(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Gilbert)
The Corporate Director (Community Services) submitted a report informing members of the developments planned by YMCA Lancaster and seeking approval for the City Council to become the accountable body for the funding of £1.5 million from Communities and Local Government for this project.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:
Option 1: Agree to the City Council becoming the accountable body for the public money being made available from CLG to the Doorstep Supported Accommodation Scheme, subject to the asset management working group being satisfied that any risks and liability for over spends are on the part of Adactus/YMCA and not the City Council. The development agreement drawn up with Adactus/YMCA would also make it clear that the City Council do not expect to provide any revenue funding for the scheme.
This would enable the rest of the YMCA building to be developed, subject to the drawing up of a formal development agreement which satisfies the Council’s financial and legal officers that risks are not being borne by the City Council.
This option would enable a project to go ahead, at no financial cost to the City Council, drawing in substantial funding from other sources, and meeting needs which the City Council itself has identified.
The Adactus scheme at the YMCA premises would still go ahead having secured funding from the Housing Corporation.
|
Risk |
Likelihood |
Impact |
Mitigation |
|
That outcomes set by CLG as conditions of funding are not met – conditions are 1) to increase the number of clients positively moving on to independent or more appropriate accommodation; and 2) increase the number of clients moving into education and employment
|
Medium – the additional accommodation linked to the project has secured funding from the Housing Corporation . It is difficult to predict employment outcomes some years hence as these will partly be influenced by the wider economic environment. |
Low – outcomes are not related to the completion of the building but to achievements which can only be measured after building has been in use for a period of time. They do not therefore put the Council at any financial risk. |
On completion of the capital project, a new project management group needs to be set up to ensure these outcomes are met. This will include YMCA, the City Council and other statutory bodies. |
|
The building is not completed to budget. The risks are · A risk of overspend · A risk of major works not being done · A lowering of the quality of finishes to an unacceptable level |
Low – The development agreement route proposed with Adactus RSL should ensure that LCC are not liable for any cost overruns.
Should unforeseen costs arise, they will be paid for by a corresponding reduction of costs from another budget line. |
High – There is a fixed budget and no further monies will be available from CLG.
|
Manage project capital phase to LAMP procedures and protocols. |
|
The building is not completed on time. |
Medium – Indication has been given to CLG of timescale over which development will take place. This has still to be confirmed if/when City Council agree to go ahead with the project. CLG require to know financial years during which grant will be drawn down.
Effective project management should allow for early signalling of any problems of overruns from one financial year to another. |
Low – other projects linked to this one (but for which the local authority is not the accountable body) cannot go ahead on time if this building project is delayed. Funding for other projects must be drawn down by July 2010. |
Adactus could look at contingency plans for providing temporary accommodation for YMCA activities in the event of a delay. |
|
The project fails to get planning permission/listed building consent and cannot go ahead |
Low – informal discussions between YMCA and Planning Services indicate that planning permission for refurbishing this building unlikely to be contentious.
|
Low – CLG confirm that they are prepared to meet reasonable costs incurred by the scheme up until a planning decision is made. |
Adactus will ensure that the planning application addresses any concerns/ issues raised by Planning Services. |
|
YMCA are unable to meet the revenue costs associated with the expanded provision when the building works are completed |
Medium - YMCA plan to fund some of the running of the building through successful social enterprise projects – the success cannot be guaranteed |
Low – the impact on the City Council would be low as it has no responsibility for running the building. The impact on YMCA would be medium, as they would have to limit the use of the building to those activities which already have revenue funding attached.. |
The City Council will make it explicit in the development agreement that it can make no additional grant to deal with running or support costs for the expanded building. YMCA can actively seek alternative sources of funding. |
5.2 Option 2: Do not agree to proceed with this project.
The finance made available from CLG can not be made available in any other way. The allocation of finance to be spent in our District would therefore be withdrawn. This part of the YMCA project would not go ahead. The Adactus scheme at the YMCA premises that has secured Housing Corporation funding would still go ahead.
|
Risk |
Likelihood |
Impact |
Mitigation |
|
The project will not go ahead.
|
High – the finance is only available from CLG if the local authority agree to be the accountable body. . |
High – there are unlikely to be other substantial sources of finance becoming available that would allow these needs identified in the Homelessness Strategy to be met. |
YMCA could be requested to investigate other sources of finance that do not involve accountability from the City Council. |
The Officer preferred option was Option 1 because the scheme would provide excellent facilities for single homeless people, addressing more than simply their accommodation needs, and ensuring that these are linked to the worklessness agenda, with the facilities being funded by CLG helping people into employment, education and training.
It was moved by Councillor Gilbert and seconded by Councillor Kerr:-
“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”
Members then voted as follows:-
Resolved unanimously:
(1) That Cabinet agrees to the City Council becoming the accountable body for the £1.5M funding being made available from CLG to the Doorstep Supported Accommodation Scheme.
(2) That delegated responsibility is given to the Corporate Director (Community Services) to enter into an agreement with Adactus/YMCA for the delivery of the completed building works, which limits the City Council’s total financial liability to the £1.5M, with the City Council deducting its project management costs from the overall allocation of £1.5M if feasible.
(3) That the Head of Financial Services updates the Capital Programme accordingly.
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Corporate Director (Community Services)
Head of Financial Services
Head of Health and Strategic Housing
Reasons for making the decision:
The scheme will provide excellent facilities for single homeless people, addressing more than simply their accommodation needs, and ensuring that these are linked to the worklessness agenda, with the facilities being funded by CLG helping people into employment, education and training.