Minutes:
Members gave consideration to a report which provided details of the bids received at the “Invite to Submit Final Tender” (ISFT) stage of the process, and of the evaluation process.
The report further sought authorisation from Members, for Officers to notify bidders of the outcome of the procurement process, and following the required 10 day standstill period, to enter into a binding agreement with the successful bidder for the delivery of the project.
The Executive Director of Commercial and Economic Growth addressed Committee and in doing so advised the following: -
· The Council had received compliant bids from both Participants at ISFT.
· Members had at their previous meeting on 6 February 2018 received full presentations on the contents of both bids together with an explanation of how both bids complied with the Council’s brief, when considering the ISDS stage of the process.
· Participants had been required to not depart from their ISDS responses at Final Tender stage, but had been requested to review, optimise and re-submit their financial solution.
· The ISFT submissions had now been evaluated and a high level comparison was set out in Table 1 of the report, together with the respective final scores for each submission
· For the avoidance of the doubt the sites and proposals which would be included at Phase 1 of the Project were outlined clearly to Members. Full information in respect of this was contained at Section 3 of the report and in table 5. It was indicated that the Executive Director of Resources would address the Committee later to advise on the funding which would be required.
· Confirmation of the sites / projects previously considered for potential inclusion in Phase 1, but not now going forward was also provided to Members and the reasons for this explained.
· Recommendation 5 related to the working up of detailed proposals for sites to be taken forward as part of Phase 2. The proposed governance arrangements, for achieving such were set out in figure 1 of the report. There was a commitment to appraise, via “agreed viability test” by October a number of further sites and these were again outlined clearly to Members.
In concluding her presentation the Executive Director of Commercial and Economic Growth, outlined to Members the next stages of the process and an indicative timeline should Members be minded to approve the proposals put forward for consideration.
The Executive Director of Resources then addressed Committee and firstly thanked all Officers involved for their work on the Project. For the avoidance of doubt, he provided Members with further clarification on: -
· the funding from the Council which would need to be released for Phase 1 schemes and how this would be used if Members agreed the proposals
· the potential financing options which would be considered within the delegation afforded (if agreed)
· the level of capped returns being offered; and
· the proposed terms of any financing arrangements
Debate ensued and Members asked a number of pertinent questions and sought assurance on a number of matters. In response Officers advised the leasing arrangements being proposed included no break clauses and as such the potential risks identified by Members had been mitigated or transferred as far as practicable.
The Council would be the custodian of the development and there would be no day to day involvement at a management level, from the successful bidder. However they would be answerable to the Authority for the duration of the Partnership
In response to Members comments, the various initiatives underway to support the town centre were outlined to the Committee, together with details of ongoing negotiations relevant to the town centre but outside of the proposals presented for consideration.
It was confirmed key green spaces would be enhanced not developed and the agreed proposal would need to enhance and enrich the heritage element of Gainsborough.
Members were again reassured that if as a result of the negotiations the agreement materially changed from the proposal in table 5 a further report would be presented to the Committee for a decision.
It was proposed and seconded that a minor amendment be made to recommendation 1 for the Prosperous Communities Committee.
Having being moved and seconded the Prosperous Communities Committee’s recommendation as amended was put to the vote.
Following an alphabetical roll call, with a total of 8 votes cast in favour and 2 abstentions it was: -
RESOLVED that recommendation 1, relevant to the Prosperous Communities Committee, as detailed within the report, and amended through the course of the debate be approved.
In light of the information provided by Officers, a revision to recommendation 4, relevant to the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee and as detailed within the report, was proposed by Chairman, which included the addition of consultation with relevant Policy Committee Chairmen and further clarification regarding the level of funds being committed, including the establishment of a capital budget and a drawn down from the Investment for Growth Earmarked reserve”
The proposed amendment was duly seconded and on having been put to the vote was accepted.
The recommendations for the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee, as amended above were then moved, seconded and put to the vote en-bloc.
Again following an alphabetical roll call, with a total of 9 votes cast in favour and 1 abstention it was
RESOLVED that recommendations 2 – 5, relevant to the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee, as detailed within the report, and amended through the course of the debate be approved.
Members thanked Officers for the work to date in delivering the Project.