Issue - meetings

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Risks

1. Do nothing ie no co-funding arrangement, NWDA select local deliverer

Minimal City Council staff input required as no local project management implications

Extent of service limited by NWDA allocation of funding

Limited opportunity to target local priorities

2.  City Council provides co-funding and acts as Accountable Body for project based on District footprint

Co-funding would allow enhanced service which can be extended to include local priorities

City Council selects local deliverer

Co-funding would require an additional budget growth item for business counselling activity as there is no appropriate existing budget (nb this would be additional to the budget growth request already submitted for the Rent Grant Scheme)

Any associated external audit costs would need to be met in full by the City Council

Usual risks associated with Accountable Body status related to managing funding, achieving outputs

3.  Enter into an agreement with Lancashire County Council who will provide co-funding and act as Accountable Body for project based on District footprint

City Council does not need to act as Accountable Body

Co-funding allows enhanced service which can be extended to include local priorities

County/City Councils select local deliverer

Allows firm link to be made with LSP/LAA targets for business start up

Funding fully committed to service delivery within the District

Any associated external audit costs would be the County Council’s responsibility

County Council influences priorities and deliverer selection (mitigated by  agreement between the two authorities on the co-funding arrangements)

4.  Join Mid-Lancashire grouping, with lead local authority acting as Accountable Body

City Council does not need to act as Accountable Body.  Co-funding requirement possibly met by other authorities and/or Lancashire County Council

Possible re-allocation of resources within the grouping in response to high local level of demand

Options in selecting local deliverer(s) potentially more restricted

Opportunities to address local priorities potentially more limited

Possible re-allocation of resources within the grouping in response to low local level of demand

It is possible that the City Council would be required to agree a risk sharing arrangement with the lead authority for the group to mitigate their financial risks as Accountable Body (eg grant clawback and audit costs).