Is there a rule that says the only way a PC can fund something is if they have full control and management of the service to the community or if a grant is given? I refer to a non-essential but very important part of the local community - NOT things like mowing and streetlights etc.
In a previous PC meeting (various iterations of the PC ago), an agreement was reached between a community service provider and the PC. A motion was raised and passed to fund the community service. No other work would be required, just paying the bill when it came in 6 times a year. The provider would retain it's independence; free from influence or control by the PC.
The service has been well managed and is financially accountable - providing evidence of income and expenditure to the PC who pay the only expenditure directly to the provider - exactly as the village had voted for in the annual meeting.
Now, after 18 years of happily providing the service under this arrangement, the PC have informed the provider that either the service has to move under the PC, is managed and controlled by them through policy and framework or that the service goes financially independent and applies for an annual grant. The former is not desirable as the agreement specifically relied on the independence of this service and the service is reliant on this freedom to maintain it's integrity to the community. The latter is not realistic because any grant is likely to be rejected by some vexatious Councillors who want to control the service and will introduce frameworks and conditions that are not applied to any other grant recipient.
Is funding community projects only possible using one of these two models? Has anyone else had a situation where the payment is made direct to the provider but in the absence of management or control over the provider's service?