river bank and will bring back into use an important historic building which has been largely empty for four years.

One issue to be resolved is the inclusion of units where alcohol will be served.

This – like several other recent proposals for the city centre – is directly in conflict with the cumulative impact policies of the Council and local Police. The policy seeks to limit the number of outlets in the City centre selling alcohol.

guildhall-costsb-july-2016

 

Tory finance chief quits York Executive

Mystery surrounds consultants contract

The Conservative Councillor responsible for City finances has abruptly quit his post. The announcement came only days after the Council released details of a hitherto confidential consultancy contract.

In 2014 a small consultancy firm, run by a former City Council employee, had been awarded a contract to project manage the older person’s accommodation project. This is the programme which will see existing elderly person’s homes like the one at Oakhaven closed and replaced by larger privately run “mega homes”. Part of the programme would see elderly person’s accommodation built on the Lowfields school site.

The consultants contract was to have run from 1st January 2015 until 31st December 2015. The contract was extended to 31st March 2016 with a total value of £130,000.

In response to a Freedom of Information request the Council says it does not hold any information to indicate “which Directors and Councillors were involved in the letting of the contract, and any extensions thereof” nor can they ” provide copies of all appropriate decision meeting minutes or notes – including copies of any invitation to tender adverts”!

The contract had an “output” specification. This meant that payments were made to the consultancy only when agreed targets and milestones had been met.

The Council was also asked about its current policy in engaging employees, consultants and contractors who seek to be remunerated via a private company.

They replied;“There is currently no policy which specifically deals with this question.  Each assignment will be considered individually and advice is provided on the employment implications by human resources or the procurement team”.

In March 2016, the Council, now under coalition control, decided that further work was needed on the older person’s project. They decided to let a further consultancy project covering the period 31st March 2016 – 30th March 2018 using the services of NEPRO This is a local government “spin off” company run from Sunderland. It effectively procures and manages contracts let on behalf of local authorities.

behind closed doorsThe Council have admitted that “The decision to use NEPRO is an officer decision and was made by the Council Management Team on 7th May 2014.  As this is a legally compliant framework, the terms and conditions are pre-agreed.  Suppliers on the framework have already agreed to these terms and conditions, therefore no further steps were deemed necessary to ensure transparency of individual contracts agreed through the framework. 

The new contract was handed to the same consultant who had held the old contract since January 2015.

It appears that no Councillors were involved in the decision nor is there any evidence that the employment of NEPRO has been reviewed during that last 3 years. It is unclear what proportion of contract costs are retained by NEPRO or indeed what value they add, in a situation where an existing contractor is simply reappointed to a role.

The new contract had a potential value of £216,000.

£54,000 was paid out in 2016 during the first 9 months of the contract.

The contract is again based on “outputs” being achieved (see below).

While output contracts can have advantages, they are an opaque system and unsuitable for activities where taxpayers opposition to proposals must be overcome before payments are released. The temptation may be to prioritise financial gain over the views of residents.

This happened with the decision to build on the Lowfields playing fields, where lobbyists were urged to influence consultation results and a, misleading, report gave the impression that the NHS had agreed to fund a new health centre on the site (see here).

It hadn’t.

The lack of engagement by senior Councillors in the contract letting process at the York Council is a concern. So is the lack of, publicly accessible, records of decisions taken about contract letting.

With spin off companies not subject to FOI regulations, this means that large sums of public money can be committed to controversial projects with minimal accountability.

consultants

York Council budget – 3.7% Council Tax increase

More for road and footpath resurfacing

The York Council has revealed its budget for 2017/18. Taxpayers face an increase of around £14 a year in their bill for local public services.

The proposals include a welcome increase in the amount that will be spent resurfacing local roads and footpaths. An additional £1 million a year will be invested although the Council will borrow money to fund the improvement. The increase returns investment to the levels last seen in 2011 (after which a Labour administration slashed road maintenance budgets).

The coalition led authority say that they have heeded views of residents who responded to a consultation on the budget.  Residents gave the highest priority for improvements to road maintenance (in line the last survey undertaken in the Westfield Ward) as well as care for the elderly. An extra £1.8 million will be spent on social care.

The government is reducing the grant that they pay to the City by £6.3 million.

Cuts of £8.9m have been identified with around 40 job losses forecast.

Figures release by the Council today reveal that

  • The failure to negotiate a new park and ride contract will cost taxpayers £666,000
  • £230,000 is needed to address increase waste disposal costs
  • £345,000 will fund more changes to the emerging Local Plan
  • Parking charges will rise by around 5%

As many motorists have not reclaimed the fines that they were entitled to, following the Lendal Bridge/Coppergate fiasco in 2013, the money allocated for refunds will be allocate to other transport schemes including road repairs. Ironically some is earmarked for a cycle hire scheme (despite such schemes having failed when tried previously in the City)

Council house rents will be reduced by 1% in line with central government instructions. Despite this, a year end surplus of £24 million on the housing account is forecast.

The average York Council taxpayer will pay around £1540 a year for local services when Police and Fire costs are added in.

The Council’s capital budget reveals a large increase in expenditure on Museums. A £18 million upgrade project for the Castle museum is getting start-up funding as a way of making it more self-sufficient in the future.

Overall the Council will increase its capital budget by £36 million.

£1,7 million is being spent on replacing concrete lampposts and £1.77 million on the City Walls.

Spotlight on York NHS finances as Acomb GP surgery looks to extend

Freedom of Information response confirms no discussions held regarding Priory Surgery move to Lowfields site

With the NHS Vale of York Clinical Commissioning Group (YCCG), which buys services for people in York, heading for a £24 million overspend this year, the spotlight is being turned on some major investment decisions.

The Estates and Technology Tranformation Fund provides investment for General Practices to improve premises and technology.

Grants can be between 30% and 100% of the capital cost.

Part of the purpose of this programme is to “help practices establish infrastructure which enables sufficient routine appointments at evenings and weekends to meet local demand alongside effective access to out of hours and urgent care services”

All schemes have to be implemented by March 2019.

On 2nd June 2016 a local commissioning committee meeting in York decided which projects to bid for. Some have since been added to the approved national list.

The national improvement list for 2016/17 authorises funding for extension work at the Front St (Copmanthorpe), Posterngate and Priory (Cornlands Road) surgeries. The Cornlands Road scheme could cost around £800,000 and would fund an extension for a “new patient lounge” and facilities to “manage long term conditions”.

Four new build schemes are also listed for York.  They are located at Wheldrake, Jorvik/Gillygate South (Terry’s site), Huntington and Priory (Burnholme Health and Well Being campus).

In deciding its priorities, the YCCG had to observe national policies, They are set out here click

The guidance says “It is not anticipated, at this stage, that a further national round of submissions will be offered as it is expected the fund will be fully committed and the pipeline fully populated following this second invitation for schemes”.

The situation at the Priory practice on Cornlands Road came to the fore in the autumn when the York Council agreed to allocate a site at Lowfields for the practice to move into.

Priory had already been working with the Council on providing health facilities at the Burnholme school site on the other side of the City.

Although NHS documents (see below) reveal that the current Cornlands Road premises do require improvement, the local YCCG nodded through the extension scheme in June.

In a response to a Freedom of Information request the YCCG says,

 “The CCG and practice have had no meetings about the relocation” of the surgery to Lowfields.

So, it seems that – with the deadline for funding applications now passed – there is little chance of a health centre being built on the reserved site at Lowfields in the foreseeable future.

…. and there is now even less justification for building on the Lowfields playing fields!

property-services-report

 

Budget consultation

budget-consultation

York Council  (click to access)

The York Council is asking residents whether they would like to see Council Tax increased by 1.99%, charges increased or fewer services provided

In its “on line” survey, the Council then asks whether an additional  1%, 2% or 3% increase in tax – to fund social care (elderly and disabled services) – would be acceptable?

There is then a list of services which residents are asked to prioritise. Usually residents say that they want all the services to be sustained. However, there may be a move to invest more in street cleaning, crime prevention and road maintenance this year.

There is room for a comments section but no mention of the high levels of debt charges (interest payments) being born by taxpayers nor any option to cut back on capital programmes like the Guildhall development or the new Monks Cross swimming pool..

The Council’s final budget will be set in February, so leading Councillors will already have decided what the budget strategy is.

Launching a “consultation” a couple of days before Christmas will seem to be an afterthought to many residents.

Police – click to access

The Police and Crime Commissioners survey takes a similar line. A short explanatory leaflet is available but it says little about crime levels (which are increasing in parts of York)

Residents are offered the choice of a tax freeze, a 1.99% increase and – subject to a formal referendum – an increase above 2%.

No spending options are offered and there is no opportunity to highlight areas of concern on policing.

So pretty much going through the motions of public consultation it seems

NB. The results of the last PCC survey – on policing plans – which was undertaken in the autumn, have yet to be published

Reprieve as Foxwood Community Centre wins rating appeal

Foxwood Community Centre

Foxwood Community Centre

The shock decision by the Council’s ruling executive, not to award discretionary rate relief to the Foxwood and Tang Hall community centres last week, has been reversed on appeal.

The decision has been taken by officials after the Council admitted failing to support the Community Centre applications properly.

The award lasts for two years and could mean that the Foxwood centre – which is now run entirely by volunteers – will be £1500 better off.

The centre already enjoys 80% mandatory rates relief which substantially offsets the £4000 a year rates bill