Agenda item

Lancaster Business Improvement District (BID) Renewal - Draft Proposal

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Hamilton-Cox)

 

Report of Director for Economic Growth & Regeneration

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Director for Economic Growth and Regeneration which provided context and information for the endorsement of proposals for a Lancaster Business Improvement District (BID) Renewal Ballot (closing on 11th February 2021) as required by statutory provisions. The report updated Members on the pre- and post- ballot issues and resource implications in relation to the city council’s role in the BID renewal process.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

 

Option 1: Do nothing (Put off decision until the production of Final Renewal Proposals)

 Advantages: No advantages.

Disadvantages: Creates uncertainty for Lancaster BID. Creates difficulties for Lancaster BID in developing its pre-ballot canvassing strategy and marketing/publishing activities around the BID Renewal Proposals.

Risks: Due to the impact of Covid-19 this is Cabinet is the last date proposals can formally be endorsed for February ballot to be comfortably enacted under statutory notifications. If there are issues with Renewal Proposal compliance at this stage a ballot could be delayed with knock on implications for Lancaster BID in terms of canvassing and for the council in terms of dealing with operational matters in the new year arising from a late ‘Yes’ ballot.

 

 Option 2: Endorse the draft BID Renewal Proposals with endorsement of final BID Renewal Proposals delegated to the Chief Executive.

Advantages: Timely notice that the proposals are technically sound and the final document is likely to be compatible with BID Regulations and council policy. Allows for minor and/or non-material technical amendments via officer scrutiny of final Renewal Proposals document. Allows Lancaster BID to continue to develop its pre-election canvassing strategy and marketing/publishing activities around the BID Renewal Proposals with confidence.

Disadvantages: No disadvantages identified.

Risks: No guarantee that BID Renewal Ballot will be successful.

 

Option 3: Request material amendments to the draft Renewal Proposal for consideration/ endorsement at a future Cabinet meeting.

Advantages: This would only be if it was considered (based on the draft), a Final Renewal Proposal would be vetoed because matters contained conflict with council policy and extensive material changes are required. Allows for revised proposals to come forward which are compatible with council policy and regulatory requirements.

 Disadvantages: Reputational implications for council if proposals are not endorsed without good reason. Potential delays Lancaster BID’s commitment to pre-ballot canvassing strategy and marketing/publishing activities around the BID Renewal Proposals.

Risks: If there are issues with compatibility with the council’s policy framework the onus would be on Lancaster BID to address any issues and prepare a technically/policy compatible Final Renewal Proposal. Risks are as Option 1 in that this Cabinet is, realistically, the last date proposals can formally be endorsed by Cabinet for a ballot to be enacted under the current statutory notification timetable.

 

On submission of a Final Renewal Proposal the local authority is obliged to endorse the BID proposal and approve it to go forward to a ballot if it meets the defined regulatory and policy tests. The draft proposals provide a good indication of whether it is likely the council needs to use its veto powers.

 

The draft proposals do not conflict with any published council polices and a successful BID will continue to actively support the council’s corporate objectives particularly in the areas of Economic Growth, Clean Green & Safe Places and Community Leadership. The work of Lancaster BID in canvassing opinion and consultation appear to show a good level of support for the way the BID proposals have been shaped.

 

The amount of prior discussion between the BID proposer and the local authority before submitting the BID draft proposals to the authority has been sufficient and it is expected consultation will continue up to the submission of final proposals. The costs incurred and due in developing BID proposals, canvassing and balloting have been allowed for within the BID’s current budget.

 

There are no advantages in holding over on endorsement pending Final Proposals (Option 1) and officers consider there are no material alterations required (Option 3). The preferred Option is therefore Option 2, to endorse the draft Renewal Proposals. It follows that an appropriate level of delegated authority is required to ensure the outstanding matters are addressed and so that final proposals can be approved to move forward to ballot. As these issues are mainly technical and operational it is recommended this be undertaken through delegated decision by the Chief Executive.

 

Members should note the city council will continue to be liable for the levy on rateable property it occupies/holds should a ballot be successful (refer to Financial Implications). As a potential levy payer the council is eligible to vote in a ballot. There are no statutory rules on how individual local authorities treat this. Cabinet has previously escalated the voting decision to Full Council (who have previously considered a report prior to the voting period), and officers have anticipated the continuation of this arrangement.

 

Councillor Hamilton-Cox proposed, seconded by Councillor Jackson:-

 

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved with a further recommendation assuming that the other recommendations were approved, that Cabinet asks full Council to determine which way the Council will vote in the forthcoming ballot in accordance with previous precedent.”

 

In response to the additional recommendation the Monitoring Officer suggested that further clarification was necessary, and the Chair suspended the meeting for 10 minutes to enable the Monitoring Officer to provide advice on this issue.  The meeting reconvened at 19.25 when the Monitoring Officer advised that there was no reason for the decision to be put to full Council as the decision was an Executive decision.

 

Following on from the Monitoring Officer’s advice Councillor Hamilton-Cox moved the recommendations as set out in the report, with a revised recommendation (4): “that Cabinet supports a ‘yes’ vote in the forthcoming BID renewal ballot.”

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

 

 

 

(1)     The draft Renewal Proposals for Lancaster Business Improvement District (BID) Renewal Ballot are agreed as being in compliance with the statutory requirements and are not in conflict with the council’s corporate policy framework.

 

(2)   That approval of Lancaster BID final Renewal Proposals and the issue of an  instruction to proceed to ballot is delegated to the Chief Executive.

 

(3)    That the current Operating Agreement and Baseline Agreement are revised to reflect any changes/amendments required between the parties and current council service provision respectively, with approval and post-ballot sign-off of the final documents delegated to the Chief Executive.

 

(4)     That Cabinet supports a ‘yes’ vote in the forthcoming BID renewal ballot.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Executive

Director for Economic Growth and Regeneration

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

In working towards implementation of Business Improvement Districts the council will be achieving and/or reviewing and improving upon a number of its corporate objectives/outcomes as defined in the Council Plan. The draft BID Renewal Proposals will actively support Sustainable Economic Growth, Clean Green & Safe Places and Community Leadership outcomes, success, measures and actions.

 

Supporting documents: