40 Lancaster Business Improvement District (BID) Draft Proposal PDF 116 KB
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)
Report of Head of Regeneration & Planning Service
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)
Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration & Planning to provide information to enable a decision on endorsing the draft proposals for the Lancaster Business Improvement District, to enable progression to a ballot with the aim of formally establishing the BID. The report updated Members on potential pre- and post- ballot issues and resource implications in relation to the role of the City Council in the BID development/implementation.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
|
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Risks |
Option 1: Do nothing |
No advantages.
|
Loss of credibility with business community. No contribution to council’s Corporate objectives. |
Council may be in breach of statutory duties to support BID proposer as defined in BID legislation. |
Option 2: Endorse the draft BID proposals reserving formal approval decision on Final Proposals to an appropriate delegated authority. |
Gives early indication that the council believes the BID proposal will benefit the business community. Clear message to the business community that the direction of proposals to date is sound and final document is likely to be compatible with BID regulations and council policy. Allows for scrutiny of final proposals to ensure clarifications and changes are compatible with BID Regulations and policy framework. Allows the Steering Group to develop its pre-election canvassing strategy and marketing/publishing activities around the BID proposals with confidence. |
Reputational implications for council and other statutory services of “committing” to a baseline service provision over BID lifetime, even though this is not a legal commitment. Allocated resource for BID proposer/partnership to move to ‘BID readiness’ will need to be supplemented by council officer resources. Relatively long lead in period to ballot to ensure best possible chance of success. |
Council officer resources required pre and post ballot. No guarantee that BID ballot will ultimately be successful.
|
Option 3: Reject the draft proposals |
Avoids wasted effort and expense for the Steering Group if Members are of a mind that based on the content of the draft, a final proposal would be vetoed. Allows for revised proposals to come forward more compatible with council policy and regulatory requirements
|
Reputational implications for council if proposals are not endorsed without good reason. Ballot date will probably be put back. Assuming an approval is secured at some stage, it may cause the council operational difficulties in trying to develop its systems in time for 2013/14 billing year assuming a vote in favour. |
Risks for the council will mainly be around timing of the ballot and the ability to implement systems the later in the year a ballot takes place. The onus would be on the Steering Group to ‘turn around’ any issues in preparing a revised proposal. |
On submission of a final proposal unless it failed the regulatory and policy tests outlined in paragraph 2.2 of the report the local authority was effectively obliged to endorse the BID proposal and approve it to go forward to ... view the full minutes text for item 40