Agenda and minutes

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 24^th January 2008 were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

            The Sub-Committee considered a report which summarised the overall revenue and capital spending position as at 31^st December 2007.

 

            In overall terms, revenue expenditure was below the budget profile. The budget profile was only a guide to eventual spending and spending was historically higher in the latter part of the financial year.

 

            In addition, the financial implications of the recently announced pay and grading review would only come through towards year-end. Within the overall position, there were some significant variances and details of these were outlined in the report.

 

            It was noted that investment returns were currently better than expected despite the volatility of the financial market.            As a result, investment income was expected to exceed the budget target by year-end. In addition, following a review of the balance sheet the capital financial requirement had been amended, resulting in a reduction of the minimum revenue provision.

 

            Overall, spending was expected to below budget by year-end, which was mainly due to the investment returns and the review of the balance sheet. Therefore the 2008/09 budget proposals currently being considered by the Council included making provision within the 2007/08 final accounts for items of time limited expenditure relating to Building Schools for the Future and the Mersey Gateway. Work was also ongoing to assess the financial implications of potential equal pay claims. Similarly other key reserves such as the Insurance Reserve would be reviewed at year-end to ensure their adequacy.

 

            With regard to capital, it was reported that spending to 31^st December 2007 totalled £16.9m, which was 83% of the planned spending of £20.3m at this stage. However, this only represented 46% of the total capital programme of £36.6m. Although historically capital expenditure was significantly higher in the latter part of the financial year, it was important that project managers maintained pressure to keep projects and spending on schedule and in particular to ensure that all external funding was maximised.

 

            RESOLVED: That

 

(1)       the report be noted; and

 

(2)            reserves are established as set out above.

            The Sub-Committee had previously approved a report for the provision of Variable Message Signs (VMS) on the approaches to the Silver Jubilee Bridge, to provide information on traffic conditions and proposed works. Six signs had now been installed and were operational with a further two signs due to be installed within the next few weeks.

 

            The signs were currently controlled by a computer in Rutland House and arrangements had been made for the signs to be set outside of office hours by staff within the 24/7 team at the Contact Centre. However, on Thursday 18^th January 2007, the Silver Jubilee Bridge was closed due to a high-sided vehicle being blown over in the high winds.  Following the incident, a review of procedures was carried out and following discussions with other bridge operators (mainly in Scotland) and the Police, thresholds for the staged closure of the Bridge, initially to high sided vehicles and ultimately a total closure where being drafted to produce agreed protocol with Cheshire Police.

 

            During the development of the protocols it was felt that the best way forward was to automate the system so that the messages to warn of high winds and closure of the bridge to high-sided vehicles were displayed automatically when pre determined wind speeds were reached. It was reported that following discussions with Cheshire Police it was now likely that the Council would arrange for a message to be displayed that warns drivers of high sided vehicles to avoid the bridge during high winds and to find an alternative route.

 

            It was always envisaged when the system was proposed that there would be some automation, to allow the signs to be activated by the system when pre determined scenarios occur. To facilitate this automation there was a need to install some additional equipment and software, which linked the different systems together, this software was called a Common Database.

 

            A number of options were available to provide this common database, however, as most of the current systems had been supplied by Siemens’ Traffic Controls, a price had been obtained from them for the supply, installation and commissioning of a Comet UTMC common database for £59,326.00. This price included linking to the anemometer and training for the relevant staff.

 

            Arising from the discussion Members enquired if the signs could be used to display alternative messages e.g Don’nt Drink and Drive etc. The Sub Committee was advised that the boards could only be used to display certain messages, however this request would be looked into.  

 

            RESOLVED: That

 

(1)            Procurement Standing Orders 3.1 – 3.7 be waived to obtain equipment that is the same as neighbouring authorities to allow future joint use;

 

(2)       the quote from Siemens Traffic Controls for the supply, installation and commissioning of Comet UTMC database software for £59,326 be accepted; and

 

(3)       the authority agrees to pursue joint working with the Merseyside Authorities, Warrington BC and Highways Agency for joint use of each other’s variable message signs, using reciprocal arrangements.

            The Sub-Committee considered a report which sought approval to waive Standing Orders for the Procurement of additional CCTV security equipment and security services for the benefit of businesses located at Halebank Industrial Estate. In 2005, 6 private security companies were invited to submit quotations to install a CCTV security system and provide a monitoring and response service for businesses located at Halebank Industrial Estate. Druants Security were subsequently awarded the contract, effective between 13^th October 2005 and 12^th October 2010.

 

            On 7^th December 2007, businesses on Halebank Industrial Estate voted in favour of creating a
Business Improvement District (BID). The Bid Business Plan required procurement of additional CCTV equipment to enhance the existing system by improving the functionality and coverage of the system and increase detection rates.

 

            The Sub Committee was advised that if the purchase of additional security equipment was to be subject to Financial Standing Orders. This could result in a different company installing the new equipment. In this event Druants would be under no obligation to:

 

-           permit this additional equipment to be connected and integrated into the existing system;

-            monitor the additional cameras from their monitoring room; and

-            maintain the additional cameras.

 

            It could also result in a second security company operating within Halebank Industrial Estate for the key holding and alarm/incident response services with Druants continuing to provide the services under the existing contract. From an operational point of view, two security companies operating on Halebank Industrial Estate was likely to be both difficult to manage and could lead to confusion.

 

            RESOLVED: That

 

(1)       the Operational Director – Economic Regeneration be authorised to award the contract for the additional CCTV security equipment on Halebank Industrial Estate to Druants in the sum of £25,295.21 and that in light of the exceptional circumstances and in accordance with Standing Order 1.6 Procurement Standing Order 4.1 be waived on this occasion in view in the impracticality and problems associated with having two contractors providing similar and complementary services on the estate; and

 

(2)       the Operational Director – Economic Regeneration be authorised to award the contract for providing additional security services to businesses located on Halebank Industrial Estate to Druants at a rate of £1.09/day per company for key holding and £0.34/day per company for an alarm/incident response service and that in the light of the exceptional circumstances and in accordance with Standing Order 1.6 Procurement Standing Order 4.1 be waived on this occasion in view of the impracticality and problems associated with having two contractors providing similar and complementary services on the estate.

            This item was deferred to a future meeting.

MINUTES ISSUED: 13^th February 2008

CALL IN:  20^th February 2008

Any matter decided by the Executive Board Sub Committee may be called in no later than 20^th February 2008