Agenda and minutes

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare, at this point in the meeting, any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda. No interests were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 28^th August 2007.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of last meeting held on 28^th August 2007 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following amendment to Minute 8 (amendment shown in italics):

·        Having no permanent Section Head in Highway Infrastructure had resulted in there being limited progress made between February 2002 and June 2003.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish to speak can do so. Anyone who wishes to register or requires further information is requested to contact the Democracy Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is 5pm on Tuesday 6^th November  2007.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation scheme.

This report presents to Members a table of events in relation to Highways Maintenance Procurement and the PFI Process.

Members considered the Interim Report for Highways Maintenance Procurement and PFI Review.

The Director of City Strategy answered questions from Members as set out in Annex D of the report; he gave the following responses to the questions tabled by Councillor Merrett:

Question 1    In terms of the internal management of the Highways Maintenance Procurement Process the designated lead Officer was the head of Highways and Street Operations. The progress of the implementation programme was monitored by Chief Officers.

Question 2    There had always been a Head of Highways infrastructure, but at the time in question he had been seconded into another post. The post was temporarily covered by Ray Chaplain. The Directorate was undergoing a major restructure at the time and in April 2006 Paul Thackray was appointed to the post on a temporary basis and in June 2006 was appointed on a permanent basis.

Question 3    At the time it was thought that a 1½ year timescale was a reasonable timeframe for this process. There were certain complexities being experienced at York regarding the way the contract would be apportioned and this led to the process being delayed for over a year. It was now known that it was advisable to define the scope of the process much earlier and not mix internal and external tenders. The decision on whether to retain in-house services as opposed to external services was a decision that should have been made at an earlier stage in the process.

                        The Best Value Review findings had not been specific enough and did not indicate the way forward thus leaving much room for debate.

The Director of City Strategy responded to Councillor Healey’s questions as follows:

Question 1    When the funding of the dedicated Project Manager was declined in 2002/03 the Officers continued with the Best Value Review work. The lack of a Project Manager did not have a significant effect on paying back the Venture Fund but was significant in relation to other issues.

Question 2    The total amount borrowed was £433k and this was provided over 2 years:

·        £162k in 2003/04

·        £271k in 2004/05

Repayments were originally scheduled over 2 years:

·        £250k in 2005/06

·        £183k in 2006/07

To date the payments made are:

·        £80k in 2005/06 (from directorate underspends)

·        £225k in 2006/07 (£100k from the budget and £125k from capital underspend)

Proposals to finish repayments are:

·        £50k in 2007/08

·        £50k in 2008/09

·        £28k in 2009/10 (but we will try to clear the debt in 2008/09)

The expectation is that we will therefore finish repaying the loan 2 years later than originally planned.

Question 3    It has been a long established principal of City of York Council that any savings made go back to a central pot and everybody can apply for some of that money. The monies used to set up the Street Environment Service were monies that could be realised from savings over time. The Directorates were very different at the time that the Street Environment Service was set up and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.