Agenda item
Questions to the Cabinet Leader and Cabinet Members received under Standing Order 11.3(a)
To deal with the following questions to the Cabinet Leader and / or other Cabinet Members, in accordance with Standing Order 11.3(a):
(i) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Watson:
“By imposing the closure of Waterworld are you not prejudging the stadium planning application and placing your groups planning committee members into a preconceived decision?”
(ii) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Aspden:
“In view of the relatively low levels of unemployment in the city, what actions does the Cabinet intend to take over the next 4 months to address labour shortages in key sectors such as social care and the construction industry?”
(iii) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:
“When did he become a believer in freezing council tax rather than increasing it?”
(iv) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Watson:
“What, if anything do you intend doing to address the concerns of the petitioners on the subject of Yearsley pool?”
(v) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Aspden:
“How much has the council paid to the Leeds City Region, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and the local LEPs and how much of this has the authority received back (not promised, not national funding allocations) so far in increased investment in the city and its public services?”
(vi) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:
“What will be the total cost of the council of the Lendal Bridge trial, including a breakdown of estimated officer time, once all fines have been refunded?”
(vii) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:
“How much higher is the cost of the Lendal Bridge trial to the council due to the decision to initially only pay back people appealing?”
(viii) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Barton:
“In view of the news that York City Knights are no longer to be involved in the Community Stadium does the Cabinet Member not think that she, personally, should have issued a full and detailed explanation to her fellow Councillors about what is happening here rather than abdicate the responsibility to Officers resulting in a less than totally explanatory email being circulated?”
(ix) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr D’Agorne:
What is the estimated total cost to York council tax payers for the proposed one day Tour de Yorkshire event in May 2015 and where will this money be found from?
(x) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Barton:
“Following York City Knights withdrawal from the Community Stadium venture, has the Risk Assessment Document been rewritten and any elements previously shown as “medium” upgraded to “high”?”
(xi) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Barton:
“What is the estimated cost to the Council of the legal proceedings referred to in the recent Community Stadium project warning issued by Officers to Members?”
(xii) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Cuthbertson:
“Listing each pool separately, for each month for the last 2 years what were the attendances at York swimming pools?”
(xiii) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Cuthbertson:
“How many people attended this years Illuminating York events, how does this compare to 2013 and 2012, and what was the cost to the council of this event in each of the last three years?”
(xiv)To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement from Cllr Barton:
“Bearing in mind that less than 1% of the population attended the series of Community Engagement Meetings does not the Cabinet Member think it time to reinstate the previously higher levels of Ward Committee funding to give residents a real opportunity to actively “engage” in their Ward’s activities?”
(xv) To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement from Cllr Doughty:
“Conservative calling-in members welcome that the Labour Cabinet have been encouraged to reconsider their decision to close the youth and young adult service at Castlegate. Given the Health and Wellbeing Board strategy was previously ignored by Cabinet, can the Cabinet Member please explain how the HWBB exerts it's influence and impacts on the decision making of the Council and it's partners?”
(xvi)To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement from Cllr Ayre:
“As it is now nearly 18 months since the Council started to seek partners to provide and run the Lowfields Care Village, when was the “competitive dialogue” phase concluded, why did it take so long, and when does the Cabinet Member now expect work on site to start and the first homes to be occupied?”
(xvii) To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement from Cllr Waller:
“As the Cabinet Member has previously said that she is involved in each stage of the hand over of community centres, could she explain how they are being equipped to respond to the challenges of having no grant nor caretaker provision, and does she not think it would be fairer for community centres to have a similar level of support to the 'hubs' developed by the council including Space 217 in Lindsey Avenue?”
(xviii) To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Doughty:
“Residents have recently reported that pre-sorted recycling has been cumulatively thrown into refuse vehicles for landfill rather than recycling on a number of occasions. Given this disheartening sight where citizen efforts are literally 'wasted', can the Cabinet Member please advise how many collection shifts have been lost this municipal year due to recycling vehicles being out of use and replaced with a standard refuse cart?”
(xix)To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Waller:
“How many reports has the council received during the current year about trees and hedges overgrowing and impeding public roads and footpaths, what action does the council take to require owners to cut back these obstruction, what is the average time taken by owners to undertake this task, and what is the current longest outstanding complaint of this sort?”
(xx) To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Reid:
“Could the Cabinet Member confirm how many residents have paid for a second green bin collection and how this compares to budget assumptions?”
(xxi)To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr D’Agorne:
“What is the timescale now for establishing the Congestion Commission?”
(xxii) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“Of the Lendal Bridge refund requests processed to date how many (in total and as a percentage) have been for York postcodes, how many for the rest of the UK and how many for overseas addresses?”
(xxiii) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Aspden:
“How many meetings were held and where with prospective tenderers for the East Coast Main Line franchise at which City of York Cabinet members and/or officials specifically made the case for retaining the franchise HQ in York and what was the reaction of each of the tenderers?”
(xxiv)To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“How many faults have been reported on traffic signals in York so far this year, what is the total time that signals have been out of service, and how do these figures compare to the equivalent period last year?”
(xxv) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“In view of the fact that successive Cabinet Members for Transport have told previous Council meetings that they were trying to get more information about bus service reliability in York, could the current Cabinet Member now say - for each of the last 6 months - what reliability was achieved on stage carriage services (quoting commercial and subsidised separately) operating in the City?”
(xxvi)To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Runciman:
“At the last meeting the Cabinet Member for Transport said that the number of vehicles using different car parks would be assessed to determine the success or otherwise of the free morning parking trial and given this, would he now publish comparisons between the numbers using the free parking option and the numbers recorded prior to the trial, together with a month by month comparison of total car park usage and income comparing this year with last year?”
(xxvii) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“Would the Cabinet Member provide up to date information comparing the revenue derived from the Marygate Car Park, since it has had barriers introduced, with the equivalent period during the previous year?”
(xxviii) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“I understand that the Marygate barrier was not working on the 8th November. In total, how many faults on the barrier and payment mechanisms at the car park have been reported since the trial commenced and what has been the total loss in income?”
(xxix)To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Hyman:
“Could the Cabinet Member publish the monthly number of park and ride journeys made from each site – including the newly commissioned ones – comparing 2014 with 2013?”
(xxx) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Waller:
“In light of planned cuts to the 2015/16 highways budget could the Cabinet Member outline any proposals to cut frontline staff and detail the consequential reduction in services in the ancient monument department, the blacksmiths department, the drainage department, the highways department or in yard foreman?”
(xxxi)To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Orrell:
“Will the Cabinet Member listen to local concerns and restore gritting routes in Huntington on Brockfield Park Drive/Road and North Lane?”
(xxxii) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“Could the Cabinet Member confirm how much has been spent so far on the roll-out of 20mphs zones since 2011 and how much is planned to be spent in 2014/15?”
(xxxiii) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Waller:
“Will the Cabinet Member restore the gritting routes to Hob Moor School along ‘little’ Green Lane and along the bus route through Kingsway West, Windsor Garth, Ascot Way, Danesfort Avenue and St Stephen’s Road?”
(xxxiv) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr D’Agorne:
“When will the induction loops for Fulford Rd/Broadway junction be installed, now that the resurfacing and lining has been completed?”
(xxxv) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr D’Agorne:
“What impact has the free parking scheme in the city centre had on occupancy levels, total income and pollution levels?”
(xxxvi) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr D’Agorne:
“Following the charge for Minster badges how many residents tickets have been issued compared with a similar period last year?”
(xxxvii) To the Cabinet Member for Education, Children and Young People from Cllr Brooks:
“What urgent action is the Cabinet Member taking in light of the very worrying findings of recently published research carried out in conjunction with Save the Children which put both York constituencies in the worst 25% of constituencies in the country for ability to 'read well' at age 11?”
[Research recently published by Read on.Get on - a coalition of charities, parents, teachers and businesses, puts two York constituencies in the worst 25% of constituencies in the country for the percentage of children who can 'read well' at the age of 11: 64% in York Central and only 61% in York Outer]
(xxxviii) To the Cabinet Member for Education, Children and Young People from Cllr Waller:
“What work has been undertaken to assess the loss of services in the community as a consequence of the planned funding cuts to Children's Centres (especially the joint activity with local NHS staff) and does the Cabinet Member not feel that these cuts fly in the face of what the council has been claiming it is doing for vulnerable communities in the city?”
(xxxix) To the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance from Cllr Doughty:
“It is noted that the new Labour group Leader has overturned the decision of his predecessor and Cabinet colleagues despite previously supporting their stance and will now ordinarily refund motorists fined under the disastrous Lendal Bridge fiasco. Can the Cabinet Member please confirm what the final total loss to the York council taxpayer will be including costs for administration of fines, refunds, signage and related operating costs?”
(xl) To the Cabinet Member for Finance & Performance from Cllr Ayre:
“What are the latest performance figures for Customer Services at West Offices listing each channel separately?”
(xli) To the Cabinet Member for Finance & Performance from Cllr Firth:
“What progress has been made with the sale of Oliver House and when can we expect it to be occupied by a new owner?”
(xlii) To the Cabinet Member for Finance & Performance from Cllr Waller:
“In those cases where residents report issues electronically why doesn’t the Council confirm - to the person raising the issue - when any requested action has been completed?”
(xliii)To the Cabinet Member for Finance & Performance from Cllr Ayre:
“What progress has been made in upgrading reporting options available to residents using mobile devices so that they are at least on a par with commercial sites such as “My Council”?”
(xliv) To the Cabinet Member for Finance & Performance from Cllr Waller:
“The 2014/15 Finance Monitor 1 report noted an overall forecast overspend for 2014/15 of £2.3 million and continued shortfall and overspends in areas such as parking income (£400k), Learning Services (£110k), the EPH Project (763k). Could the Cabinet Member update council on the overall budget position and these specific areas?”
(xlv) To the Cabinet Member for Housing & Community Safety from Cllr Orrell:
“Could the Cabinet Member update councillors on the future plans for implementing additional Cold Calling Zones?”
Minutes:
Forty five questions to the Leader and Cabinet Members had been received under Standing Order 11.3(a). The guillotine having fallen at this point, Members agreed to receive written answers to their questions, as set out below:
(i) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Watson:
“By imposing the closure of Waterworld are you not prejudging the stadium planning application and placing your groups planning committee members into a preconceived decision?”
No.
The closure of Waterworld was agreed as part of the September Cabinet report. The subsequent Full Council meeting in October gave its support to the progression of the project. Planning consent is not required for the closure of Waterworld, thus it is not a planning matter.
(ii) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Aspden:
“In view of the relatively low levels of unemployment in the city, what actions does the Cabinet intend to take over the next 4 months to address labour shortages in key sectors such as social care and the construction industry?”
A shortage of labour in the construction industry is a national issue as projects get off the ground in higher numbers than anytime since 2007. Clearly there will be a time lag in the labour market responding to that new confidence in the economy, but in York we are doing what we can to get people trained up to work in this sector.
There has been a lot of good work taking place this year which was highlighted through the construction scrutiny report, notably in the linking of construction businesses with education and training providers such as schools and colleges.
The ward member for Fulford I’m sure will be as pleased as I am to see the council’s procurement process acting as a mechanism for improving recruitment and training opportunities for local people on major capital projects like the extension of Fulford School and elsewhere in the city, on the Community Stadium.
Job Centre Plus is also working with its clients, training providers and employers to retrain and upskill local residents in both sectors.
In social care, there is an ageing workforce, with expertise leaving the sector and increasing demand for services, all of which is putting pressure on the delivery of quality care services.
Looking at the shortage of key workers in social care is a focus for the transformation of adult social care which includes the following proposals:
- for recruitment and retention of key workers in York and what the council could contribute/enable; and
- for how CYC’s Workforce strategy could be amended to support the recruitment of key workers
This work is at a relatively early stage but will be progressed by the relevant Cabinet Members over the period to which your question relates.
In March we have another Jobs Fair, building on the success of events held previously where employers, including those in each of these sectors, are linking up with those interested in working in these areas.
My Cabinet colleagues with responsibility for learning and skills and adult social care I’m sure would be more than happy to expand on my answer for you following this meeting.
(iii) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:
“When did he become a believer in freezing council tax rather than increasing it?”
When the expected level of freeze grant matches our assumptions for a council tax increase. I would therefore not commit to anything beyond the next year.
(iv) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Watson:
“What, if anything do you intend doing to address the concerns of the petitioners on the subject of Yearsley pool?”
I hear the concerns of petitioners loud and clear and will be speaking with colleagues about the current position following the earlier announcement that Yearsley’s subsidy would have to be reduced. For the record, we have no plans to close Yearsley swimming pool.
I would like to hear what progress the Yearsley Pool Action Group, the council and other interested parties have made prior to the Working Group getting underway with its review of the operation before making further comment, but I remain hopeful a solution can be found that enables the pool to remain open to residents.
(v) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Aspden:
“How much has the council paid to the Leeds City Region, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and the local LEPs and how much of this has the authority received back (not promised, not national funding allocations) so far in increased investment in the city and its public services?”
The implication of this question is somewhat depressing. The Leeds City Region is a geographic area only, the LCR LEP is something quite different.
Local Enterprise Partnerships fundamentally exist as vehicles for distributing national and European funds focussed on growing the economy on a regional basis.
Therefore money from local authorities is invested in such partnerships has never been intended to be distributed back directly, but rather primarily to develop the plans and proposals which enable them to compete and access large pots of funding which require this level of robustness. So for both LEPs, this includes writing strategic economic plans to demonstrate priorities and why they will make a difference, detailed work on particular programme proposals and putting in place the mechanisms to assess and assure to government funding given will be delivered effectively.
The Leeds City Region and York, North Yorkshire and East Riding LEPs are bodies we can choose to be a member of or not. By being a member of both we can play our part in a joined up approach to developing economically, along with all the other local authorities that are members. York has its seat at the table and can make its case for funding that will boost jobs and opportunities for York residents.
To not be a member of either would put our plans for economic growth at risk, economic growth which is so fundamental to the future of local public services. LEPs are the bodies through which York gains access to Local Growth funding, on general issues such as skills, business growth and transport (outer ring road roundabout upgrades) and more specifically for York Central and Biovale.
These are the sort of opportunities that would be lost but for this membership. We will therefore continue to engage and make the case for funding for York.
There are a number of ways that the Leeds City Region Local Enterprise Partnership has directly invested in York which have not been national programmes and which would not have been happened but for the Leeds City Deal:
· £136k for Apprenticeship Hub enabling 88 Apprenticeship starts in SMEs; plus annual campaigns to target young people and SMEs; targeting growth sectors of Business, Financial & Professional; Creative & Digital; Health; Construction
· £180k for Head Start Programme to support York, Craven, Selby & Harrogate, including direct funding of York Learning to support over 100 longer-term unemployed 18-24s back into work, and 50 into sustainable jobs
· Employer ownership fund of £17.1m has been announced which York businesses will have access to for employer led skills programmes.
In addition to this, the following programmes have been funded through the work gearing up for national funding:
|
|
West Yorkshire Combined Authority |
York, North Yorkshire & East Riding LEP |
|
CURRENT COST |
||
|
Current annual membership cost |
£48,436 |
£40,000 |
|
INVESTMENT IN YORK PROJECTS TO DATE |
||
|
Local Growth Fund |
£1,700,000 York Central |
£5,000,000 BioHub |
|
|
£3,000,000 BioHub |
£2,600,000 Askham Bryan Centres of Excellence |
|
|
|
£8,300,000 Sand Hutton Agri-food innovation campus (outside of York LA area) |
|
Business Growth Fund |
£148,000 |
£254,000 |
|
|
West Yorkshire Combined Authority |
York, North Yorkshire & East Riding LEP |
|
|
CURRENT COST |
|||
|
CURRENT ANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL FUTURE COSTS |
|||
|
Transport Fund |
£42,289,000 (net present value over 38 years). Annual cost up to peak of £3,665,000 per year in 2024/25. |
£0 |
|
|
CURRENT ANTICIPATED RETURNS ON INVESTMENT |
|||
|
Transport Fund |
£66,800,000 towards CYC schemes in the next 10 years including over £20m towards York Central and over £30m to York outer ring road. |
N/A – no capital transport scheme. |
|
|
Other |
£1,000,000 Guildhall Local Growth Deal bid being put forward to Government |
|
|
|
Significant further shares of government funding through LEPs and Combined Authorities |
Significant further shares of government funding through LEPs and Combined Authorities |
||
Of course, York wouldn’t have to be a part of Local Enterprise Partnership, but it therefore wouldn’t get any transport or investment funding from Government at all.
The amount the council has committed to date is:
LCR/WYCA YNYER
£35,000 set up costs from 13/14 £10,000 12/13
£50,985 13/14 £10,000 13/14
£48,436 14/15 £40,000 14/15
(vi) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:
“What will be the total cost of the council of the Lendal Bridge trial, including a breakdown of estimated officer time, once all fines have been refunded?”
I’d be more than happy to supply this figure once, as your question says, all fines have been refunded and we know the final figure.
(vii) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:
“How much higher is the cost of the Lendal Bridge trial to the council due to the decision to initially only pay back people appealing?”
It is not currently possible to answer this question until Members agree the process for how future refunds will be actioned.
viii) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Barton:
“In view of the news that York City Knights are no longer to be involved in the Community Stadium does the Cabinet Member not think that she, personally, should have issued a full and detailed explanation to her fellow Councillors about what is happening here rather than abdicate the responsibility to Officers resulting in a less than totally explanatory email being circulated?”
Considering that there are live legal proceedings underway between the York City Knights and the Council, it is not appropriate to comment on any aspect of this as it could prejudice the council's legal position.
The council's legal officer gave a very clear steer in this respect and although Cllr Barton may feel he could do otherwise, I am not in the habit of ignoring the legal officer when he has issued clear advice to Members on legal issues.
(ix) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr D’Agorne:
What is the estimated total cost to York council tax payers for the proposed one day Tour de Yorkshire event in May 2015 and where will this money be found from?
The estimated cost of the Tour de Yorkshire is £250k of which it is proposed that £100k is funded from the Council’s iTravel budget and the balance £150k from the Economic Infrastructure Fund. A report detailing the event is on the Agenda for Cabinet on 16th December 2014.
(x) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Barton:
“Following York City Knights withdrawal from the Community Stadium venture, has the Risk Assessment Document been rewritten and any elements previously shown as “medium” upgraded to “high”?”
The officer responsible for the project manages a full risk and issue register. This is reported to the Project Board on a monthly basis. This risk log is commercially sensitive, particularly relating to this matter. All risks are being effectively managed and appropriate risk weightings allocated.
Where the Project Board believes the risk profile of the project has changed significantly, exception reports would be made to Cabinet or other appropriate decision making body.
(xi) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Barton:
“What is the estimated cost to the Council of the legal proceedings referred to in the recent Community Stadium project warning issued by Officers to Members?”
Again, considering that there are live legal proceedings underway between the York City Knights and the Council, it is not appropriate to comment on any aspect of these proceedings, particularly cost estimates. Any such comments in the public may prejudice the council’s legal and financial position.
(xii) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Cuthbertson:
“Listing each pool separately, for each month for the last 2 years what were the attendances at York swimming pools?”
(xiii) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Cuthbertson:
“How many people attended this years Illuminating York events, how does this compare to 2013 and 2012, and what was the cost to the council of this event in each of the last three years?”
In 2014 an estimated 58,000 people attended Illuminating York overall. We do not have sophisticated enough technology to give exact numbers but this figure is based on a daily estimated headcount at each venue.
In 2013 the estimated figure was 50,000.
In 2012 the figure was only calculated for the main ticketed event (as we didn’t’t run supporting pieces that year), which was 18,606 (although many others would have visited supporting venues such as the NRM and the National Trust etc).
The cost to the council was £26k in 2012 / £33k in 2013 and £33k in 2014.
(xiv)To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement from Cllr Barton:
“Bearing in mind that less than 1% of the population attended the series of Community Engagement Meetings does not the Cabinet Member think it time to reinstate the previously higher levels of Ward Committee funding to give residents a real opportunity to actively “engage” in their Ward’s activities?”
The series of “Community Conversations” events represents just one of the many engagement activities that the Council has undertaken over the past 12 months, engaging with many thousands of residents on a wide range of issues in a variety of ways. There are a number of ways for residents to engage with the Council and help to design and to shape the services we deliver. I want to create more opportunities for residents to have a real say over where, when and how council services are delivered – rather than simply access to small amounts of additional grant funding.
(xv) To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement from Cllr Doughty:
“Conservative calling-in members welcome that the Labour Cabinet have been encouraged to reconsider their decision to close the youth and young adult service at Castlegate. Given the Health and Wellbeing Board strategy was previously ignored by Cabinet, can the Cabinet Member please explain how the HWBB exerts its influence and impacts on the decision making of the Council and its partners?”
The purpose of a Health and Wellbeing Board (HWBB) is to set the overall strategic vision for the health and wellbeing of a place. York’s HWBB has set a clear vision for the city “to be a community where all residents enjoy long, healthy and independent lives.” In order to deliver this vision, the Board has set a number of priorities and actions which can be found in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy.
The Board is made up of key leaders and decision-makers across the health and care system (and beyond) and it is the responsibility of board members collectively to deliver on the strategy. Most of this work takes place through the main sub-boards or is delegated to individual organisations to complete. Progress is reported back to and monitored by the Board.
The HWBB deals with complex, city-wide issues which often require all organisations to mobilise resources in order to deliver the necessary changes.
(xvi)To theCabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement from Cllr Ayre:
“As it is now nearly 18 months since the Council started to seek partners to provide and run the Low fields Care Village, when was the “competitive dialogue” phase concluded, why did it take so long, and when does the Cabinet Member now expect work on site to start and the first homes to be occupied?”
This is an extremely complex and ambitious project and the competitive dialogue phase has not yet concluded. As it is still ongoing it is not possible to answer the other questions raised.
(xvii) To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement from Cllr Waller:
“As the Cabinet Member has previously said that she is involved in each stage of the hand over of community centres, could she explain how they are being equipped to respond to the challenges of having no grant nor caretaker provision, and does she not think it would be fairer for community centres to have a similar level of support to the 'hubs' developed by the council including Space 217 in Lindsey Avenue?”
Officers have worked proactively and openly with community centre management committees over the last 18 months to support them in developing robust business plans that ensure they can flourish without Council funding from April 2015 onwards. Significant time and resources have gone into this process with many early successes. There is a great deal of skill and energy in those communities and they are focussed on developing their centres in a sustainable way, just as all many other community centres across our city already do.
A network group has been established to place a focus on the skills and knowledge required to enable the community groups to take full control of managing their community assets and to provide support in addressing any gaps.
Finance plans have also been worked up for each centre to enable the management committee to look forward and plan to address any financial pressures. I am pleased to say that some centres are already looking to take the next step and planning for a formal asset transfer.
The Council no longer has the luxury of continuing to fund everything we have done until now, which is why this work has been so important in helping communities to take on more and become less reliant on Council services. This is the only way we will succeed given the scale of the financial challenge now and into the future.
(xviii) To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Doughty:
“Residents have recently reported that pre-sorted recycling has been cumulatively thrown into refuse vehicles for landfill rather than recycling on a number of occasions. Given this disheartening sight where citizen efforts are literally 'wasted', can the Cabinet Member please advise how many collection shifts have been lost this municipal year due to recycling vehicles being out of use and replaced with a standard refuse cart?”
There have been a number of issues with the recycling vehicles that undertake the collections in the city’s terraced areas. From April 2014, there have been 41 days when these vehicles have been unavailable for use and a conventional refuse vehicle has had to be used instead. However, it is important to note that the recyclates are not then land-filled. The Council’s disposal contractor is able to treat and sort this small amount of co-mingled recyclate at no extra cost to us, meaning that the material is properly recycled and none of it ends up wasted.
The lease on the current vehicles expires in March 2015 and the service is currently assessing a number of different vehicle options so they can identify suitable replacements.
(xix)To theCabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Waller:
“How many reports has the council received during the current year about trees and hedges overgrowing and impeding public roads and footpaths, what action does the council take to require owners to cut back these obstruction, what is the average time taken by owners to undertake this task, and what is the current longest outstanding complaint of this sort?”
Council officers don’t currently keep records of the numbers of vegetation complaints and how they are progressing.
The estimated numbers are in the region of 500 to 600 per year mainly concentrated during the summer months.
When a complaint is made, if the address is given a letter is sent out asking the owner to rectify the situation. If the address is vague a site visit will normally be made next time someone is in the area and then a letter sent. If the complaint is very vague (e.g. there’s an overgrown hedge in Askham Lane) no action will be taken until more information is provided.
If no further complaints are made it is assumed that the problem has been put right. If a further complaint is made then a second letter is sent with a more formal instruction to put the situation right otherwise we (CYC) may carry out the works and recharge the costs to the owner. If there is no improvement then an instruction to cut the vegetation is issued and the cost recharged. However please see below for caveats.
The time taken can vary quite considerably. If the address is given there are times when the work has already been done before our letter reaches the person because they already had the matter in hand. Other times someone is away on holiday or unwell and it can take a few weeks. In other cases the process can be protracted due to disputes over whose responsibility it is and if we don’t have the name and address we can’t recharge the cost of the works - we have no budget to carry out works and not make a recharge.
We will also try to be as lenient as possible when there are difficulties due to age or infirmity for example as to do otherwise tends to cause some upset and poor image problems for the authority.
In addition there are times when a well maintained hedge may have been overgrowing for years without it being raised as a problem, then suddenly it becomes an issue for someone but to insist on a savage cut back to the highway boundary causes the hedge to become an unsightly mess and threatens it’s survival (we had this a year or so back on Clifton Green). In this sort of case we might resort to asking the owner to make several cuts over the coming years so the hedge isn’t killed off.
(xx) To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Reid:
“Could the Cabinet Member confirm how many residents have paid for a second green bin collection and how this compares to budget assumptions?”
1,512 households have paid for an additional garden waste collection compared to a budgeted estimate of 3,500.
(xxi)To theCabinet Member for Transport from Cllr D’Agorne:
“What is the timescale now for establishing the Congestion Commission?”
At the July Full Council, the Greens requested that this was brought to a meeting of Audit & Governance and this was subsequently agreed. As such, 3 options are now available, and I am happy to proceed however the Opposition would like in this regard:
1. A report could go to the scheduled meeting of Audit & Governance in February, followed by Cabinet in March. What work could be done between then and purdah would likely be limited.
2. A special meeting of Audit & Governance could be convened. This would require the assent of the Chair.
3. The report could go directly to Cabinet in February, given the amount of discussion that has taken place with Opposition Leaders.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Cllr D’Agorne for his constructive engagement on this issue – it is clear he wants to see this work progressed, as do I. I hope all Opposition Leaders can proceed on the same basis in order to tackle the longstanding traffic problems in this city.
(xxii) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“Of the Lendal Bridge refund requests processed to date how many (in total and as a percentage) have been for York postcodes, how many for the rest of the UK and how many for overseas addresses?”
Of the 5460 payments issued, 1927 (35%) have been to YO postcodes, 3531 (65%) have been to the rest of the UK, and 2 overseas (0.04%).
(xxiii) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Aspden:
“How many meetings were held and where with prospective tenderers for the East Coast Main Line franchise at which City of York Cabinet members and/or officials specifically made the case for retaining the franchise HQ in York and what was the reaction of each of the tenderers?”
Meetings were held in West Offices with all three short listed bidders for the Inter City East Coast passenger rail franchise. These meetings were hosted by Councillor James Alexander as Chair of the Consortium of East Coast Main Line Authorities. Discussion specifically included the issue of the retention of the franchise headquarters in York. The representatives of the bidders noted the matter, but were unable to provide an indication of their companies’ response due to the restrictions placed upon them by the Department for Transport’s procurement process. The Project Manager for the Consortium also raised the location of the headquarters with one of the Virgin bid team during a separate conversation with the same reply. Subsequent to the appointment of Inter City Railways as the franchisee, officers have written to the parent companies seeking meetings with both officers and members. The issue of the York headquarters was raised.
Virgin confirmed that they would reply in more detail after the standstill period for the franchise award which expired on Monday – since then it has been confirmed that the headquarters will remain in York, and that a rail academy would be established in the city.
I am sure all Councillors will want to join me in welcoming this news and congratulating Cllr Alexander for helping to secure this outcome.
(xxiv)To theCabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“How many faults have been reported on traffic signals in York so far this year, what is the total time that signals have been out of service, and how do these figures compare to the equivalent period last year?”
This year to date (1st Jan to 3rd Dec) there have been 696 total traffic signal faults reported to our maintenance contractors. This number was 678 for the same period last year.
We do not have a means of recording the total duration for which signals have been out of operation; however, for high priority faults in this period – which are recorded in their own indicator – 91% were resolved within 4 hours, compared to 82% for the same period last year.
(xxv) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“In view of the fact that successive Cabinet Members for Transport have told previous Council meetings that they were trying to get more information about bus service reliability in York, could the current Cabinet Member now say - for each of the last 6 months - what reliability was achieved on stage carriage services (quoting commercial and subsidised separately) operating in the City?”
For 2013/14, 84% of non-frequent buses (fewer than 6 per hour on a given route) ran on time (between 1 minute early and 5 minutes 59 seconds late).
The average excess wait time for frequent buses (6 or more buses per hour on a given route) was 0.6 minutes.
Both of these measures demonstrate an improvement in the performance of the bus network against the previous year, demonstrating the positive impact that the Better Bus Area and other interventions have had over this period.
A monthly breakdown is unavailable. A breakdown by operator is not currently possible under the current agreement with those operators; however, the Council does review real time data for services on which the relevant equipment is fitted on a regular basis, receives lost mileage submissions from the operators, and deploys monitoring staff to review punctuality/reliability and passenger origin/destination.
(xxvi) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Runciman:
“At the last meeting the Cabinet Member for Transport said that the number of vehicles using different car parks would be assessed to determine the success or otherwise of the free morning parking trial and given this, would he now publish comparisons between the numbers using the free parking option and the numbers recorded prior to the trial, together with a month by month comparison of total car park usage and income comparing this year with last year?”
I did not say “that the number of vehicles using different car parks would be assessed to determine the success or otherwise of the free morning parking trial”, I said that occupancy levels will be assessed using the car parking entry/exit counters.
This information is not yet available due to ongoing problems with the operation of the automatic traffic counters. Data is currently still being collated from the restricted number of available car park counters – along with income levels this will provide the main source of information for reviewing the trial once it has completed.
(xxvii) To theCabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“Would the Cabinet Member provide up to date information comparing the revenue derived from the Marygate Car Park, since it has had barriers introduced, with the equivalent period during the previous year?”
Income from Marygate Car from the start of July to the end of October totalled £231k in 2014/15. The equivalent figure for 2013/14 was £246k.
There are a variety of initiatives we have undertaken, in order to balance the Council’s budget in the face of massive cuts from the Conservative Lib-Dem Government while also trying to support the economy of the city centre that will have had an impact on parking income in any particular car park. These include new Park & Ride sites at Askham Bar and Poppleton Bar, the free morning parking trial, closure of Haymarket car park, the use of part of Marygate car park for Network Rail’s refurbishment of Scarborough Bridge and the new Minster Card parking permit.
It is worth pointing out that the reduction in car parking income in Marygate July-October is proportionately less than the reduction in car parking income overall, and also proportionately less than the reduction in car parking income in the same car park April-June, ie. the period before the introduction of Pay on Exit.
Thus it would appear that the introduction of Pay on Exit at Marygate may in fact have helped the income levels at this location; however, an interim report on the first 6 months of the trial is currently being prepared that will provide operational data for the first six months of the trial, lessons learned and actions going forward.
(xxviii) To theCabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“I understand that the Marygate barrier was not working on the 8th November. In total, how many faults on the barrier and payment mechanisms at the car park have been reported since the trial commenced and what has been the total loss in income?”
Faults have been identified across a total of 17 days.
The interim report mentioned in my answer to question xxxvii will address the issue of faults; however, most of the issues with the barrier operation have now been resolved and it is anticipated that the number of faults will reduce significantly.
It is not possible to calculate a resultant loss of income with any accuracy; however; officers have predicted that once this has happened Pay on Exit receipts will outperform Pay and Display receipts.
(xxix)To theCabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Hyman:
“Could the Cabinet Member publish the monthly number of park and ride journeys made from each site – including the newly commissioned ones – comparing 2014 with 2013?”
|
2013 |
2014 |
|
|
Rawcliffe |
||
|
Jan |
65888 |
70933 |
|
Feb |
78187 |
75535 |
|
Mar |
80023 |
82615 |
|
Apr |
90396 |
89086 |
|
May |
89065 |
86777 |
|
Jun |
78246 |
70455 |
|
Jul |
|
|
|
Aug |
|
|
|
Sept |
84895 |
71486 |
|
Oct |
95960 |
81357 |
|
Nov |
93270 |
80603 |
|
Askham Bar |
||
|
Jan |
68288 |
73770 |
|
Feb |
69093 |
69363 |
|
Mar |
74273 |
80437 |
|
Apr |
74072 |
72162 |
|
May |
77121 |
73606 |
|
Jun |
67639 |
61813 |
|
Jul |
|
|
|
Aug |
|
|
|
Sept |
77807 |
74276 |
|
Oct |
84943 |
83242 |
|
Nov |
84203 |
85703 |
|
Designer Outlet |
||
|
Jan |
62046 |
69734 |
|
Feb |
68721 |
70590 |
|
Mar |
69559 |
76944 |
|
Apr |
75100 |
79386 |
|
May |
77360 |
77660 |
|
Jun |
72840 |
70666 |
|
Jul |
|
|
|
Aug |
|
|
|
Sept |
77297 |
76182 |
|
Oct |
84119 |
84744 |
|
Nov |
87046 |
89196 |
|
Grimston Bar |
||
|
Jan |
43715 |
49447 |
|
Feb |
50527 |
50951 |
|
Mar |
53367 |
55720 |
|
Apr |
58481 |
57628 |
|
May |
60532 |
55834 |
|
Jun |
52908 |
47679 |
|
Jul |
|
|
|
Aug |
|
|
|
Sept |
55379 |
53502 |
|
Oct |
60897 |
59302 |
|
Nov |
64286 |
61140 |
|
Monks Cross |
||
|
Jan |
56202 |
56558 |
|
Feb |
57645 |
55439 |
|
Mar |
59207 |
60792 |
|
Apr |
64155 |
75821 |
|
May |
62468 |
75747 |
|
Jun |
57703 |
68563 |
|
Jul |
|
|
|
Aug |
|
|
|
Sept |
59897 |
69370 |
|
Oct |
69168 |
74736 |
|
Nov |
65334 |
70773 |
|
Poppleton |
|
|
|
Jun |
|
8482 |
|
Jul |
|
|
|
Aug |
|
|
|
Sept |
|
20722 |
|
Oct |
|
25391 |
|
Nov |
|
23274 |
As a result of First York replacing their on-bus ticket machines (and the interface with various back office systems) in July, accurate figures for July and August are unavailable.
(xxx) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Waller:
“In light of planned cuts to the 2015/16 highways budget could the Cabinet Member outline any proposals to cut frontline staff and detail the consequential reduction in services in the ancient monument department, the blacksmiths department, the drainage department, the highways department or in yard foreman?”
Consultation has recently taken place with all highways staff and senior officers are still analysing the responses – it would not be right for me to pre-judge that outcome. The final structure of front line staff will be sufficient to deliver the known workload for 2015/16.
(xxxi) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Orrell:
“Will the Cabinet Member listen to local concerns and restore gritting routes in Huntington on Brockfield Park Drive/Road and North Lane?”
The criteria for treating carriageways were established through last year’s review following an extensive consultation with residents and interested groups, which put in place a clear, fair and transparent policy that puts residents’ safety at its core and that brought us in line with comparable authorities, while achieving the savings Government cuts have made necessary.
Cllr Williams has announced that, should he be elected Leader of the Council, additional resource will be directed to winter maintenance as a result of savings made by reducing the size of the Cabinet. Officers are exploring the most effective ways of deploying this resource.
(xxxii) To theCabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:
“Could the Cabinet Member confirm how much has been spent so far on the roll-out of 20mphs zones since 2011 and how much is planned to be spent in 2014/15?”
For the citywide residential 20mph programme, £268,200 was spent in total for the years 2011/12, 2012/13 & 2013/14. During this financial year 2014/15, there is an approved allocation of £235,000 within the Capital Programme. This work has been funded through a dedicated Government grant.
(xxxiii) To theCabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Waller:
“Will the Cabinet Member restore the gritting routes to Hob Moor School along ‘little’ Green Lane and along the bus route through Kingsway West, Windsor Garth, Ascot Way, Danesfort Avenue and St Stephen’s Road?”
The criteria for treating carriageways were established through last year’s review following an extensive consultation with residents and interested groups, which put in place a clear, fair and transparent policy that puts residents’ safety at its core and that brought us in line with comparable authorities, while achieving the savings Government cuts have made necessary.
Cllr Williams has announced that, should he be elected Leader of the Council, additional resource will be directed to winter maintenance as a result of savings made by reducing the size of the Cabinet. Officers are exploring the most effective ways of deploying this resource.
(xxxiv)To theCabinet Member for Transport from Cllr D’Agorne:
“When will the induction loops for Fulford Rd/Broadway junction be installed, now that the resurfacing and lining has been completed?”
The induction loops at Fulford Road will be installed early in the new year as part of a comprehensive programme of loop cutting.
(xxxv) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr D’Agorne:
“What impact has the free parking scheme in the city centre had on occupancy levels, total income and pollution levels?”
As I stated in my answer to a similar question at October Full Council, there will be a variety of factors that will have had an impact apart from the free parking trial. Particularly in terms of pollution levels, these factors include traffic volume, changes to vehicle fleet, weather, roadworks, and the several other parking and travel initiatives we have undertaken in order to support the economy of the city centre. As such it is not currently possible to disaggregate the specific impact of the free parking offer.
However, a review will be carried out once the trial has been completed. In terms of pollution levels these are recorded annually so won’t be available for 2014/15 until next spring.
(xxxvi) To theCabinet Member for Transport from Cllr D’Agorne:
“Following the charge for Minster badges how many residents’ tickets have been issued compared with a similar period last year?”
Minster Badge permits issued between 30/06/2014 - 05/12/2014 = 8325
Old Minster Badge permits issued between 30/06/2013 - 05/12/2013 = 1837
(xxxvi)To theCabinet Member for Education, Children and Young People from Cllr Brooks:
“What urgent action is the Cabinet Member taking in light of the very worrying findings of recently published research carried out in conjunction with Save the Children which put both York constituencies in the worst 25% of constituencies in the country for ability to 'read well' at age 11?”
[Research recently published by Read on.Get on - a coalition of charities, parents, teachers and businesses, puts two York constituencies in the worst 25% of constituencies in the country for the percentage of children who can 'read well' at the age of 11: 64% in York Central and only 61% in York Outer]
Reading is one of the most important skills a child acquires in the first years of their school life – and learning to “enjoy” reading is for me of equal importance. In fact the enjoyment of reading starts well before children begin their formal education, and a lot of work through children’s centres and Early Years settings focuses on introducing children to books and encouraging the habit of reading and being read to as part of daily life. FRED – an initiative aimed at Fathers reading to their children (Fathers Reading Every Day) is particularly aimed at getting young fathers into the habit of reading to their children.
But as well as these initiatives, and many more, for pre-school children we also have been putting on regular training opportunities for teachers to share some of the different techniques for teaching children to read: it is self evident that there is not one method that painlessly works for every child, and some of the skills teachers need is recognising that what works for some in a class may not necessarily work for everyone. Reading levels have been analysed at individual school level leading to the targeting of bespoke training and support to improve the teaching of reading in York Central and Outer York.
I am pleased to say that the most recent data for York shows that our Reading gap at Level 4 is now at -9 better than the national average at -10. There has also been a 10 percentage point improvement in the number of good and better primary schools in 2013-14 with 86% of primary schools being judged good or outstanding. Attainment and progress in reading is one of the criteria Ofsted focus on as part of their inspection framework. But we do recognise that this is an ongoing challenge – we want the best for all our children. With that in mind we have launched the initiative, York 300, where we have identified the children who qualify for the Pupil Premium with the aim of raising the achievement of this cohort across the city, whether they are in significant clusters within a particular school, or whether they are just one or two within a cohort.
This was launched in September 2014, and has just culminated in a challenging but stimulating conference led by Sir John Dunford – National Pupil Premium Champion – and attended by Heads, staff and governors from across the City. To monitor the effectiveness of this initiative Learning and Culture Scrutiny are making it a Scrutiny topic to report back next year; and I am asking the YorOK Board to also receive regular reports on progress.
(xxxviii) To the Cabinet Member for Education, Children and Young People from Cllr Waller:
“What work has been undertaken to assess the loss of services in the community as a consequence of the planned funding cuts to Children's Centres (especially the joint activity with local NHS staff) and does the Cabinet Member not feel that these cuts fly in the face of what the council has been claiming it is doing for vulnerable communities in the city?”
The work around Children’s Centres is currently following a two year programme. The savings proposed in the current budget are focused on management and staff efficiencies, no Children’s Centre is being proposed for closure and the core business is being continued. Work has taken place to map and audit current service provision in children’s centres across the city to establish the range of services, who they are run by – community groups or by businesses; in addition whether the services are aimed at universal, targeted or vulnerable families and crucially the level of attendance at these services. Through this mapping exercise work is now being undertaken to ensure that those drop in services/universal services are able to continue with community/partner/volunteer support. Some of these will take place not just in children’s centre buildings but in community centres as well.
The key statutory services provided by children’s Centres will continue. This is the Child’s Journey which gives intensive support for vulnerable families, and the Parenting Track which, working closely with Health workers offers a universal service to invite families and their babies/children for the regular check ups up to 2 years of age. This enables staff to identify possible vulnerable families who may have otherwise been missed. This is part of a valuable and ongoing partnership with Health colleagues, and a partnership which is constantly being reviewed to make sure it is working well and avoiding duplication. As the service review goes forward then we will continue to work intensively with partners and voluntary groups to make sure that Children’s Centres continue to play a significant part in young children’s lives and those of their families.
(xxxix) To the Cabinet Member forFinance and Performance from Cllr Doughty:
“It is noted that the new Labour group Leader has overturned the decision of his predecessor and Cabinet colleagues despite previously supporting their stance and will now ordinarily refund motorists fined under the disastrous Lendal Bridge fiasco. Can the Cabinet Member please confirm what the final total loss to the York council taxpayer will be including costs for administration of fines, refunds, signage and related operating costs?”
I’d be more than happy to supply this figure once, as your question says, all fines have been refunded and we know the final figure.
(xl) To the Cabinet Member for Finance & Performance from Cllr Ayre:
“What are the latest performance figures for Customer Services at West Offices listing each channel separately?”
Members can use the following link to keep a regular update on latest performance figures for the Customer Centre:
http://www.york.gov.uk/info/200167/customer_services/698/customer_service_standards/2
For the last month’s performance see attached – but the above link gives the main channels and more recent data.
(xli) To the Cabinet Member for Finance & Performance from Cllr Firth:
“What progress has been made with the sale of Oliver House and when can we expect it to be occupied by a new owner?”
The property has now been placed with a commercial agent, the closing date for bids is 30th January 2015. It is not possible to say at this stage exactly when a sale will be concluded but I can assure you that I’m keen the council makes progress on this building soon so that it is put to good use, one way or another.
(xlii) To the Cabinet Member for Finance & Performance from Cllr Waller:
“In those cases where residents report issues electronically why doesn’t the Council confirm - to the person raising the issue - when any requested action has been completed?”
Currently, when a resident reports an issue electronically they will receive a reference number associated with that request. If the resident has created an on-line account with us they can view the status of all requests they have submitted to us. This also includes occasions where the resident has reported the issue by telephone or by email. Our aim is that residents are sent status alerts to show the progress of their request including when their status has been completed. We are hoping to have this facility available through the new systems being implemented from April 2015.
(xliii)To theCabinet Member for Finance & Performance from Cllr Ayre:
“What progress has been made in upgrading reporting options available to residents using mobile devices so that they are at least on a par with commercial sites such as “My Council”?”
My ‘Council Services’ is a third party provider funded by advertising and sales of additional services which allows customers to make reports via an app. These are then forwarded as an e-mail to the Council. When these are received we currently manually enter them onto our Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. The Council also currently funds an app called Love Clean Streets which has less functionality but has far better integration to the CRM system thus reducing the level of handling time required. We are the only Council to have achieved this.
As part of developing the new website and replacing our current CRM system the Council is planning to ensure that the systems will be able to integrate with any “report it” style app which a customer chooses to use. This is planned to be in place by Spring next year and will give us a capability and a level of efficiency in handling this kind of contact which are far beyond most local authorities. As the market has developed, the need for the Council to fund a separate app will also be reviewed alongside this.
In making it easier for customers to raise issues with the Council our challenge, of course, is to respond to requests in a way that meets customers’ expectations.
(xliv) To the Cabinet Member for Finance & Performance from Cllr Waller:
“The 2014/15 Finance Monitor 1 report noted an overall forecast overspend for 2014/15 of £2.3 million and continued shortfall and overspends in areas such as parking income (£400k), Learning Services (£110k), the EPH Project (763k). Could the Cabinet Member update council on the overall budget position and these specific areas?”
All of this information is contained in the finance monitor report to Cabinet in December, in line with our agreed budget monitoring process. A further update will also come to the February Cabinet meeting. However, I hope councillors recognise that in-year budget pressures do happen, particularly as Government cuts hit so significantly, but that the important thing is that the overall budget balances at year end, which it has done for every year of this Labour administration.
(xlv) To the Cabinet Member for Housing & Community Safety from Cllr Orrell:
“Could the Cabinet Member update councillors on the future plans for implementing additional Cold Calling Zones?”
Due to continued cuts to funding from the Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition government the City of York Council is currently undertaking a review of all service provision within the Public Protection service and as part of this review we are looking at how we continue to support the existing 234 Cold Calling Controlled Zones in operation in the city and the circumstances of how we will introduce new Cold Calling Controlled Zones where there is the intelligence and capacity to do so.
A number of initiatives are being considered to see how additional capacity can be delivered, potentially through sponsorship schemes to increase capacity to support important work of this nature.