Psg milan, 6th of july 2007

3.4PSG session

Plenary session
Attendance:

PSG Position	Organisation
Lyon Representative	Grand Lyon (F)
Lyon Representative	Hespul (F)
Lyon Representative	SEM Lyon confluence (F)
Zaragoza Representative	Ayto-Zaragoza (E)
Zaragoza Representative	SMRUZ (E)
Zaragoza Representative (MISSING)	EVZ (E)/ MISSING
Lombardy Representative	Region Lombardy (I)

Chair: European coordination Assistant (Hespul, Raphaelle Gauthier)

PSG members per se

+ all other participants, as observers

See Milano_PSG items_6July2007_V2.ppt.

To be download from Renaissance website->Partner resources->Milano 3^rd PSG Meeting -> Minutes of the PSG Discussions

3.4.1State of progress under WP0.1

Hespul, Raphaelle Gauthier

Brief presentation of what have been done under the international coordination, since Zaragoza PSG’s Meeting (late October 2006)

New European coordination:

• 
  Legal transfer of the European Coordination to Grand Lyon (18/10/2006)
  
• 
  Led by Hespul, as assistant of Grand Lyon (Jan. 2007)
  

Delivery of Annual Reports- Year 1

• 
  BFBC’s Follow-up (review & verification of Annual Report by Hespul)
  
• 
  Annual Reports Year 1’s Delivery to DG TREN by Hespul (19th June 2007)
  

Amendment n°1 of the contract

• 
  Launch & review process, in collaboration with DG TREN & all partners
  
  • 
    Signature of Amendment n°1 by DG TREN/Grand Lyon (effect: 11th April 2007)
    
  • 
    Launch of the 1st Pre-financing process & update on payment modalities for EC Contributions (including Year1 Reports’ procedure of validation)
    

Consortium Agreement- final draft

• 
  Review & Amendement of the Consortium Agreement- version 2- and agreement of both Lyon and Zaragoza local communities. Wait for Lombardia’s agreement to finalise that process amongst the whole RENAISSANCE partners.
  

Preparation of Milano PSG

• 
  In collaboration with the 3 local coordinators. Thanks to Lombardia for the whole logistic.
  

3.4.2Management issues

Hespul, Raphaelle Gauthier
As a preliminary remark, it has been stressed that all partners are invited to contact Hespul (RG) when questions rose about the implementation of the project (as, for instance, reporting issues, eligible costs, performance guarantees, assessment of performance against contract objectives, etc.). Then, the European coordination will get in touch with DG TREN services to get clarification, if necessary, and get back to the partners as soon as possible.

3.4.2.1Financial Issues

Hespul, Raphaelle Gauthier
Hespul gave some clarification about the financial aspect of the Project, since the signature of the Amendment n°1 of the contract. In particular, it explained what should be the next steps before DG TREN to get both, the first pre-funding payment and the validation process on Year 1 Reports. The 1^st pre-funding should occur quite soon for public entities & ECODES. The other private entities should only get their EC contributions after the full validation of Year 1 Reports. Unfortunately, this latter procedure (validation) might take longer. Hespul emphasised that it is doing its best to speed up that procedure, in order to get ASAP the full payment for all.

Apart from this, Hespul highlighted the fact that there is now a new contractual special clause (clause 39) in the contract following its Amendment n°1, that gives some flexibility about the submission of Audit Certificate by contractors if EC contribution is less than 150 000 Euros (possible & temporary exemption to deliver an Audit Certificate).

Observations/Remarks from partners:
- On financial issues:
SMRUZ, Juan Rubio del Val

On financial issues, SMRUZ expressed their concerns about the lack of funding, and the extraordinary delays that have been registered since the official launch of RENAISSANCE. He encouraged the International coordination to speed up DG TREN services, in order to get the EC contributions, for the sake of the proper implementation of the project.

- On WP4 (partnership proposal):

Ayto. Zaragoza, Astrid García Graells

Following the discussions under WP4, the Ayto. Zaragoza made a proposal to Lyon Consortium. Zaragoza Consortium was thinking of building a partnership involving the occupants of the 2 building areas covered by RENAISSANCE.
Hespul, Marc Jedliczka, answered that, taking into account the construction schedule in Lyon, this idea might be premature, just because there are no habitants in Confluence (Lyon) by now, and not before 2009.

Due to the lack of time to discuss this idea in details, it has been decided to incorporate that item in the next PSG in Lyon.

3.4.2.2Management structure of RENAISSANCE

• European overview on renaissance’s management

The basis of the table below has been prepared by referring to 3 main documents, which have been discussed and validated amongst Renaissance’s Partners, i.e.:

1) The minutes from the Lyon’s PSG, 16^th of May 2006 (for the distribution of leadership, under WP1)

2) the work package list (18 months period), p.106 of the amended Annex 1

3) The terms validated under the Consortium Agreement, reviewed in April 2007, section 5.2, “the project Steering Group”.
Additionally, during the 6^th July 2007, there have been some discussions that allowed clarifying certain issues of local leadership.

The table below is now showing the final structure of leadership amongst Renaissance actors at the European scale.

	Renaissance European Leader
WP	Who?
WP0	Grand Lyon (+ Hespul)
WP0.1	Hespul (+ Grand Lyon)
WP0.2	See local coordination
WP1	INSA-CETHIL
WP1.1	Grand Lyon
WP1.2	INSA-CETHIL
WP1.3	Lom
WP1.4	URBIC
WP1.5	ECODES
WP2	UdZ
WP2.1	See Local level, i.e. UdZ +Hespul
WP2.2	UdZ
WP2.3	See Local level, i.e. UdZ +INSA
WP3	See local level (no European coordination)
WP3.2.1 (RUE)	SEM Lyon confluence
WP3.2.2 (RES)	SEM Lyon confluence
WP3.3.1 (RUE)	SMRUZ/EVZ
WP3.3.2 (RES)	SMRUZ/EVZ
WP4	Hespul
WP4.1	See Local level
WP4.2	See Local level
WP5	Ayto. Zaragoza
WP5.1	See Local level
WP5.2	See Local level

• Local overview on Renaissance Management

The basis of the table below has been prepared by referring to the terms validated under the Consortium Agreement, reviewed in April 2007, under section 5.4 “Community Steering Groups”, and also to different documents that came from CSG discussions from both local communities, i.e., Lyon (see Minutes from Lyon’s CSG of 27^th April 2007) and Zaragoza (see Documento Resumen, dated 13^th February 2007).
Additionally, during the 6^th July 2007, there have been some discussions that allowed clarifying certain issues of local leadership. The table below is now showing the structure of local leadership (for WP and sub-WP) amongst Renaissance partners.

	Local consortium Leader
WP	Lyon Cons.	Zaragoza Cons.	Lombardia Cons.
WP0	Grand Lyon (+ Hespul)	Ayto Zaragoza (+ UB)	LOM
WP0.1	Hespul (+ Grand Lyon)	x	x
WP0.2	Grand Lyon (+ Hespul)	Ayto Zaragoza (+ UB)	LOM
WP1	INSA CETHIL	UdZ	LOM
WP1.1	Grand Lyon	ECODES	x
WP1.2	INSA-CETHIL	UdZ	x
WP1.3	ALE	Urbic	LOM
WP1.4	SEM	Urbic	LOM
WP1.5	Hespul	ECODES	LOM
WP2	Enertech	UdZ	x
WP2.1	Hespul	UdZ	x
WP2.2	Enertech	UdZ	x
WP2.3	INSA-Cethil	UdZ	x
WP3	SEM Lyon confluence	SMRUZ	x
WP3.2.1 (RUE)	SEM Lyon confluence	x	x
WP3.2.2 (RES)	SEM Lyon confluence	x	x
WP3.3.1 (RUE)	x	SMRUZ/EVZ	x
WP3.3.2 (RES)	x	SMRUZ/EVZ	x
WP4	HESPUL	Ayto. Zaragoza	LOM
WP4.1	Grand Lyon	Ayto. Zaragoza	LOM
WP4.2	Hespul	Ayto. Zaragoza	LOM
WP5	ALE	Ayto. Zaragoza	LOM
WP5.1	ALE	Ayto. Zaragoza	LOM
WP5.2	ALE	Ayto. Zaragoza	LOM

3.4.2.3Proposal of UB withdrawal

Mike Barker, University of Barcelona, explained why UB would have to withdraw by the end of Year2. (See letter in the Annex).

UB’s Proposal: to transfer to ECODES the task of assistant of Zaragoza local coordination from Year3 period.
PSG Decision: thanks to Mike (UB) for his fantastic work & approval of UB withdraw & proposal.