May, 10th 2010
"Iridium, operating through its subsidiary ACS Infrastructure Canada, and the Canadian company Ledcor have been chosen by the province of British Columbia in Canada for exclusive negotiation of the contract to finance, build and operate a brand new, 40-kilometer freeway in the area south of Vancouver.
Construction is slated to last 45 months and will be followed by
20 years of operation and maintenance.
The South Fraser Perimeter Road is a key component of British Columbia’s Gateway Program for the development of the region south of Vancouver and enjoys considerable political support at both the provincial and federal levels.
This is the second time that a proposal by Iridium has been selected as the “best offer” in Canada and the fifth overall in North America in just four years of activity in the region."
************************************************************
ACS closes soft miniperm for South Fraser Perimeter
August 14 2010
"The ACS Infrastructure-led Fraser Transportation Group closed on the C$200 million (($192 million) private financing for the South Fraser Perimeter PPP concession near Vancouver on 12 August. The bank financing is the longest tenor for a PPP in British Columbia since the Surrey and Kelowna Vernon hospital projects in August 2008. The 30-year debt is, however, structured as a soft miniperm, ....."
*****************************************************************************
But let's not forget the first "miniperm" that was stopped by the voters of British Columbian,
The fine print along the bottom says: In May 2003 (remember the BC Rail deal was going down) it was announced that the operation and maintenance of the Coquihalla Highway, a 186km highway through British Columbia's southern interior, together with its toll revenue, would be turned over to a private operator under a
55-year...... "
Toll revenue, would that have been a double dip toll, one up front, one but a shadow of itself. Is this why the BC Liberal were pushing so hard for sale of ....ooooops..... lease of the Coquihalla?
UPDATE: **********************************************
Briefing note Presented by The Canadian Union of Public Employees BC Division
Barry O’Neill, President January 2010
"Accountants and academic writers have reached the same conclusion in BC, where the same methodological approach is used for public private partnerships.
Unfortunately, while Partnerships BC’s methodology is now public, the details of how it reaches its conclusions are not released. While net present value figures are released the critical comparative nominal cash flows used in their comparisons has been kept secret using the Cabinet secrecy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In many cases details of the value of risk transfer have not been released. In their review of four P3 projects forensic auditors Ron Parks and Rosanne Terhart found that:
Critical information and documentation in support of the Value for Money reports was for the most part denied in response to Freedom of Information requests. In our view this suggests a general lack of transparency and public accountability.37
This is of particular concern given that the same agency identifies possible P3 projects, advises government on whether or not the process should be used and then evaluates their “success” through value for money reports.
British Columbians over the last seven years have been locked into $10 billion worth of public private partnerships in contracts as long as 35 years. There has been no independent analysis of individual projects, or of the methodology used including the potential conflict of interest on the part of Partnerships BC.
In British Columbia, as in Quebec and Ontario, only the Auditor General has the ability to require that information be made available to him so that he may analyze and comment on value for money received by citizens.
We believe independent analysis by the Office of the Auditor General will find that public private partnerships in British Columbia use the same methodology as that used in other offices and suffer from the same flaws found by other Auditors General."
Source: http://scfp.ca/updir/AG_brief_2010_ver_3web-0.pdf