Well, those press rumours were true ... 2 hours after the first call from a journalist, Officers had the decency to confirm the meeting was being called, quickly followed by the brief e-mail and News Release that follow:
---
22.54hrs, 29th August 2011
Please find attached the agenda for the special meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council called by the Lord Provost, under Standing Order 6, to consider the 'Edinburgh Tram Project - Funding Arrangements'. The meeting will take place at 10 am on Friday 2 September 2011 in the City Chambers. Please note the report is marked 'to follow'.
---
Date 29/August/2011 (22.55hrs)
Status For Immediate Release
Statement: trams to be discussed at special Council meeting
The City of Edinburgh Council has today given notice of a special meeting of the Council which has been called by the Lord Provost, to be held on Friday 2 September at 10.00am. The meeting is to discuss the funding arrangements for the Edinburgh Tram Project to enable Council officers to implement the arrangements required by the Council decision of 25 August 2011.
The Council is currently legally committed to a contract to build the tram line to Newhaven and negotiations have been ongoing since mediation to amend the contract to deliver a truncated line as far as St. Andrew Square, as approved by Council on 30 June 2011.
The Council Chief Executive has met with senior representatives of Bilfinger Berger UK (Civil) and Siemens. On behalf of the consortium they have acknowledged the Council’s position as a result of last week’s decision and advised that they will respond to the Council formally before the 31 August deadline which was agreed by all parties at mediation.
The Council has also noted the public statement by the Scottish Government of its intention to review the business case for the shortened route to Haymarket and to consider its position with regard to the outstanding balance of £59.5m currently payable under the Council’s grant agreement with Transport Scotland and which is also due for renewal.
Ends
---
Serious questions do now need asked about why the information Councillors were given just a few days ago (as well as back in June) is apparently to be 'adjusted'?
12 comments:
Serious answers -
Incompetent or corrupt.
Perversely the first is worse.
Anonymous
Point noted.
Haven't seen any official "Council Report" for Friday's meeting yet, so still not clear exactly why information is now available that wasn't presented either last Thursday, or in June for that matter?
Andrew
Why can the council not enforce the contractor to build the full tram system to the original contract ?
Any misjudgements on project scale or geological obstacles are the responsiblity of the contractors. Are they not ?
That leaves the questions of -
- what design change have been made ?
- were they costed ?
- who authorised the additional expense ?
- by how much does the design changes affect the original contract ?
- who is responsible of any overruns on the utility moves ?
Who pays for the redesign of the shorter route if that has to stand ?
I really think the council needs to get a grip and hold the contractor to the original contract or the taxpayers will loose out to the tune of many hundreds of millions pounds. I dont think for one moment they would accept a shorter route lying down. Edinburgh Council is obligated by law to build the full tram line too. Is it not ?
I don't even understand what the proposed route is...
(1)Does it go along the coast from Newhaven to the airport; then take a loop inland from the airport to Haymarket?
(2)Or does it go from the airport to Haymarket, then through the town to Newhaven?
Well in the words of Victor Meldrew " I DONT BELIE.....VE IT"
GAME, SET and is it MATCH.
£30,000,000 to design and build a turning circle at Haymarket!!!! What shape is a circle again !!!!!?
Opps, Salmond has thrown his toy out of the pram now. Stopped the balance of £72,000,000 funding as off Wednesday.
Opps, if the council can decide on what they have decided by High Noon on Friday then the contractor will pull the plug and the council will have to PAY NOW a termination fee of £116,000,000
Then I suppose all hell breaks loose after that ! Unlimited Costs to the poor citizens of Edinburgh to clear up the mess.
Why should we pay this contractor any more money ?
It is time for you to get real. The Trams are Labours brainchild we all know this. Stop the petty polliticking and get a decision that makes sense. Trams to Haymarket are no good to anyone. Either scrap the whole thing or do the sensible now a fortune has been spent and get them to St Andrews sq. You have been given a second chance to make a sensible decision don't blow it again for political point scoring you and your fellow councillors of all varieties have already dragged Edinburgh through the mud. You have one last chance to get this right hope you have the sense to take it.
Anonymous 1
I accept those points, but have tried to respond on this in earlier posts/comments: in essence, there is an ongoing dispute between the contractor and the Council over responsibility and this is referenced in a lot of my posts, which should have links to numerous formal reports on trams that have been through the Council in recent years.
... if you search 'tram' in the top left box, you'll be able to see all my posts over the years on this topic.
Andrew
Anonymous 2
Route can be seen here:
http://www.edinburghtrams.com/
Anonymous 3
Points noted!
Andrew
Anonymous 4
Believe it or not - and I suspect you may not! - our primary objective last week was to attempt to protect the Edinburgh Tax Payer from a monumental debt impact over the next 30-years.
Anyhow, thanks for checking out the blog.
Andrew
It should be noted that allowing the contractor to build only part of the route for more that the original contract price for the full route could set a dangerous precidence for future large contacts.
Future contractors may consider quoting lower prices in the knowledge that they just need to dispute it once the contract is won and CEC would just roll over.
Just another reason for holding out for the full route. The contractor should be held to account for their part of the problem.
Anonymous
OK - your point is noted.
Andrew
Post a Comment