Agenda item

(A)       In terms of Standing Order 10(2), the Council received a deputation from Mr Mike Shepherd of Friends of Union Terrace Gardens.

 

Mr Shepherd questioned the items that were included in the cost estimate of £120-140million for the City Garden Project and how VAT would be recovered for expenditure on the project, then stated that the proposed funding formula to bridge the £70million gap could leave Aberdeen in debt for up to 25 years. Mr Shepherd highlighted that the Tax Increment Funding (TIF) sums depended on 22 new commercial projects being completed and fully rate paying within five years of the project having been completed and questioned the feasibility therein.

 

Mr Shepherd questioned whether the Council would cover any overspend associated with the project as an ACSEF representative speaking at a public meeting earlier in the year had asserted that any overspend would be picked up by the Council. Mr Shepherd drew comparison with the Edinburgh tram project, which left Edinburgh City Council having to borrow £55million to cover the cost of the project overspend and cautioned that Aberdeen City Council could find itself in a similar position. In Mr Shepherd’s opinion, the project was extremely risky and was effectively the privatisation of a Council park.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Shepherd and thanked him for his contribution.

 

            (B)       The Council then received a deputation from Mr Steven Bothwell.

 

Mr Bothwell called upon the Council to keep Union Terrace Gardens within its control by rejecting Sir Ian Wood’s offer and channelling any monies generated by initiatives such as TIF back into the communities of Aberdeen. Mr Bothwell emphasised the high quality of life within Aberdeen and the mix of activities that existed for its citizens, many of whom were against the City Garden Project, as had been demonstrated in the public consultation exercise.

 

Mr Bothwell underlined that there was no evidence of the economic benefit the proposed project would bring to the city and that establishing a Special Purpose Vehicle to progress the project was tantamount to selling off the family silver. Mr Bothwell intimated that the Council had been led up the garden path on this issue and that Sir Ian Wood’s offer of £50million was now being called an investment and no longer a gift to the city.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Bothwell and thanked him for his contribution.

 

            (C)       With reference to Article 13 of the minute of its meeting of 19^th May 2010, the Council had before it a report by the Chief Executive and Corporate Management Team which advised of the proposed next steps to ensure the delivery of the City Garden Project.

 

The report reminded members of the content of the report presented to Council on 19^th May 2010 and the subsequent decision. The report advised that various meetings had been held since 19^th May between ACSEF, the Wood Family Trust, Council officials, the Scottish Futures Trust and Scottish Enterprise to agree the next steps that needed to be taken in order to move the project forward.

 

The report then set out the 23 next steps in tabular form, with the responsible party or parties, start date, end date, status and budget, which included the establishment of a Project Management Board and Project Implementation Team.

 

The report explained that the Project Management Board would be a strategic decision making body during the initial phase of the project and would manage the whole process until the establishment of a Special Purpose Vehicle to take the project to completion. The proposed composition of the Project Management Board was as follows:-

• Aberdeen City Council Chairperson + 1 + advisers
• ACSEF + 2
• Wood Family Trust
• Scottish Enterprise
• Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce
• Aberdeen City Centre Association
• Owners’ representative
• Community representative
• Youth Council representative

 

The report stated that the Project Implementation Team would be established comprising representatives and officers from the project’s main sponsors. The Project Implementation Team would also be disbanded once a Special Purpose Vehicle was established to manage the planning and construction phases of the project. The proposed composition of the Project Implementation Team was as follows:-

• ACSEF Chairperson + 2
• Aberdeen City Council + 2
• Wood Family Trust
• Scottish Enterprise
• Creative Scotland
• Nestrans

 

The report went on to discuss the proposed management support structure, suggesting that administrative/secretarial support be provided by the Council. The report emphasised that the appointment of an external management company to manage all processes associated with the international design competition was regarded as an essential component of the management control structure.

 

In terms of immediate actions, in order to launch the international design competition as soon as possible, the report proposed that the Council issue the tender documentation in respect of the appointment of the Design Competition Management Company to run the competition, and the Communications and Community Engagement Company to provide the Project Management Board and Project Implementation Team with advice and assistance in these areas over the next three years. Immediate work would begin on a cash flow forecast for the first phase of the activity and the establishment of a suspense account through which to administer the project costs. The report stated that the cost of both contracts would be met from funds made available to the Project Management Board by the Wood Family Trust and the private sector via ACSEF.

 

The report acknowledged the position of Peacock Visual Arts not to take any part in the Union Terrace Gardens development and stated that the Council would continue to work with Peacock Visual Arts to support them where possible in securing a sustainable future.

 

The report appended a project planning schedule pertaining to the next steps that had been identified in relation to the project.

 

 

 

The report recommended:-

that the Council -

(a)              note the planned next steps as outlined in the report and instruct officers to expedite these in accordance with the proposed timetable;

(b)              note the suggested composition of the Project Management Board and ask the Chief Executive to determine who should be invited to become a member of this Board, in consultation with project partners and stakeholders;

(c)               give specific approval to the issuing of tender documentation relating to the selection of a Design Competition Management Company to run the international design competition on the understanding that the cost of this to the Council would be fully reimbursed from funds made available to the project by the Wood Family Trust and the private sector;

(d)              give specific approval to the issuing of tender documentation relating to the selection of a Communications and Community Engagement Company to provide the Project Management Board and Project Implementation Team with appropriate advice and assistance in these areas on the understanding that the cost of this to the Council would be fully reimbursed from funds made available to the project by the Wood Family Trust and the private sector;

(e)              nominate two representatives to sit on the Project Management Board;

(f)                 support the provision of administrative/secretarial support and senior officers to support the Project Management Board and Project Implementation Team; and

(g)              note that progress would be reported to Council quarterly.

 

Councillor John Stewart moved, seconded by Councillor Kevin Stewart:-

That the Council approve the recommendations contained within the report subject to the following amendments:-

(1)               to reduce the number of ACSEF places on the Project Management Board by one;

(2)               to instruct officers to submit a report on TIF to the next meeting of the Finance and Resources Committee, as well organising further briefings for elected members;

(3)               to instruct officers to submit a report to Council on 6^th October 2010 on the key decision gateways, including who would be involved in the shortlisting of the design proposals;

(4)               to agree to establish an elected member working group comprising seven members on a 2+2+1+1+1 basis;

(5)               to agree that Councillor John Stewart would chair the Project Management Board as Council Leader, with Councillor Kevin Stewart as the second Council member;

(6)               to delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Head of Finance and the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, to approve expenditure in relation to the project; and

(7)               to request that ACSEF report regularly to The Aberdeen City Alliance as their work was governed by the structure of community planning.

 

 

Councillor Greig moved as an amendment, seconded by Councillor Jennifer Stewart:-

            That the Council:-

(1)               note the proposed “next steps” on the future of the Council owned, public asset of Union Terrace Gardens as outlined in paragraph 6.6 of the report;

(2)               to identify the priorities for future use and improvements to the gardens, agree a “Project Management Board” comprising only members of Aberdeen City Council reflecting Council composition in the usual way, and an advisory consultative users group;

(3)               following current good examples of community involvement in Sunnybank Park and Duthie Park, explore community involvement to increase use of and access to the existing gardens as public recreational space;

(4)               agree a “Project Implementation Team” with majority Council involvement;

(5)               agree to the issuing of tender documentation to follow after Stage 2 of the TIF study and which will select a Design Competition Management Company to run an open and unrestricted design competition with the costs provided upfront to the Council by the Wood Family Trust and the private sector;

(6)               given that TIF is an unknown and high risk commercial undertaking, agree in advance of the design competition, a full report on TIF identifying and confirming the costs, funding sources, VAT liabilities, forecast growth rates in business tax revenue, loan costs, loan period, loan repayment and servicing arrangements. The report will also include a consideration of how TIF can benefit the Council’s capital programme;

(7)               given that TIF requires the Council to incur borrowing on behalf of development projects, agree that the Council will not be liable at any time in the future for any overspends in the City Garden Project or its successor projects;

(8)               agree to the issuing of tender documentation to select a Communications and Community Engagement Company to provide the Project Management Board and Project Implementation Team with appropriate advice and assistance in these areas, the costs to be provided to the Council by the Wood Family Trust and the private sector;

(9)               agree that all Council time, administrative, secretarial and professional expertise in implementation of the “next steps”, including work on the Project Management Board, Project Implementation Team, TIF study etc, will be itemised and the costs provided to the Council by the Wood Family Trust and the private sector; and

(10)          agree that progress will be reported to each Council meeting.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Crockett moved as a further amendment, seconded by Councillor Young:-

            That the Council take no further action.

 

In terms of Standing Order 12(9), the Council divided between the motion by Councillor John Stewart and the amendment by Councillor Crockett, as the latter implied mere negation of a decision.

 

On a division, there voted:-

 

For the motion by Councillor John Stewart  (25)  -  Lord Provost Peter Stephen; Depute Provost Dunbar; and Councillors Boulton, Clark, Corall, Cormack, Cormie, Dean, Donnelly, Farquharson, Fletcher, Kiddie, McCaig, McDonald, Malone, Milne, Noble, Penny, Reynolds, John Stewart, Kevin Stewart, Wendy Stuart, John West, Kirsty West and Wisely.

 

For the amendment by Councillor Crockett  (15)  -  Councillors Adam, Allan, Cassie, Collie, Cooney, Crockett, Graham, Greig, Hunter, Ironside, Jaffrey, Leslie, Jennifer Stewart, Young and Yuill.

 

Absent from the division  (1)  -  Councillor May.

 

The Council then divided between the motion by Councillor John Stewart and the amendment by Councillor Greig.

 

On a division, there voted:-

 

For the motion by Councillor John Stewart  (22)  -  Lord Provost Peter Stephen; Depute Provost Dunbar; and Councillors Clark, Corall, Cormack, Cormie, Dean, Donnelly, Fletcher, Kiddie, McCaig, McDonald, Malone, Milne, Noble, Penny, Reynolds, John Stewart, Kevin Stewart, John West, Kirsty West and Wisely.

 

For the amendment by Councillor Greig  (7)  -  Councillors Boulton, Farquharson, Greig, Jaffrey, Jennifer Stewart, Wendy Stuart and Yuill.

 

Declined to vote  (11)  -  Councillors Adam, Allan, Cassie, Collie, Cooney, Crockett, Graham, Hunter, Ironside, Leslie and Young.

 

Absent from the division  (1)  -  Councillor May.

 

The Council resolved:-

(i)                 to adopt the motion by Councillor John Stewart; and

(ii)               to instruct the Chief Executive to write to David Blackwood, ACSEF, reiterating that the Council would not cover any overspend in relation to the project, as he had apparently stated at a public meeting organised by Councillor Boulton.