THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 12 ON THE AGENDA
FINANCE & ECONOMY COMMITTEE CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE
21 JUNE 2016 NOT EXEMPT
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT – STIRLING CITY CENTRE
1 SUMMARY
1.1 On 6 March 2015 the result of the Stirling Business Improvement Bid (BID) ballot was announced. Traders had voted no to the development of a BID in the Stirling City Centre area.
1.2 On 12 November 2015 the Committee agreed to support another ballot in 2016 and approved financial support of £20k to progress the range of actions required to enable the development of a BID for Stirling City Centre.
1.3 This report outlines the resource implications and actions required by the Council, in its role as postal ballot administrator and collector of the BID levies for the Stirling City Centre BID.
1.4 The report highlights the potential financial implications of a successful BID ballot for the Council as a non-domestic rates payer within the BID area.
1.5 This report also sets out changes to the approach from the 2015 BID.
2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)
The Finance & Economy Committee agrees:-
2.1 to note the progress of the development of the Stirling City Centre BID towards ballot in 2016;
2.2 to note the changes to the BID process in 2016 and the revised timetable from that proposed in the last committee paper on the BID in November 2015;
2.3 that the Council remains supportive of the BID model and does not exercise the power of Veto on the Stirling City Centre BID going to ballot, as the BID has satisfied the regulatory requirements (refer to para 3.9.3); and
2.4 to support the Stirling City Centre BID (assuming satisfaction with the final BID business plan), by remitting the Chief Executive on behalf of the Council (as BID levy payer) to vote in favour of the Stirling City Centre BID during the BID ballot period (refer to para 3.8).
3 CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 A Business Improvement District (BID) is a business-led initiative within a defined geographical area where businesses, after a ballot, work collectively to invest, using funds generated by a levy based on property rateable value and levered funding, in defined projects that have been identified by businesses to improve their operating environment. These projects must be in addition to services provided by the public sector.
3.2 Stirling Council, through the Finance & Economy Committee, have previously agreed to support the development of a Stirling City Centre BID, as well as a Dunblane BID. The Dunblane BID was approved by local traders; the Stirling City Centre BID was not. Following the no vote in Stirling, a Critical Review and Report on the Stirling BID (Appendix 4) was produced and the Stirling City Centre Steering Group reformed.
3.3 The legislation and regulations enabling the development of BIDs in Scotland are contained within Section 9 of The Planning Act (2006) and The Business Improvement Districts (Scotland) Regulations 2007.
3.4 The development of the Stirling City Centre BID has progressed significantly since the no vote. Further funding from Stirling Council of £20K, towards a fund manager post and admin support to further advance the BID, was approved by the Committee on 15 November 2015.
3.5 The catchment area for the BID has now been enlarged and is shown in Appendix 5. This will deliver an annual levy of £325k from the BID area, increased from the £275k projected from the previous catchment.
3.6 The enlarged catchment area will bring additional Stirling Council owned property into the BID area resulting in an anticipated annual levy cost to Council of £9,296.88, an increase from the £5,850 annual levy anticipated in the 2015 BID.
3.7 The rateable value threshold has been amended to support the smaller businesses in the BID area. Those with a rateable value of under £10k will be exempt from the bid levy but will still share the benefits of the BID. This will apply to 160 businesses in the catchment area.
3.8 Local authorities play an important role in the creation of BIDs. In particular, local authorities are charged with legal responsibilities through the regulations, including the provision of business occupiers, owners and ratings data, and the collection of the BID levy. Councils are also responsible for the organisation of the formal BID ballot, the establishment of a ring-fenced BID revenue account (which is then passed to the BID company in full), and the preparation of and commitment to delivering an agreed level of baseline services within the BID area. Local authorities also have the power of veto on BID proposals, based on specific criteria within the provisions of the Business Improvement District (Scotland) Regulations 2007.
3.9 The requirements on local authorities in support of BIDs is outlined as follows:
3.9.1 BID levy collection requires the application of levy charges and revenue collection from businesses within the BID areas. Due to the nature of BID levy collection this will be an additional burden on the Council.
3.9.2 The organisation of the BID ballots has been discussed with the Council’s Democratic Services, who can provide the resources required to undertake the postal ballot process and declaration of the result.
3.9.3 The power to veto the proposed BIDs, can be invoked on specified grounds only. These relate to; level of business support, conflicts with policy, imposing an unfair financial burden distribution on ratepayers inthe BID area, proposed geography of the BID area, lack of prior consultation and significance of BID proposals. As the Stirling City Centre BID’s action plan, fits well with the Council’s strategies and priorities, and has been developed with Council involvement, there seems no valid reason for the Council to veto the ballots.
3.10 As property owners and occupiers of non-domestic rates properties in Stirling City Centre, the Council will contribute to the BID levy income. A list of the affected properties is provided within Appendix 3. The anticipated annual levy cost to Council of the Stirling City Centre BID area is £9,296.88. Individual Council Services will be responsible for meeting the costs of the annual levy attached to the buildings within the BID areas for which they are responsible.
3.11 As an eligible voter, the Council will be a ballot participant and it is proposed that the Chief Executive is remitted to cast votes in respect of the BID ballot during the BID ballot period of 19 October–30 November 2016, following consultation with the Convenor and Vice-Convenor of the Finance & Economy Committee to confirm the decision to support or otherwise the Stirling City Centre business plans.
3.12 The tests that must be satisfied by the ballot for the BID proposal to be approved are:
3.12.1 The total number of votes cast in favour of the BID proposals must exceed the total number of votes against;
3.12.2 The aggregate rateable value of all relevant properties voting in favour of the BID proposals must exceed the aggregate rateable value of all relevant properties voting against;
3.12.3 At least 25% of those persons eligible to vote must have done so; and
3.12.4 At least 25% of the aggregate rateable values of relevant properties within the BID boundary and eligible to vote must have voted in the ballot.
3.13 A BID Operating Agreement will be established (assuming a successful ballot) between the Stirling City Centre BID company and Stirling Council. The Operating Agreement includes reference to BID and Council obligations, accounting procedures, confidentiality, etc., and utilises a standard format for BIDs in Scotland. The Operating Agreement is currently in draft form. It is suggested that the signing of the final operating agreement between the BID Company (assuming positive ballot outcome) and the Council is delegated to the Council’s Legal Services.
3.14 The revenue collected from the BID levy (assuming ballot success), provides a flexible funding mechanism to improve and manage the commercial area based on business priorities, in partnership with the Council and other stakeholders. The BID for Stirling City Centre is seeking a mandate for the maximum period of five years, which will then be the subject of another vote (re-ballot), assuming there is an appetite for renewal.
3.15 The income generated by the BID levy annually, is anticipated to be £325k in Stirling City Centre.
3.16 As a levy payer and key stakeholder, Stirling Council would also be eligible to be represented on the BID’s company boards, which will be put in place assuming BID ballot success.
4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS
Policy Implications
Equality Impact Assessment No Strategic Environmental Assessment No Serving Stirling Yes Single Outcome Agreement Yes Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) No Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) Yes Effect on Council’s green house gas emissions No Effect Strategic/Service Plan Yes Existing Policy or Strategy Yes Risk Yes Resource Implications Financial Yes People Yes Land and Property or IT Systems Yes Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes
Equality Impact Assessment
4.1 The contents of this report were assessed using the EqIA Relevance Assessment Form. It was determined that an Equality Impact Assessment was not required as there was no impact on protected characteristic groups.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
4.2 It was determined that a full Strategic Environmental Assessment was not required.
Serving Stirling
4.3 The proposals set out in this report are consistent with the following key priorities:-
Q - Pursue a diverse high wage economy that delivers local jobs for people across Stirling and a procurement policy that supports this
Single Outcome Agreement
4.4 The proposals set out in this report support the following outcomes in the Single Outcome Agreement:
A diverse economy that delivers good quality local jobs
Other Policy Implications
4.5 The establishment of a BID accords with the Council’s key priorities in terms of enhancing the local economy and supporting businesses, under the leadership of the business community
Resource Implications
4.6 Officer support and liaison with the BID companies will be required assuming successful ballots.
4.7 Levy collection will be an additional requirement of the Council assuming successful ballots.
4.8 Financial support by the Council of £20k was approved by Committee on 15 November 2015.
Consultations
4.9 Extensive involvement of businesses in shaping the BID proposal for Stirling City Centre continues to be undertaken by the BID steering group.
Tick ( ) to confirm and add relevant initials
The appropriate Convener(s), Vice Convener(s), Portfolio Holder and NB, JH Depute Portfolio Holder have been consulted on this report The Chief Executive or Director has been consulted on this report as CB appropriate
5 BACKGROUND PAPERS
5.1 Report to Finance & Economy Committee dated 15 November 2015: Business Improvement District – Stirling City Centre.
5.2 Decision of Stirling Council on 10 October 2013: Business Improvement District – Development in Stirling.
5.3 Report to Finance & Economy Committee dated 24 September 2013: Business Improvement District - Development in Stirling.
5.4 Report to Finance & Economy Committee dated 18 June 2013 – Stirling City Centre: A Strategy and Action Plan.
5.5 Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006, Part 9 `Business Improvement Districts`.
5.6 2007, No.202, Local Government, The Business Improvement Districts (Scotland), Regulations 2007.
6 APPENDICES
6.1 Appendix 1 – EqIA Relevance Assessment Form
6.2 Appendix 2 – Business Improvement District – Stirling City Centre – Ballot Timetable 2016.
6.3 Appendix 3 – Business Improvement District – Stirling City Centre – Stirling Council Properties Liable for Levy Payments.
6.4 Appendix 4 – Critical Review of Stirling Business Improvement District Project.
6.5 Appendix 5 – Business Improvement District – Stirling City Centre – Map of BID catchment area.
Author(s)
Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail
Stuart Oliver Economic Development 01786 233 158 Project Manager [email protected]
Approved by Name Designation Signature
Carol Beattie Senior Manager Economic Development
Date 27 May 2016 Service Reference
Appendix 1 Stirling Council: EqIA Relevance Check (June 2014)
Completing this form will help you determine whether or not an equality impact assessment is required and provide a record of your decision. This is a screening process to help you decide if the proposal under consideration requires an EqIA - it is not an EqIA and the impact of the proposal will be determined by the EqIA itself.
The Guidance: Equality Impact Assessment Toolkit June 2014 may help when completing this form this can be accessed via the following link - http://web.stirling.gov.uk/eqia_toolkit.doc
The term proposal used below is intended to include “policy, strategy, service, function, procedure or project.”
When is an EqIA required?
While each proposal must be considered individually, it is anticipated that an EqIA will always be required when: introducing a new policy/strategy/service/function reviewing a current policy/strategy/service/function reducing / discontinuing an existing service considering budget proposals resulting in any of the above Reports on technical or procedural matters or which confirm progress on previously considered proposals, may be less likely to require an EqIA but this can only be determined by using this form.
SUMMARY DETAILS
1. Title of Proposal: Service PBB Ref (if applicable)
Stirling Business Chief Executives Office Improvement District (BID)
2. Service, and Lead Officer (Head of Service/ Service Manager) undertaking assessment
Service Lead Officer Chief Executives Office Stuart Oliver
3. What is the nature of the proposal? (Tick/complete all that apply)
Review of an existing policy/strategy Review of an existing service/function Reduction in an existing service / function Removal of an existing service Introduction of a new policy/ strategy Introduction of new service/function Other e.g. technical, progress, procedural X report PBB category e.g. transformational change
4. For proposals with implications for budgets complete the following:
(£ 000s)
Current expenditure on activity In Council area as a whole £0 In/for specific community/ies
Total anticipated savings or In/for Council area as a whole proposed increased spend In/ for specific community/ies
Start date for savings/increased spend End Date for savings/increased spend
Savings/increased spend Year 1
Delivery Timescale and Phasing Savings/increased spend Year 2 Savings/increased spend Year 3 Savings/increased spend Year 4 Savings/increased spend Year 5
AIMS & OBJECTIVES
Answering questions 5 - 7 will help you decide whether or not your proposal needs to be accompanied by an EqIA.
5. What longer term outcomes is the proposal expected to achieve?
Stirling City Centre businesses working collectively to invest in projects to improve their operating environment.
6. What are the main aims of this proposal? If this proposal revises an existing policy have its aims changed?
The establishment of a BID accords with the Council’s key priorities in terms of enhancing the local economy and supporting businesses, under the leadership of the business community, by enabling the businesses to work collectively to invest funds generated by a levy in defined projects that have been identified by businesses to improve their operating environment.
7. Who is most likely to be affected by this proposal? Consider current and potential future service users including people with particular needs, specific geographical communities and current and prospective employees.
Local businesses
POTENTIAL IMPACT
Answering Questions 8 -12 will help you consider the potential impact of the proposal.
8. What potential impact will this proposal have on people in terms of the needs of the public sector equality duty and the Council’s responsibilities to:-
eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation advance equality of opportunity foster good relations - including the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding See guidance for additional information.
None
9. Will this proposal have a potential impact on people with “protected characteristics”*? Please consider all protected groups listed below. A detailed explanation of these is provided in the guidance.
Group Impact Group Impact Group Impact Yes/No/Unclear Yes/No/Unclear Yes/No/Unclear Age No Disability No Gender No Reassignment Marriage No Pregnancy No Race No and Civil and Maternity Partnership Religion No Sex No Sexual No and Belief Orientation
10. Will this proposal have an impact on communities, household groups or individuals with a higher risk of experiencing poverty? Please answer Yes/No/Unclear. Information on communities, households and individuals with a higher risk of experiencing poverty is provided in the guidance.
No
11. Do you already have any evidence that has influenced or shaped this proposal in relation to people in protected characteristic groups or communities, groups or individuals vulnerable to poverty? If so please summarise what this evidence includes.
No.
DECISION
12. Based on your responses and any evidence you already have, is an EqIA required for this proposal? In making your decision please note:
if answering Yes to any part of either questions 9 or 10 an EqIA is required
if answering Unclear to any part of questions 9 or 10 you are strongly advised to do an EqIA to allow you to comprehensively assess the impact of the proposal
if answering No to any part of questions 9 or 10 please justify your response and why you consider an EqIA is not required for this proposal in the box below
No
13. Who was involved in making this decision?
Economic Development Team
Authorisation by Lead Officer (Head of Service / Service Manager) This decision has been approved Name Carol Beattie by (Director/Head of Service/ Senior Manager – delete as Title Senior Manager Economic Development appropriate) Date 27 May 2016
Appendix 2: Business Improvement District: Stirling City Centre ‐ Ballot Timetable – 2016
Regulation Time Scale Date Action
Notification to be sent in Business Improvement At least 154 days from Wednesday, writing to Stirling Council and (Scotland) Regulations ballot date 29 June 2016 Scottish Ministers of intention 2007 Regulation 4 to put BID Proposal to ballot within one year
Request to hold ballot –sent Regulation 5 (2) (a) (i) 98 days before ballot Wednesday, in writing to Stirling Council date 24 August 2016 with the BID Proposal and BID Business Plan. Also a copy to Scottish Ministers.
Stirling Council must decide Regulation 14 70 days before the ballot Wednesday, whether or not to veto the date 21 September 2016 BID Proposal
Stirling Council instructs Regulation 6, 56‐42 days before ballot Wed 5 October ‐ ballot holder to hold ballot. Regulation 8 and date Wed 19 October Ballot holder to publish ballot schedule 2, 2016 notice including copy to paragraph 3 Scottish Ministers. Prepare a list of persons entitled to vote.
Ballot holder to issue ballot Schedule 2, 42 days before final Wednesday, papers paragraph 3 ballot date 19 October 2016
Replacing spoilt ballot papers Schedule 2, Anytime in the 42 day Wednesday, paragraph 11 period 19 October ‐ Wed, 30 November 2016
Deadline for the application to Schedule 2, 10 days before final Sunday, appoint proxy paragraph 5 (5) ballot date 20 November 2016
Replacing lost ballot papers Schedule 2, 7 working days before Wednesday, paragraph 12 the last day of the ballot 23 November 2016
Last day to cancel proxy Schedule 2, Before 5pm of the fifth Friday, paragraph 5 (10) day before last ballot 25 November 2016 date
Last chance to vote Schedule 2, paragraph Before 5pm on the final Wednesday, 2 (as amended) and 14 day 30 November 2016
The count Paragraph 14 As soon as possible Thursday, after last day of ballot 1st December 2016
Declaration/publication of Paragraph 17 Within one week of the Wednesday, result ballot 7th December 2016
Appendix 3 Business Improvement District: Stirling City Centre ‐ Stirling Council Properties Liable for Levy Payments
Stirling Properties 5850 Levy Contribution to Stirling city centre BID
2 171/020/027D0/0 97,000 £1,212.50 Stewart Carruth Stewart Carruth Chief Executive national Albert Halls Albert Place Stirling FK8 2QL 01786 473544 101 171/130/01900/3 42,000 £525.00 Stewart Carruth Stewart Carruth Chief Executive national Central Library 19 Corn Exchange Road Stirling FK8 2HX 01786 404040 102 171/130/00800/1 229,000 £2,862.50 Stewart Carruth Stewart Carruth Chief Executive national Municipal Buildings Corn Exchange Road Stirling FK8 2HU 01786 404040 141 162/080/00500/5 59,500 £743.75 Stewart Carruth Stewart Carruth Chief Executive Independent The Tolbooth Jail Wynd Stirling FK8 1DE Unknown 252 181/190/00100/3 108,000 £1,350.00 Stewart Carruth Stewart Carruth Chief Executive national Stirling Council - Customer First 1-5 Port Street Stirling FK8 2EJ 01786 233925 309 171/420/023A0/0 25,250 £315.63 Stewart Carruth Vacant Property Vacant Property Vacant Property Vacant Property 23 Spittal Street Stirling FK8 1DU Vacant 548 181/085/23500/8 117000 £1,462.50 Stewart Carruth Stewart Carruth Stirling Council Corpora national Stirling Bus Station Thistle Marches Goosecroft Stirling FK8 2EA 533 181/077/80000/1 66000 £825.00 Stewart Carruth Stewart Carruth Chief Executive national Stirling Council - Corporate Operation car park, Forthside Way Stirling FK8 1QZ 538 not showing on saa.gov.uk Stewart Carruth Vacant Property Vacant Property Vacant Property Vacant Buildings Old Barracks Buildings Forthside Stirling FK8 1QZ 539 not showing on saa.gov.uk Stewart Carruth Vacant Property Vacant Property Vacant Property Vacant Property Unit 1 Goosecroft Stirling 540 not showing on saa.gov.uk Stewart Carruth Vacant Property Vacant Property Vacant Property Vacant Property Unit 2 Goosecroft Stirling 541 not showing on saa.gov.uk Stewart Carruth Vacant Property Vacant Property Vacant Property Vacant Property Unit 3 Goosecroft Stirling
RV under Annual Levy Business Owner, Business Name / Trading Name / UPRN (SAA) £10k Eligible RV - £ @ 1.25% Name of Local Contact Name of Local Contact Manager, etc. Status Organisation Name Property address1 Property a Propert Postcode Tel Number
Appendix 4 STIRLING BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
CRITICAL REVIEW OF STIRLING BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROJECT (BID) Review and Recommendations of potential for continuing to pursue a BID to a new ballot in February 2016, after an unsuccessful first ballot in February 2015
Anne Rendall, Andy Kennedy March 23 2015
Background and Introduction
Between January 16 and February 27 2015, businesses were asked to vote on whether they wanted to be part of a Business Improvement District for a defined area within Stirling city centre. The businesses had been consulted throughout 2014 and their views had been used to form a business plan, which was sent out with the ballot papers, and on which they could base their vote. On March 2 2015, the votes which had come in from businesses in the proposed BID area of Stirling city centre were counted. There were 101 votes for the BID and 107 against. There were 9 unsigned or spoilt papers. Therefore there will be, at this time no BID for Stirling city centre. However, the steering group which worked on the BID over a period of 14 months, voluntarily, believe that with such a close vote, there is reason to believe that enough businesses in Stirling city centre do want to see a BID in the future, and to consider how this could be achieved. This report therefore is a critical review of the processes which the BID undertook, with conclusions and recommendations which can inform any future group which may wish to go forward with a new funding application to the Scottish Government and the local authority.
1. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT FUNDING APPLICATION
A successful funding application for seed corn funding for a Stirling BID was made to the Scottish Government by the then City Centre Management Initiative Manager, Andy Kennedy. This demonstrated a clear link to the existing city centre strategy and action plan. Evidence of clear city centre partnership commitment to the process rather than an isolated submission by the city centre manager within local authority would have been helpful and would have demonstrated buy in by the local authority Stronger supporting evidence by way of written submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, would also have strengthened the above process as well as indicating high level support for the BID before it began, which would have assisted with PR. Business support for the application was received from Standard Life, owners of the Thistles centre (by letter), Wilkies (by email) and Martin Connelly (After 8) (by email).
2. PROJECT TIMESCALE
This was realistic with a significant BID team and development group fully in place to deliver the project, however the group only gained shape/momentum through the process itself. It is therefore suggested that a full committed group is in place at the same time as continuation funding is sought and a new Scottish Government funding application is undertaken in Aug/Sept 2015.
There was a hiatus in the BID development management recruitment due to Council funding decision time lag. The Xmas period falling immediately prior to the ballot also compromised the timeline. Timeline needs to be carefully considered in any future new BID project to accommodate known issues with committee dates, any other forthcoming local elections etc.
3. FINANCE/FUNDING AND RESOURCES
The £50K funding, which comprised 20k from Scottish Government and 30k from Stirling Council was tight for taking the BID development from zero through to ballot and beyond. The main element of funding commitment is the development co-ordinator, however without that function a BID cannot be taken through the process. In addition, aware of the financial constraints through experience of other BID development in UK, additional financial support was sought through a funded Intern, via the Adopt an Intern scheme which is run by the Centre for Scottish Public Policy. This process was then taken forward and completed by Anne and levered an additional resource of approx. £2000 and 12 weeks (part time) of a graduate intern, Steven Stewart. Steven began the significant and onerous task of database creation that is a key element of BID development. Recognising this, the development group agreed to extend (and pay for) that resource beyond the 12 week funded position. However, and due to BID involvement as a key factor, Steven achieved a full time position with his then part time employer, Schuh. This was an excellent result for Steven but left a significant gap in BID development resource.
Without the help in kind provided by Tony I`Anson the owner of the local website www.stirling.co.uk for website creation, social media platforms etc. the BID development budget would have been overspent.
Stirling Enterprise (STEP) gave development support to the BID in the form of provision of telephone, email; computer, electronic file system IT and some admin back up. Without this support the BID budget would have been under even more stress.
The finance situation meant that the BID development co-ordination post could not accommodate a full time position. While the intention was to increase the days as the BID moved towards final submissions and ballot period, this was not possible due to budget constraints.
A significant part of the BID development work including: documentation, appendices, operating agreement, baseline services agreement, Scottish Government financial returns, budget management, business plan drafting etc. was undertaken by the city centre manager within Stirling Council. Since the local authority was perceived by many businesses negatively and as a contributor to the city centre problems, this was counterproductive and seen as a barrier from the start of the consultation process. However, without this significant “free” resource, development of the BID would have been significantly slower.
In addition BIDs need to be seen as `business led` this meant that the 1-2-1 engagement with city centre businesses was not as deep and wide as intended and recommended within the BID development process.
For all of the above reasons, the budget required for development of another BID needs to be carefully considered and planned for, at the outset.
4. BID DEVELOPMENT GROUP
While additional representation was sought from city centre potential levy payers, to deepen and widen the group, this was done relatively informally. A recommendation would be to undertake some initial information sessions on the BID concept in an attempt to widen the group. The first meeting of the group had a number of sceptical businesses that saw the meeting as another `consultation` and action had to be taken to ensure those involved were genuinely interested in developing the BID together.
Initially the historic barrier between the large shopping centre, The Thistles which was part of the BID area, and other business operators in the city centre created significant problems and slowed progress for the group. While initial meetings were chaired by the city centre manager at the request of the group, this was perceived by some as a `council` initiative as a consequence and that perception could not be overturned as the BID went through the processes leading to the ballot. Care must be taken to correct negative perceptions surrounding the Thistles vis a vis “it’s the cause of the smaller shops having to close in the town” “Its owned by the council” “Thistles car park means shoppers park, go into the Thistles and don’t go anywhere else”
In addition, and as stated previously, it took some time for the core group to `settle down` and to attract additional members, and lose some that were never committed to the project.
The barrier between business interests still exists, although to a much lesser extent due to the relationships built throughout the process by all group members. A recommendation would be that the trust gained is not lost due to the BID result but rather is further enhanced, through the continuation and enhancement of membership of the steering group as it is only with that trust and understanding of different priorities that the business community can move forward.
A major plus for the group was the involvement and commitment of David Black, Chair of Mercat Cross Community Council due to the input provided from a community perspective, experience of working across public agencies and also knowledge of local political processes/public agency bureaucratic requirements and also the difficulty of engaging meaningfully with `stakeholders`.
The group lacked strategic representation from other potential BID partners. These should have included: o Stirling Council (Economic Development and Infrastructure services) o STEP (as the business support agency) o Destination Stirling (as the local tourism body) o Stirling City Heritage Trust (due to focus on city centre built environment and economic benefit as an indicator for SCHT investment) o Representation from Banking sector and/or estate agents o Representation from Major Multiple Retailer (Boots at first meeting but did not attend again). o Police Scotland (local area commander or similar) Again, attended a couple of early meetings, but none thereafter. Also, change of
Commander for area halfway through process meant continuity was lost o Stirling University (access to student specific project learning that can aid BID development. i.e. marketing the BID, BID branding, KPIs, BID business research. Also access to professional research expertise through Institute of Retail Studies, Department of Management and Business).
5. ADDITIONAL CONSULTATIONS
This was an area of weakness due to the difficulty with resource. While the representation by Mercat Cross Community Council Chairperson was highly valuable, it may also have been helpful to involve the Community Council in the initial `What is a BID?` briefings.
Destination Stirling, (DS) the recently convened Stirling area wide Tourism initiative provided a perceived conflict for businesses, who were being asked to join DS as members at the same time as they were being consulted about a BID. DS was attempting to establish itself as the `go to` for activities and projects within the city centre at the same time as the BID was in development. Though not a city centre specific organisation. The potential (perceived) conflict between the BID and DS, expressed by the DS Chairperson should have been discussed at a strategic level in early BID development.
Stirling City Heritage Trust Board were a potential key partner for elements that were contained within the business plan, and should also have been an early `What is a BID?` involvee and involved in action plan creation.
Creative Stirling, a social enterprise company in Stirling is undertaking activities related to the BID objectives and although they are reliant on external funding to move forward, they should possibly have been involved in the action plan creation. They did come to some of the Open Meetings and were supportive of the BID.
One of the difficulties with `additional consultations` is that there is no database of key organisations that influence, or are involved in the city centre. An informal database of these organisations has however now been created by the BID project manager as a starting point for a source of future BID steering group members
Consultation with organisations is exacerbated by the lack of resource within other potential consultees, to enable involvement in partnerships and also contributes to difficulties in timing engagement as a consequence.
6. DATABASE AND VOTING ISSUES
As already mentioned, the database of companies both local and national is a vital tool for the BID. The correct contact and address for each eligible ratepayer, who becomes the voter is probably the most important part of the work done prior to the ballot. Virtually half of the 518 businesses within the Stirling city centre BID area are national companies. Local managers in most cases, but with a few notable exceptions, do not have any delegated
responsibility and are not able to answer questions or give views on whether their company would or would not support a BID. As mentioned elsewhere in this document, the BID development was compromised in this area due to the extra resource provided by the intern, who was working on the database, and would have continued to do so, gaining a full time position, and leaving the BID well before the ballot period. The manager of the Thistles shopping centre in Stirling who is the vice chair of the BID steering group spent many hours canvassing local managers of the 70 or so national companies within the Thistles and asking them for information back from head office level regarding voting intentions. Overwhelmingly this was in favour of the BID, and this included Debenhams, the largest RV in the entire BID area. The addresses used for these national companies came from a variety of sources but in the light of different information, we felt the best source we could use was the database held by the Thistles for their tenants. These were double checked against the ones held by BIDs Scotland in the database provided to us and with the Rateable Assessor links to each ratepayer. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts to make sure ballot papers had gone to the correct person and correct address, we had several requests from businesses asking for papers to go to different people/addresses. We discovered that three of the largest RV tenants in the Thistles did not get to vote due to misinformation regarding contacts. Two large companies told us that the papers had got lost within their organisations and requested new papers the day before the ballot, but this request was impossible for us to fulfil for obvious reasons. We would like to recommend that BIDs Scotland take ownership of a national database that is cleaned weekly, via emails to ascertain correct contact and that they also ask for information and also provide it, to companies about their voting intentions and about BIDs in general to assist in the decision making process. This would assist BID development companies enormously and save a significant amount of time and resource.
Voting system The postal ballot seems unnecessarily onerous, requiring all ballots to be posted out and returned by post, is complex, as evidenced above and led to the loss of some votes in the Stirling BID area. It does not seem out with the bounds of possibility to allow businesses to vote electronically for a BID. This would we feel, lead to a higher turnout, certainly for the national companies, since, if the vote had initially gone to the wrong person, this could have been more easily and quickly corrected within the organisation.
7. MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION
The BID followed all the recommended processes and procedures regarding communication with potential levy payers. It may have been worth involving all property owners as well as tenants in invitations to open meetings and inclusion in promotional material (Newsflash etc) as well.
The experience of all BIDs, whether successful at ballot or not, is that a high percentage of potential levy payers, regardless of communication throughout the process will claim to have not been involved, or aware of the BID development process and ballot. This needs to be addressed via potentially a longer period of engagement with stakeholders, than was taken here and via a dedicated PR resource to get positive stories out through all available media
A higher visibility of the BID co-ordinator in the period leading to ballot and the 42 day ballot process was compromised due to the demands required regarding completeness and accuracy of the BID database for ballot.
While a `high profile` event was intended to take place mid way through the ballot process this was not possible due to resource constraint. It may well be worth having such an event at the start of the BID development. It was clear however that regardless of communication and information regarding open meetings held within the BID area, businesses do not attend, until the business plan is sent out with the levy fee is notified therein. By this time, when businesses are willing to engage, the document has already been sent to BIDs and the Scottish Government and been approved. No changes are then allowed at this stage, but this is when the businesses want to engage. This puts additional pressure on the resource required to carry out ongoing discussion with BID area stakeholders, whilst meeting the legislative procedural dates and processes. The project template plan, created by BIDs which had to be followed is, in our view fundamentally flawed in this area for the reasons stated above.
8. MEDIA
Information in the local paper, the Stirling Observer, to get the BID message out to the wider community was not sufficient. Anecdotally, many businesses do not read/see this weekly newspaper, which in any case has a very low circulation of around.4500.
Neither was information in social media enough, since again anecdotally, but also evidenced heavily by the lack of engagement with emails sent out regularly many businesses and stakeholders do not have social media knowledge or interest as an element of their business model.
We produced two newsletters and a summary of the business plan prior to the ballot but monthly/bi-monthly newsletters on BID progress throughout the entire development period, provided in hard copy to all would have helped alleviate the above-noted lack of IT ability of businesses. However this would entail a heavier spend on print and in order to make sure everyone had received a copy, would have required hand delivery, which we did with the two newsletters, but in the later weeks leading to the ballot, no resource was available to do this.
It proved extremely difficult for business members of the development group to commit consistent additional time beyond arranged meetings (and even those meetings had fluctuating representation due to business commitments). This increases the case for a wider and deeper BID development group.
The commitment by the group members leading to and during the 42 day ballot period was exceptional, although some communication issues were experienced regarding distribution of `Next Steps/Summary ` document.
A positive PR campaign should be part of any new BID proposal and a resource should be identified to do this
9. BASELINE SERVICES
The template provided by BIDs Scotland was not fit for purpose in a Council area that does not have specific contacts for specific Council Services.
Council Services were in the main supportive in completing the templates required, although some questioned why they should provide this. This appeared to be due to a lack of awareness of the BID generally and the. Council commitment to the BID
Establishing the financial contribution of services to the specific BID area was difficult for some and impossible in others due to `aggregated` budgets.
It is not possible in the current public sector financial environment, for council services individually to commit to maintaining levels of resource allocation in the BID area over 5 years. This would need to be a commitment at a strategic level within a Local Authority, beyond the remit of those individual services.
Without the relationship of the city centre initiative manager, established over a number of years, with the range of services, that gave their time willingly to support the completion of baseline services templates, the timescale for baseline documentation completion would have been significant. Even with this support, the completion of the documentation went right to the 90 day proposal submission final deadline date. Someone within the council in the absence next time round for the city centre manager, needs to be identified as the main contact and resource to help with BID issues
10. BID PROPOSAL TO SCOTTISH GOVT AND STIRLING COUNCIL (120 AND 90 DAYS)
All deadlines required by legislation were met, albeit the final one was very tight for the resource reasons mentioned previously. The current documentation would be of use if a BID is proposed in the future. Additional research of city centre customers would have strengthened the proposal.
11. REVIEW OF BID BUSINESS PLAN CONTENT – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Reasonable Chairman’s Welcome Could possibly have had a bit more individuality. Perhaps came across as too corporate and should have stated what would happen without a BID
What is a BID? Could have been expanded to include more information on the background to BIDs, recognition of the national role they are playing and the countries adopting the model. Possibly also some information on the changing role of BIDs once established and their role in wider elements of city centres.
Why do we need a BID? Reference to other BIDs should have had either a full list of BIDs in Scotland, or been restricted to the BIDs that `impact` on the city centre regarding economy and commerce, thus comparing like with like
6 Reasons to support a BID Could have included a more in depth comment than the one sentence, regarding the ability of BIDs to secure additional funding to support the levy commitment to deliver projects.
Objectives Strong and accurate, punches hard as possibly the rest of the document should have done. Page 5 could have also been even more hard hitting with a list of what will `not` happen if the BID does not go through, referencing and linking key sentences within the action plans.
More emphasis could have been made about the city centre strategy and action plan within this section. However this would have been a risk as there has been no significant commitment to the strategy, other than BID development, since its adoption in June 2013.
BID Area and Map The description of the demographics of the BID area provides excellent information that is (or should be) of value to voters.
While it made operational sense, the BID area was with hindsight, possibly too large and too diverse. Areas for inclusion should be revisited following the creation of the draft action plans. There needs to be a street by street review and if there is not `direct` benefit from inclusion in the BID area within the action plans, and it is felt no project can be added to provide direct benefit, then that street or property (in some cases) should be excluded.
Finding and sourcing a detailed map relevant to the BID was only possible due to the city centre initiative manager’s relationship with Planning Services. Due to the late and final identification of the boundary, a GIS map was not possible to source with the required detail.
Research Timing and inclusion of Tourism Research was good, as it included the very latest research from just one month prior to publication of the business plan.
The business research was satisfactory, although should possibly have followed up on substantial early information regarding the BID development and `What is a BID? `event.
Consumer research was a missing element as referred to in `BID Proposal` However, this would have meant additional spend/resource would have been required – very difficult on tight budget
What is in it for me? Well structured and provided good and real examples of BID activity.
Could have included more `direct` comments from BID levy payers in another BID location that has seen `direct` benefit from involvement in a BID.
All examples should have come from Scotland and that may be possible further down the line as the increasing number of BIDs deliver projects. Very difficult to get hard evidence to prove the case for BIDs – businesses will only believe information from other businesses and this should be noted in future. High level speakers from industry eg Director of Scottish Retail Consortium, Professor of Retail at Stirling University, business people in other BID areas at events would have helped
Seek advice from BIDs that failed at ballot or reballot on why this happened. BIDs Scotland should keep a database of easily accessible evidence based facts on successes and failures. The BIDs website is not comprehensive and information is difficult to find, or not available directly for download.
Database issues regarding national companies were significant – this should be the role of BID as Scotland to keep and maintain an up to date database of national companies operating in the larger BID areas and to take the temperature of who is likely to vote yes and those who tend to vote no and why. Lobbying the no’s should also be part of bid Scotland role.
Assuming a reballot is proposed in the future, the city centre voters should be asked `why they voted yes, no, or did not vote`. In this way, the issues of most concern can be addressed well before the business plan is drafted. Consider focus groups from the identifiably different areas of the proposed BID to look at this business plan and pull it to pieces.
BID Levy Income This element of the document should have taken centre stage, rather than being just another section as it was clear this was the most important element in the businesses minds when deciding how to vote.
This should have been full page with more prominence given to levy table.
Levy table `should` have had a further breakdown by weekly or daily cost (the steering group we decided against this inclusion).
The above may have deflected the criticism of unfair levy by Rateable Value, as the cost per day is higher for higher levy payers and this would have been clearly seen.
An explanation of the levy calculation process by the development group should be included to show why it was calculated to be the fairest. The perception was that it was unfair and it should have been easily seen that it was not.
Anecdotally, from the meetings we held and individual conversations, it was clear that a large percentage of the businesses did not understand the difference between the Rateable Value of their property and the actual amount they pay in rates. This distinction is vital when explaining how much they actually pay in rates compared with how much they will pay as a levy.
BID Budget Are things in BP not paid for through Rates? Should have had some more detail on the elements covered in the baseline services as this was a concern raised in the ballot period by some of the businesses. This has also been an issue in other developing BIDs, notably Dundee, where a statutory service provided by the council, therefore not being put into the BID business plan, was withdrawn, as part of budget cuts.
BID Action Plans These were given in as much detail as required and were based on consultations with the businesses.
BID Investment Levy All OK and all detail as required by the legislation. However, made dense reading and was probably not well read by the vast majority of businesses. Consider revising and refining
The Ballot Process As required by the legislation but as above, rather dense, heavily “public sector” and most important parts – i.e. that as well as putting a cross in the correct box, for yes no, the recipient needed to sign the paper as well. We had nine unsigned votes which could have carried the BID had they been Yes. This can be corrected by a visual image of the ballot paper showing the boxes and the signature line and this should go out in communications prior to the ballot papers going out, for clarity.
Governance OK but would have benefited from further explanation of the BID company structure and details of Board Director positions, sectors etc.
Details on the management structure would also have helped, but this is possibly due to the disinformation on management that was being spread locally.
Supporting Statements All good and worked well. Could have benefited from testimonials from businesses in other areas as well – particularly those with businesses in other nearby BID areas as well as Stirling Measuring Performance and Communicating with BID Members.
Good with enough detail. Doubtful however, if many people actually read this though, so perhaps this could be dropped in the actual business plan.
Overall – business plan needs to be even more concise, simpler and easier to understand, with just the main issues being addressed – or perhaps one doubles sided insert with these main things on it for those who won’t be bothered reading the whole thing.
All of the above learning and issues with the business plan should be taken into account before a new business plan for a 2016 BID is drawn up
12. OPERATING AGREEMENT
Harper McLeod template is good and in the format required. Need to have this considered by a sub group of the main BID development group as it is an important element of the arrangements with the LA. Finalising the levy collection process, whether there would be charges for the service, method of collection would all have been useful as they would have made the financial summary of the BID extremely robust.
13. STIRLING COUNCIL COMMITTEES AND COUNCIL SERVICE ACTIONS
No strategic buy in to the process. A main contributor to this was the internal restructuring taking place at the same time as BID development. As stated above, representation at a high management level is required to ensure services play their part, particularly where issues and questions arise throughout the consultation, the input of services to the action plans and open meetings are held.
14. CITY CENTRE INITIATIVE MANAGER (whose role ceased as of March 31 2015) comments It is my belief that a visible city centre partnership should have been in place first before BID development.
I was able to support the development process providing very valuable knowledge of town centre issues/challenges, and BIDs from a UK and Scotland perspective.
I should have taken more of a role in the accuracy and detail of the database prior to Steven departing.
I found it difficult to be seen by the Council as the `honest broker` in the process of BID development.
There was an inherent distrust of the city centre manager by elements of the business community and this affected the BID ballot.
A lack of knowledge of the role being provided by the city centre initiative manager was also a contributing factor.
The withdrawal of the city centre management role at the same time as the BID was in development undoubtedly clouded the path beyond the BID ballot and compromised the understanding of the strategic role a BID in Stirling city centre would have.
For the above reasons the resource issues i.e. lack of a city centre manager have to be carefully considered before moving forward.
15. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Some form of agreement and remuneration should have been agreed with the owner of Stirling.co.uk - Tony IAnson, to ensure the lines between BID development and other Stirling.co.uk activities were clear.
Without the city centre manager role a vital resource has been lost and this needs to be considered in any proposal for a future second BID.
While the timescales made the adoption of some form of localised brand difficult for the BID development group, the use of BIDs Scotland styles and colours gave a very corporate feel to the BID brand.
As we moved through the BID development process, the working of the group as a unit improved enormously.
The BID development group were on a massive learning curve in the 12 months to ballot.
Without the enthusiasm, patience and commitment of Andrew Mitchell and Martin Connelly to support AK in the very early stages of BID development and also recruitment of Anne Rendall, the BID would not have secured the funding it did, or be at the stage that it got to ballot in Jan/Feb 2015.
Fortnightly meetings worked well with progress made between all meetings.
16. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Below are the recommendations and actions we (the steering group) feel are required, if we are to take a proposal for another BID forward with a view to another vote in March 2016.
Section Recommendation Responsible Timescale/Action Comment Reference Person/ Organisation 1. New 1. Evidence to be Carol Beattie, Written commitment Council invited to Scottish shown of clear city Stirling Council/ by end March 2015 attend steering Government centre partnership Steering group group meetings Funding by the local from March 2015 Application authority to onwards demonstrate buy in by the local authority, before new application is made to Scottish Government, including allocation of some continuation funding from April – August 2015
As above 2. Written support Steering group/ By end May for the BID from identified 2015.Correct stakeholders as stakeholders contacts identified mentioned in the and information section referred to. about BID sent. Follow up by appropriate steering group member.
Section Recommendation Responsible Timescale/Action Comment Reference Person/ Organisatio Project 3.Full and Steering By end April 2015. Timescale committed group/stakeholder All members of steering group group June 2015 steering group to with wide suggest members representation and conduct from all sectors of lobbying to that end Stirling Business Community in place before second BID starts As above 4. Timeline Steering Consultation with carefully group/Carol council June 2015, considered in any Beattie, SC future new BID project to accommodate known issues with committee dates, any other forthcoming local elections etc
2 As above 5. Continuation Steering End March 2015, funding sought to group/Carol Decision by SC on keep current Beattie continuation funding resource (AR, project manager) in place and a new Scottish Government funding application be undertaken in Aug/Sept 2015.
3 6.Budget required Steering Potential sources of Finance/Fun for development of group/SC/BIDs funding: SC initially, ding of another BID needs Scotland from 30k which was future BID to be carefully earmarked for first considered and year of BID. planned for, at the Steering outset, for the group/council/Scotti reasons referred sh Government to to in this section commit to requirement in writing. Full Funding for project development in place by end August 2015. Suggest 80-100k needed.
4 BID 7.Undertake focus Project manager May – July 2015. Development groups on the BID with steering Set up workshops Group concept in an group as as suggested, attempt to widen facilitators possibly in the group, using conjunction with the 2015 business work going on plan as a basis for currently by SLR discussion (consultants) for SC 8. Strategic All members of Approaches to representation steering group identify from other stakeholders by potential BID steering group partners is during April/May. required to e.g. Destination strengthen the Stirling; Creative group and show Stirling; Stirling City buy in from the Heritage Trust outset, to the BID 5 9. Community Led by David May 2015. Additio council Black nal involvement from Check with SC if Consult start of process. Project manager/ they are doing any ations 10.Undertake SC research over consumer summer 2015 we research in can tap into. addition to tourism Potentially Thistles and business are carrying out research research and we may be able to tap into this 6 11. BIDs Scotland Project April 2015. These Database take ownership of manager/BIDs recommendations and a national Scotland will be made in voting database that is the final report to issues cleaned weekly, Bids Scotland at via emails to the end of March, ascertain correct which will contain contact. Also a copy of this recommend they critical review ask for information (AR) and also provide it, to companies about their voting intentions and about BIDs in general to assist in the decision making process. This would assist BID development companies enormously and save a significant amount of time and resource.
7 Marketing and 12. Consider Steering group End June 2015. All Communication involving all communication re property owners meetings to go to
as well as tenants property owners as in invitations to well as business open meetings owners
and inclusion in Steering group promotional material. Summer 2015 – Dependent on funding.
13. Consider dedicated PR resource to get positive stories out through all available media.
8. Media 14. A positive PR Project manager May 2015 – March campaign should 2016. Dependent be part of any new on funding BID proposal and a resource should be identified to do this
9. Baseline 15. Report back to Stirling April 2015. On- Services Bids Scotland that Council/BIDs going discussion the template discussion with BIDs Scotland provided by them required was not fit for
purpose in a
Council area that does not have specific contacts
for specific Council Services. It is not possible in the current public
sector financial environment, for council services individually to April 2015. SC to commit to As above identify contact maintaining levels of resource allocation in the BID area over 5 years. Recommend that BIDs Scotland consider reviewing this part of the operating agreement template. 16. Identify a contact within the council, since, as of March 2015 there is no city centre manager in SC, and another resource is required to carry out this work.
17. Reuse current Project manager August 2015 Keep documentation in current any new BID. 10.BID 18 Additional Steering group to documentation on Proposal to research of city ascertain potential memory sticks Scottish Govt centre customers sources of and Stirling (as per item) consumer Summer 2015 – see Council (120 should be added research reference to and 90 days) to strengthen the Thistles research in proposal. item 5 above
11 Review of 19. All of the Steering group August 215 BID Business learning and Plan issues with the content business plan, as detailed in section 11 of the critical review should be taken into account before a new business plan for a 2016 BID is drawn up.
12 Operating 20. This should be Steering group August 2015 Agreement considered by a sub group of the main BID development group as it is an important element of the arrangements with the LA.
13 Stirling 21.Strategic buy in Stirling Council April 2015 Council to the process is officers and Committees required as soon elected members and Council as a decision is Service made to go for a Actions BID again 14 City 22. The lack of a Stirling Council April 2015 Centre city centre Initiative manager has to be Manager considered before Role moving forward
15 Additional 23. If Stirling.co.uk Steering group June 2015 – Comments is to continue with agreement with their valuable stirling.co.uk –
support, a formal agreement and
remuneration should be agreed steering group with them June 2015 Sub group of steering Branding to be group to look at considered – less branding tweaks corporate feel but agreed to keep Stirling BID as the name now that it is recognised and known through the Project Comments to be work done manager/Steering made in March throughout the first group report to BIDs project period Scotland 24.
25. Recommend that BIDs Scotland review the project template plan, created by BIDs as it is, in our view, fundamentally flawed in its recommendations for when and how to engage with business. Our experience, and those of other BIDs with whom we consulted, where that businesses are only willing to engage, once they know how much the levy will be. By this time the operating agreement and business plan has already been sent to BIDs and the Scottish Government and been approved and no changes are allowed. It is impossible therefore to carry out ongoing discussion with BID area stakeholders, whilst meeting the legislative procedural dates and processes.