Dear Editor
PLEASE refer to article captioned Controversy surrounds 7.7million allocated for works to West Ruimveldt ground, published in the June 9, 2019 edition of your Newspapers.
As we ruminate on the matter concerning the West Ruimveldt ground, it has become imperative that the inaccuracies contained in this missive be corrected. First, the caption Controversy surrounds 7.7 million dollars allocated for works on the West Ruimveldt ground. This caption is not only erroneous but also misleading. As far as the Georgetown City Council is aware, there is no controversy surrounding the works being done at this location or any other City-managed project.
Editor, please permit me to briefly recall the history of this project to provide clarity; the sum of 7.7 million dollars was allocated by the Ministry of Communities for the rehabilitation of the West Ruimveldt Community grounds which included repairs to fence and resurfacing of the ground. The project also entailed repairs to two bridges in the community contiguous to the West Ruimveldt area. These were based on proposals submitted by Councillor Trichria Richards, one of the Councillors for constituency #13; the focus of the project is to restore and rehabilitate the recreational facility for use by youths in the community.
It must be noted the tender process initiated was consistent with procurement policy, which states that three quotations should be submitted to the finance committee of which the committee selected the most suitable tender.
The article stated that a contractor was paid and the ground was left half-done, this is far from the truth of the matter, since the City Engineer’s Department has assigned an officer who oversees the project and submits reports as the projects progress.
In addition, a project of this nature is done in several phases, each phase is examined to determine if the contractor adheres to the contractual agreement specified. Also, the engineer inspects to ensure that the quality of work delivered is consistent with the scope of work articulated in the contractual agreement.
Once the engineer is satisfied with the works done by the contractor, he informs the City Treasure by way of a written report. The engineer is the one who recommends payment to the contractors based on his inspection, it must be noted that at no point in time are Councillors involved in the payments of monies to any contractors; we want to make this pellucid. All monies assigned to projects are paid through the City Treasurer’s Department; the authorized section as prescribed by law to receive and make payments on behalf of the Council. The Municipal and District Council Act Chapter 28:1 section 78(1) states that The Treasurer shall be the Chief Finance Officer of the Council of which he is the Treasurer and shall be primarily charged with the responsibility for all matters of finance and accounts of the Council.
Also, there is a clause in the agreement which holds the contractor accountable if he deviates from the signed agreement. Due to the inclement weather condition and the nature of the soil, the contractor is unable to proceed with the works at this time, this is based on the recommendations of the City Engineer assigned to the project, who is the professional in this area and provides the necessary advice and guidance.
It must be noted that this incumbent, the Mayor and Councillors of the City of Georgetown, seeks to uphold, reiterates its focus on principles, transparency, and accountability at every level and on every project. Therefore, the suggestion made in this missive that the project is controversial, is misleading.
Debra Lewis
Public Relations Officer
