“Make it York” reports financial progress

The Make it York organisation, which is partly funded by York taxpayers, is reporting that it has made a £140,714 profit so far this year. That is £71,900 above budget expectations

They currently have a balance sheet surplus of £330,000

The organisation reports that it had a successful Christmas and claims “continuing strong performance from Shambles Market, City Centre Activities and Visit York Membership”

No detail is provided on the Shambles market performance.

The brief report to a “shareholder “ meeting also says that the “York Pass” initiative has been less successful than hoped.

Looking to the future the report says, “MIY currently runs or facilitates a range of events which animate the public realm and make the city vibrant and interesting for visitors and residents. There is scope though to use the “stage” provided to do, and to facilitate, a great deal more, the ultimate objective being to ensure a daily “wow” factor”

York Council agonises over targets for “Make it York”

Coney Street decline

The Make it York organisation – which is owned by the York Council – will once again have only soft targets set for it this year.

A meeting will take place on 23rd July at which a Service Level Agreement will be agreed between the organisation and the Council. Once again though few numerical targets are included in the documentation.

There is still no mention of customer satisfaction measures.

Volume information is largely missing as are speed stats.

Narrative reports are promised but without objective measures these are largely opinion based.

The Council currently contributes £299,000 a year to the organisation. It is responsible for economic strategy, business support, tourism and the Shambles market. It is the lead agency for cultural promotion. It claims credit for the success of the recent “Bloom” festival.

It has been criticised in the past for being very City centre orientated despite which it has failed to arrest the decline in shopping areas like Coney Street.

Its management processes remain largely opaque.

More York shops closing

Coney Street decline

“Make it York” reports to Council

The “Make it York” (MIY) Quango has produced its latest 6-month report justifying the Councils substantial investment. The report can be read by clicking here

There is the usual litany of meetings and globetrotting trips to conventions of one sort or another.

However, those hoping to see some gloom lifted from the City’s retail sector will be disappointed. With still more household names choosing to flee the City (the latest is Homebase) MIY would be expected to lead the revival.

Unfortunately, =- except for part of the Shambles Market – there is little evidence of recovery.

Sooner or later landlords will have to reduce rent levels in areas like Coney Street. The City’s smaller retailers need to gear up to exploit the opportunities that arise. MIY should be providing them with longer-term support.

York Bid Improvement District (BID)

More successful is the trade funded BID. They have also provided a report (click) They report good progress in dealing with anti-social behaviour, Christmas lights and litter in the City Centre.

The report says,

“So far the BID has invested in dressing 13 vacant shops across the city to improve the appearance of York’s high streets.

The most notable is the BHS frontage on Coney Street. Coupled with the anti-loitering scheme enforced by the BID Rangers, this has gone a long way to improving the aesthetic of an area which has been the target of littering, rough sleeping, anti-social behaviour and drug abuse”.

Less convincing is their claim that spending £36,000 on new direction signage will “encourage people to walk and thus improve health”

Decision on “Make it York” future

The Council must decide whether to renew a three year contract with Make it York (MIY) at a meeting taking place later this week.

The organisation is a curious hybrid with responsibility for a disparate range of functions including business development, tourism, culture and the Shambles market.

For residents, its City centre activities are likely to have the highest profile. Many initiatives there, including the Christmas lights and anti-litter patrols, are the brainchild of the, trade funded, “York BID”

MIY has been criticised for its opaque decision-making processes. As a “wholly owned Council company” it should be subject to regular review by a “stakeholder” committee and at least two of the Council’s scrutiny committees (which are themselves famously obtuse).

In realty the “stakeholder committee” rarely meets, while the Council’s two representatives on the MIY board have a largely subterranean profile.

Success has been limited, with a confusing array of bodies (LEP North Yorkshire, LEP City Region, York BID etc.) rubbing shoulders in the same field.

Coney Street decline

MIY can take some credit in helping to sustain the number of tourists coming to the City. This is an important part of the economy and visitor numbers have increased, partly on the back of a weak pound.

Employment levels in the City also remain high

The biggest criticism of the Council’s approach is a lack of smart PIs on which to judge the organisations success.

Very noticeably, there are no customer satisfaction measures in the current set, other than those for participating businesses.

MIY receives an annual £300,000 subsidy from taxpayers.

York economy performing well but….

St Nicholas market popular this year

The start of “Business Week” in the City coincides with the publication of a progress report by “Make it York” (MIY). This is the QUANGO charged with developing the York economy and particularly the visitor sector and markets.

Reading the report, one might think that all was rosy in the garden.

There has been a steady stream of tourists visiting the City this year. They have partly been attracted by a series of festivals while other initiatives like the food court on the market have attracted favourable publicity.

The complementary York BID scheme has produced tangible improvements to the streetscape coupled with imaginative lighting schemes.

However, part of the success in attracting foreign visitors is down to the low value of the pound.

The MIY report is singularly short of figures.

One look around the City centre, at this the busiest shopping period of the year, reveals that key shop units are still empty several years after they become vacant. The pile of empty shipping containers on Parliament Street doesn’t help while the surface of the City’s most popular car park (Castle) is in an appalling condition. Advanced car parking space availability signs – and their “on line” counterparts – haven’t worked for over 4 years.

This all adds to a depressed feel in the “high street”.

The report – to be considered by a Council scrutiny committee on 28^th November – considers progress against a limited number of targets. Some issues, like the shortage of labour and key skills, aren’t mentioned.

Nor is any attempt made to assess the impact that BREXIT will have on the City economy over the next five years or more.

We hope that Councillors, faced with a bland report, will ask questions which root out any complacency.

“Venturefest” set to be ditched by Make it York?

The Venturefest event, which as recently as last November attracted over 1000 participants to York Racecourse, is set to be ditched by “Make it York”

The decision is revealed in papers submitted to the York Council by the quasi-independent “destination management” company “Make it York”.

In November local media said “Venturefest Yorkshire attracted nearly 1,000 people to York Racecourse for a “gathering of innovators, entrepreneurs and investors”, which featured more than 100 exhibitors, as well as keynote speakers, workshops, seminars, networking opportunities and investment competitions. The event was regionally based for the first time, and was run by Make It York, the city’s destination organisation”.

At the time, Steve Brown, managing director of Make It York, told people attending the launch of York Business Week that “a few weeks previously only 100 people had booked for Venturefest, but that had risen to more than 700 as bookings came in “very late and very fast”. That figure later reached a little under 1,000, to the delight of organisers”.

One exhibitor explained what being at Venturefest meant to him, he said: “As a region we need to shout more about the things we do. We have lots of companies in York and Yorkshire that are innovating constantly, then moving on to other things and not shouting about what they’ve done”.

No explanation has been given regarding the future of the 13 year old festival which was handed over to Science City York (SCY) to organise.

The report says, SCY took over the management of Venturefest with a brief to reinvigorate a 10 year old event. Over 800 delegates, 127 exhibitors, 60 speakers and more than £1 million of business generated on the day combined to make it a successful event”.

Make it York say that their decision not to participate will cost them around £129,000 in lost income.

The company has also revealed that income from the Shambles market will fall by a further 8% this year.

Proof, if it were needed, that the £1 million refurbishment implemented a couple of years ago has yet to arrest the decline in market usage.

York City centre traders desperate for good Christmas

Visitor numbers were down in September

It’s nearly a year since flooding brought chaos to parts of the York City centre.

Recovery has been slow with visitor numbers down as recently as September (right).

……but there are some encouraging signs.

City centre car parks have been well used this month and particularly over the last few days.

The Castle car park was full again today.

However there is little sign that the York Council has got the message and improved its “on street” and “on line” parking availability information.

St Nicholas Fair has been popular this year

Those who do find a space will find that the St Nicholas Fair is busy.

After a poor start, the “Make it York” organisation, working with the “Business Improvement District” (BID) team, have done a better job this year.

There is something for everyone – including traditional children’s rides in Kings Square – although not everyone will be impressed by the reliance on alcohol sales in Parliament Street.

Some parts of the City Centre are looking neglected

Some parts of the city centre are looking run down.

Coney Street – once the most popular shopping street in the City – has more than its fair share of empty properties since BHS closed its doors.

The Council is also guilty of neglecting some of its street furniture and signs.

Here hopefully the Civic Trusts “York Enhancement Fund” will help to redress the balance. We hope that more people will buy Ron Cooke’s thought provoking book “Changing the Face of the City” . The proceeds go to improving the City

city-centre-christmas-lights ….and the lighting on the Bar walls has been acclaimed by many visitors this year.

2016 may yet go down as the year when things turned for the better in the York retail economy

York Council still in a muddle over local QUANGOs

The York Council’s Executive is to consider its relationship with agent bodies and companies tomorrow.

The move comes in the wake of criticism of several bodies not least York City Trading where audits revealed that inappropriate payments had been made. Other problems arose in relations with the York Museums Trust over charging arrangements and Make it York where apparently unilateral decisions angered residents

The organisations concerned depend on Council taxpayers for a lot of their income

One common criticism was a lack of transparency shown by the organisations (they are not subject to Freedom of Information legislation).

Concerns were also expressed that performance indicators – where published – were inappropriate or “soft”.

Campaign against secrecy started 5 years ago

The expectation was the new Council would shake up the bodies and inject more democratic accountability.

Instead a disappointing report concentrates only on governance issues. Steps are being taken to separate executive and customer functions but little else. We will still have a bureaucratic muddle with little consistency and no new commitment to openness.

If approved without change, the Council will stand accused of ignoring many of the concerns expressed by taxpayers over the last five of years.

Important decisions affecting the City will continue to be taken “Behind Closed Doors”

York Council QUANGO set new targets

A watchdog committee will be told next week what the targets for the Councils wholly owned “Make it York” (MIY) organisation will be.

York’s image to be improved as alcohol dominates City centre economy

MIY has been the centre of controversy since it took over the management of City centre activities 12 months ago.

It has just reported a £29,000 “profit” for last year …..but only after receiving nearly £1 million from local taxpayers.

Now the Council is saying that the subsidy for 2016/17 must be used to meet a range of targets which include;

Sustaining/creating “high value jobs” (Taxpayer contribution £179k) – This includes inward investment, account management with “500 jobs created above the national median wage”. In 2015/16 MIY claimed to have created 233 new jobs (against a target of 700) of which only 167 (target 500) where “high value”
Cultural/visual identity (£120k) – improving the City’s image (!), a year round creative lighting setup for the city centre, digital signposting and what’s on, city centre public realm enhancement and “the” Eye of York development.
Bring people and businesses together (£39k) – to “enable serendipity to happen” (!)
Community based economic initiatives (£30k) – includes rolling out Bishopthorpe Road “model” to other suburban shopping areas.

In addition, the MIY will promote the Shambles market and stimulate tourism albeit no numeric targets for these activities are included in the proposed “service level agreement”

What would success look like?

Most of these objectives are notoriously difficult to monitor. In particular, most economic growth is organic and would probably happen anyway without third party stimulation.

MIY has already fallen into the trap of measuring inputs (e.g. number of meetings held) rather than outputs. It is reminiscent of the last Councils flirtation with the exotic attractions of Cannes

If the organisation can make a “profit” then they appear to care little that local traders are squeezed out by high rents or that children lose their traditional pastimes.

Performance numbers for 2015/16 will be considered at a “shareholders” meeting next week. They show that MIY missed all of their economic development targets during the last year

However, the number of potential tourists accessing Visit York information did achieve the 2 million target. The organisation also did better on business inquiries and conferences.

There are no customer satisfaction measures for city centre activities or the “markets” experience.

Total tourist numbers and entry numbers at attractions are not reported. Nor are hotel room occupancy figures.

In the wake of the City of York Trading scandal, the Council has promised a root and branch review of how its arm’s length companies and partner organisations are governed.

The sooner that happens the better.

Auditors lifting veil on City of York Council

Problems revealed with project management and registering interests

Although the now notorious audit report on irregular staff payments is not on the agenda for the York Councils next Audit committee meeting, several other issues are.

click to view

The Councils auditors (Mazers) annual report does conclude that group accounts for “City of York Trading” and “Make it York” are not required. The publication of separate accounts would make it easier for taxpayers to understand the level of any cross subsidy enjoyed by these organisations.

The Auditors do say, “In all entities, management at various levels is in a unique position to perpetrate fraud because of the ability to manipulate accounting records and prepare fraudulent financial statements by overriding controls that otherwise appear to be operating effectively. Due to the unpredictable way in which such override could occur, we consider there to be a risk of material misstatement due to fraud and thus a significant risk on all audits”.

They go on to conclude, “There have been some high profile examples of problems with project delivery, such as the housing for older people procurement and more recently with the community stadium project. This has been the first year of operation of the Better Care Fund, which requires the Council to work with the local CCG and the wider health economy to reduce demand for acute healthcare. Any failures in these areas could compound the Council’s financial and operational difficulties and impact adversely on services provided”.

The Auditors are understood to be looking carefully at failings in the management of the Community Stadium project and the collapse of the older persons accommodation strategy (both of which date from the time of the Labour administration in the City)

The background papers published yesterday list some individual areas which are being audited. Audit report April 2016

These include Project Management, Register of Interests and s117 of the Mental Health Act. Draft reports on these issues reveal only “limited assurance” – meaning there are significant issues to be addressed. The reports are in draft form only and are being review internally at this stage. All are potential matters of public interest (S117 of the Mental Health Act requires authorities to provide community support for people leaving hospital).

Reports already issued reveal that several departments have not agreed performance standards with the Councils reception (business support) unit. Two years seems a long time to wait for the Council to publish target times (and performance) for dealing with issues raises electronically. Recently reports of fly tipping took nearly two weeks to be passed on to the team responsible for actually tidying up some dumping.

Similarly, the auditors did find some sensitive information in offices when they did a security sweep.

Most of the Audit reports – and particularly those of schools – have however found procedures to be generally satisfactory

Mazars are charging the Council £138,000 for their work.

NB. The Councils Executive has so far failed to clarify what issues will be discussed at its 24^th April meeting when the Public Interest Report on irregular staff payments is on the agenda.