Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision: To consider the CBBid, Business Improvement District Project (BID).

 Decision of the Leader:

 The Leader resolved to

i.  Confirm that the BID proposal is compliant with the BID regulations

ii.  Vote “Yes” on behalf of the Council in the BID ballot.

iii.  Confirm that there is no material conflict or other grounds to veto the BID.

iv.  Note That the Council’s Medium Term Strategy as reported to full Council on 25^th October is amended to reflect the financial implications as set out in this report. 

Scrutiny Considerations

The committee received a report regarding the “CBbid, Business Improvement District Project” from the Director of Environment.

 The committee considered the report and members of the committee made the following comments.

1.  The proposal had a democratic deficit with limited member involvement in the development of the proposals.

2.  Resident involvement had been minimal, and no record had been produced of the public meetings, to allow for a more balanced consideration of the issues.

3.  Resident involvement in the activities of the BID needed to be enhanced. Resident representation on the board was suggested.

4.  The City Council needed to take a clearer control of the issues affecting the City Centre, and ensure that all interested parties were engaged in that process in an open and transparent manner. The re-instatement of the City Centre Scrutiny Committee was also requested.

The Leader responded to the first four comments made by members of the committee.

·  In response to the concerns raised by lack of member involvement, it was explained that the concept of a BID had been included in the last two Customer Services and Resources portfolio plans. It was also noted that a public question had also been raised at Full Council on the subject.

·  Regarding resident involvement, the Leader indicated that the inclusion of a resident representative on the board would be inconsistent with the aim of proposal.

·  In response to comments regarding the representation of the City Council, the meeting was reminded that the representation of the City Council was based on the rateable value of its properties in the BID area.

·  Regarding the City Centre scrutiny committee proposals, the Leader stated that the issues regarding the Scrutiny Committee were totally separate from the issues under consideration.

Councillor Herbert proposed the following amendment and spoke in support of them.

i.	Recommendation 2.2	Amend after “That the Leader should” to read “That the Leader should abstain on behalf of the Council in the BID ballot”
ii.	Recommendation 2.4	Add the following wording after “Committee” in 4th line   “including if the overall turnout of business is under 40% and if a clear majority of smaller businesses have not voted, and including in the consultation other Committee Chairs and Spokes
iii.	Recommendation 2.6 (New)	That the Council re-establishes its City Centre Scrutiny Sub Committee to improve decisions and delivery on central Cambridge services and policy, and including representation from residents, businesses and the County Council, and that Terms of Reference be agreed by the Leader, Chair and Spokes ahead of the next Scrutiny meeting report.

 

The Leader sought clarification from the Head of Legal Services regarding the power of veto on the part of the City Council. The Head of Legal Services advised that the City Council could only veto in very narrow circumstances. The meeting was advised that the veto could only be exercised in the following circumstances;

i.  Conflict to a material extent with any policy formally adopted by and contained in a document published by the local authority; or

ii.  Places a significant disproportionate financial burden on any person or class of persons (as compared to the other non-domestic rate payers in the BID area) and;

·  That burden is caused by the manipulation of the BID area or by the structure of the BID levy; and that burden is inequitable.

5.  Clarification was given on the proposed amendment to 2.4 and the reasons for recommending it.

6.  Further information was requested on the mechanism in the event of a change to the BID remit

7.  Clarification was requested on whether one of the 13 city council votes related to the market, and whether traders had been consulted on how that votes would be exercised.

 The Head of Tourism and City Centre Management confirmed that one City Council vote did relate to the market.

 In response to further questions regarding the potential use of the veto provision, the Head of Legal Services emphasised that the City Council only had a power of veto in very specific circumstance and did not have a general power of veto. In response it was argued that the additional financial burden would disproportionately affect smaller and independent businesses.

8.  The circumstances in which the previous City Centre scrutiny arrangements were set up were clarified, and it was argued that their purpose was unrelated to the business under consideration. It was also noted that at least one of the businesses that had spoken, had indicated that the additional financial charges would be less they currently pay for certain services so therefore would be a saving to them.

9.  Concern was raised by the baseline provided on a range of services, and a lack of clarity on the service provided at present.

10.  Clarification was requested on why public realm space had been included within the BID boundary on the plan, and noted that it had been confusing for members of the public.

11.  Clarification was also requested on the equalities implications of the proposals.

The Director of Environment noted the concerns raised regarding the baseline information provided, but assured the committee that information had been prepared in detail. The committee were also assured that responsibility for public realm space would not transfer to the new organisation.

The Head of Tourism and City Centre Management confirmed that an equalities impact assessment (EQIA), had been prepared by the Strategy and Partnership Manager. The letter received from the BID taskforce was highlighted, which included a strong commitment to the promotion of equalities issues.

The Leader explained why the mapping had been produced in the style that it had been, and assured the meeting that it did not affect the status of the public realm.

12.  The explanation regarding the reasons for the mapping being produced in a particular style was challenged.

13.  Members claimed there had been a lack of member involvement and awareness of the process. Clarification was requested on why the City Council was intending to provide its contribution of £42,000 two months before it would become due and whether any other businesses or organisations would make a similar early contribution.

The Head of Tourism and City Centre Management confirmed that it was standard practice for the local authority to make its initial contribution early to cover the start up costs. It was also confirmed that no other businesses or organisations would be making an early contribution.

14.  Greater clarity on the terminology was requested, and it was suggested that the references to cleaning chewing gum were actually references to cleaning up vomit, and that the public may be more receptive to idea if accurate terminology was used.

15.  Clarification was requested why the Orchard Street area had not been included, and whether the baseline information included this area or not.

The BID Manager confirmed that the references to chewing gum cleaning did, in fact, relate to the removal of chewing gum. The meeting was advised that the Orchard Street area was not included because it had very few eligible businesses and over extending the area could potentially result in the unrealistic expectations in terms of additional services in specific locations.

16.  Further concerns were raised about the potential conflict between city council managed services and any services provided by the BID, particularly where different contractors were providing similar services.

 The comments were noted, but officers assured the meeting that processes would be in place to prevent conflict of this nature.

17.  The Labour amendment was challenged, particularly the reference to a 40% threshold.

Councillor Rosenstiel moved a further amendment, and spoke against the Labour Group amendment.

i.	Recommendation 2.3	Amend to read “That the Leader confirms that there is no material or other grounds to veto the BID”
ii.	Recommendation 2.4	Delete recommendation

 

18.  Clarification was requested on whether the issue of the early payment had been raised at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 9^th July.

 

The Head of Tourism and City Centre Management confirmed that the issue had not been raised at that meeting because it had not been highlighted as an issue at this stage in the process

Following discussion regarding the legality of the proposed amendment to 2.4 moved by Councillor Herbert, the Labour Group agreed to withdraw the amendment. It was noted that the proposed amendment to 2.2 and the new 2.6 were unaffected by the withdrawal of the proposed amendment to 2.4.

19.  The representative of the Labour Group advised that they were not totally against the principle of the BID, however that the size of the proposed BID was a major concern. It was suggested that a number of smaller BIDs might be more acceptable.

Following discussion on the content of the proposed amendments, the amendments were put to the vote.

 Amendments proposed by Councillor Rosenstiel

i.	Recommendation 2.3	Amend to read “That the Leader confirms that there is no material conflict or other grounds to veto the BID”
ii.	Recommendation 2.4	Delete recommendation

 The Scrutiny Committee voted four in favour of the amendment and four against the proposed amendment. The amendment was carried on the Chairs casting vote.

 Amendments proposed by Councillor Herbert

i.	Recommendation 2.2	Amend after “That the Leader should” to read “That the Leader should abstain on behalf of the Council in the BID ballot”
iii.	Recommendation 2.6 (New)	That the Council re-establishes its City Centre Scrutiny Sub Committee to improve decisions and delivery on central Cambridge services and policy, and including representation from residents, businesses and the County Council, and that Terms of Reference be agreed by the Leader, Chair and Spokes ahead of the next Scrutiny meeting report.

 The Scrutiny Committee voted four in favour of the amendment and four against the proposed amendment. The amendment was defeated on the Chairs casting vote.

 The Leader concluded the debated and spoke in support of the proposals.

Substantive Motion

Recommendation 2.1	That the Leader confirms that the BID proposal is compliant with the BID regulations.
Recommendation 2.2	That the Leader should vote “Yes” on behalf of the Council in the BID ballot.
Recommendation 2.3	That the Leader confirms that there is no material or other grounds to veto the BID”
Recommendation 2.4	That the Council’s Medium Term Strategy as reported to full Council on 25th October is amended to reflect the financial implications as set out in this report.

The Scrutiny Committee voted on each recommendation separately.

 2.1  The Scrutiny Committee endorsed the recommendation unanimously.

2.2  The Scrutiny Committee voted four in favour of the recommendation and four against the recommendation. The recommendation was endorsed on the casting vote of the Chair.

2.3  The Scrutiny Committee endorsed the recommendation by four votes to zero.

2.4  The Scrutiny Committee endorsed the recommendation by four votes to zero.

The Leader accepted the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee subject to the BID Task Force confirming in writing that the issues, which were raised regarding community safety and process for adopting any initiatives in the future, had been incorporate into the foundation document for the BID.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Leader (and any dispensations granted)

N/A