Decision details

Part A of the Review

i. That the efficiencies and other benefits gained through the PFI approach, as highlighted within the Expression of Interest (EoI) should be weighed against any budgetary inflexibility in future years, when deciding whether or not to proceed with the PFI process.

Noted

ii. That in the event that the PFI outcome is unsuccessful, the key issues identified should be taken into consideration when deciding upon an alternative approach.

Agreed

iii. That in the event that the Council’s EoI is successful, the decision to proceed to the next stage of the PFI process, i.e. submitting an Outline Business Case (OBC), be weighed against the resulting greater annual budget commitment required from the Council if the highways repair and maintenance works are to be carried out.

Noted

iv. That it should be noted that as there are too many unknown quantities at this stage in the process, the total expenditure over the lifespan of the PFI cannot be properly identified.

Noted

v. That in the event that the EoI is successful, careful consideration should be given when deciding whether to proceed to each of the following stages of the process, thereby ensuring a full understanding of the cost implications.

Noted

Part B of the Review

i. That there has been an impact on the repayments to the Venture Fund caused by the delays in implementing the actions agreed as part of the Best Value Review

Noted

ii. The delays in implementing the actions agreed as part of the Best Value Review were necessary

Agreed

iii. The total savings made in Highways Maintenance since the Best Value Review are significantly higher than those identified therefore there has been no financial loss to the council caused by the delays in the procurement process

Agreed