Issue - meetings

The Mersey Gateway Executive Board considered the attached report.

 

RECOMMENDED: That the capital programme be amended as outlined within the report.

The Mersey Gateway Executive Board had considered a report regarding the revised development cost budget forecast for delivering Mersey Gateway up to the construction phase when a contract would be in place with the private sector (the Concessionaire) to design, build, finance and operate the project. The information updated the forecast made in the development budget approved by the Executive Board on 20^th April 2006 and the information on budget monitoring reported to the Mersey Gateway Executive Board since then.

 

Councillor Polhill undertook to provide a written response to a question from Councillor Findon regarding the procurement process, ie whether it had started and how far along this path the Council was. In addition, it was advised that further details would be provided at a later stage regarding the increase in the budget together with information about any additional monies, such as the £6.4m from Government to assist in the development costs.  

 

RESOLVED: That the Capital Programme be amended as outlined within the report.

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Environment which dealt with the revised development cost budget forecast for delivering Mersey Gateway up to the construction phase when a contract would be in place with the private sector (the Concessionaire) to design, build, finance and operate the project.  The information updated the forecasts made in the development budget approved by the Executive Board on 20^th April 2006 and the information on budget monitoring report to the Mersey Gateway Board since then.

 

The Board was advised that the revised outturn forecast of £21.6m would require the Council to meet £11.7m (excluding pre Programme Entry cost of £2,1m) in total assuming that the DfT agreed to contribute the £6.4m and taking into account the £3.5m already secured from the Development Agency.  It was assumed that it is appropriate to capitalise development costs allowing the Council to fund its contribution by prudential borrowing.  Under the constitution the revised budget would need to be approved by Council.  A proportion of the strategic priorities fund had already been set aside to secure borrowing up to £8m and the Capital Programme was based on the current approved development cost budget (314m).

 

The Board was further advised that Table five in the report indicated the funding and financing required to support the estimated development costs assuming that the Council continued to use prudential borrowing and that the Authority received the full grant from DfT as requested.

 

Members noted the reasons for the increase in expenditure costs and the importance of delivering the project.

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)                    the revised budget for Development Costs up to Final Funding Approval be approved;

 

(2)                    the Council be recommended to amend the Capital Programme accordingly; and

 

(3)                    the potential call on the Council Priorities Fund be noted.