6 May 2024

Question posed by Antonia Afonso

The quality of the drinking water in Mühlenbach is perpetually unsatisfactory. Every morning, you need to let the faucet run for at least five minutes before you can use the water. This is clearly a waste of this precious natural resource and a waste of money.

Residents are therefore facing two problems:

(1) unsatisfactory water quality, with potential repercussions on their health;

(2) waste that residents surely don't want.

How do you intend to resolve this problem?

Response provided by Simone Beissel

The drinking water that is distributed in Luxembourg City's 11 supply zones meets the quality standards set by the law of 23 December 2022 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (loi du 23 décembre 2022 relative à la qualité de l'eau destinée à la consommation humaine). To ensure that these standards are met, the City performs weekly analyses, above and beyond the legal requirements. The results are published monthly on the City of Luxembourg website, www.vdl.lu.

We have learned from experience that when drinking water has an unpleasant taste or is cloudy, it is most likely due to a problem with the plumbing in the specific home. The problem is often caused by corrosion in old water distribution lines. The fact that the water becomes clearer and its taste improves after a few minutes proves that the quality of the drinking water supplied by the City of Luxembourg is good.

If a problem like this arises, residents can phone or email the City's Service Eaux (Water Department), which will send workers to the home to look for the cause of the problem and fix it as best they can.

Question posed by Maxime Miltgen

Forest cemeteries are becoming increasingly popular, and we should be delighted that Luxembourg City was the second municipality in the country to create one, which it did in 2014 in Cessange.

However, there is a long-standing problem we still haven't solved: access to the forest cemetery by car. The paths leading to the forest cemetery are either off limits to cars or unsuitable for motor traffic. As a result, a sign reading "All traffic prohibited" (except bikes) was placed on the path that starts from the CR178 road between Cessange and Schléiwenhaff.

The poor accessibility and lack of parking options are a major problem for people with disabilities and the elderly, and when there are large funerals. Motorists must then park in the neighbouring fields.

On 1 November 2022, Mayor Lydie Polfer commented on this topic in "L'Essentiel", saying: "If the event is small, then there is no problem [...] but there have been funerals with several hundred guests. The problem is that to get out, vehicles need to go back along the same small road as the one they took to get in. [...] I have reached out to the National Roads Administration (Administration des ponts et chaussées) to see if it would be possible to gain direct access via a path that is currently closed."

How did the National Roads Administration respond? Will it be possible to use this path in the near future? If not, how will the problem of access and parking be resolved during large events?

Response provided by Patrick Goldschmidt

There are two access roads, via the CR178 and CR179 (Rue de Cessange), but the CR179 is farther away, so in practice the only viable option is the CR178. Because it is hard for two cars to pass each other, we talked to the National Roads Administration about the possibility of using an existing path that is used for maintenance work near the motorway, in order to create a loop allowing motorists to leave the forest cemetery area using a one-way road. Having obtained the National Roads Administration's agreement in principle, we suggested paving the country road and cordoning it off from the motorway with a fence, all at the City of Luxembourg's expense. Since we have yet to receive a response to a letter on this matter dated 28 September 2023, we will follow up with the National Roads Administration. We would like to sign an occupancy agreement that stipulates, among other things, that the agreement will be terminated if the zone in question is required for the needs of the motorway.

Question posed by Tom Weidig

During the Municipal Council meeting of 11 December 2023, the members of the Municipal Advisory Committee on Intercultural Living Together (Commission consultative du vivre ensemble interculturel) were appointed in closed session. We know some foreign residents who had applied to be on this committee, and we would like to know why they weren't chosen, but Luxembourgers were.

In the interests of transparency and equity in the democratic process, I have several questions: How many people came forward – that is, how many applications were there? What were the selection criteria? Is all of this documented? Were the political parties asked for their input? Can you confirm that déi Gréng was contacted but ADR was not? Does the College of Aldermen intend to formulate criteria that are completely transparent and fair, such as the appointment of candidates at random, or an election among the candidates?

Response provided by Corinne Cahen

There were 115 applications for the Municipal Advisory Committee on Intercultural Living Together, which, in accordance with current laws, replaced the former Integration Committee.

The candidates were selected based on the City's internal rules and regulations. We worked to make sure that the committee would be diverse in terms of profession, age, gender and origin – and I want to stress that Luxembourgers are also part of that. We also made sure to choose people who are very involved in advancing social cohesion. Serving on this committee is not meant to be prestigious – it entails real volunteer work.

Since I don't know everyone personally, I did contact a member of the Greens and a member of the LSAP to ask if they knew of anyone among the 115 candidates who was particularly involved in advancing social cohesion. It is true that I didn't call ADR at that time. As for the criteria, the selection was made transparently and based on the City's internal rules and regulations, with input from Alderman Maurice Bauer and City of Luxembourg staff members who work in this area.

So far the committee has met three times, and I can tell you that they are very enthusiastic. The members are champing at the bit to get involved. During the Festival of Migrations, the booth was staffed constantly by volunteers. We want to promote social cohesion, regardless of residents' origins and nationalities, to show the rest of the world that it works well here, even if 72% of residents are not Luxembourg nationals.

Question posed by François Benoy

I asked this question in early February after I had noticed that the Morris advertising columns publicising cultural events in the capital were empty, or had even been taken down. I looked into the matter and learned that the contract between the City of Luxembourg and JCDecaux for the operation of 81 Morris advertising columns in the city was due to expire in March 2024, after a 10-year term.

Can the College of Aldermen confirm that this contract has expired? What were the main provisions of this contract – especially regarding the price, content and location of the columns?

The right to operate the advertising columns was granted in consideration of a fee calculated based on revenue. How much did the City earn and spend during the term of this contract?

What is the City's assessment regarding advertisements for cultural events over the last 10 years?

What is the next step? Will the College of Aldermen continue to invest in traditional advertising columns – and has a call for tenders been issued for that purpose? – or does it plan to use other methods? According to press reports, discussions are underway about setting up digital advertising columns. If this is true, we must take into account the issue of light pollution, as there are already many other sources of nuisance that have an impact on people.

Due to their unusual format and high price – several thousand euros per week – the advertising columns were expensive for many cultural players in Luxembourg City. Does the College of Aldermen agree that if there is a new call for tenders for the advertising columns, they should be affordable for all cultural players in the city, including non-profits?

The current regulation on public posting dates back to 22 February 1965 and, apparently, the list in the appendix is outdated. Does the College of Aldermen intend to update these documents?

Response provided by Lydie Polfer

The contract with JCDecaux expired on 31 December 2023 and, since then, all of the advertising columns have been removed. Initially, 81 columns were planned, but only 49 were installed because we felt that the other locations that had been proposed were less strategic.

The advertising columns were intended mainly for cultural events. The content of the posters was not always in keeping with our vision of cultural events that are connected to Luxembourg City and merit our support. That is why we decided not to renew the contract.

The City of Luxembourg received an annual fee of €16,000 during the term of the contract. However, it is true that the requested prices were very high. As a result, it was often large foreign cultural entities that used the columns to advertise their events, which was not what the columns were intended for.

Our Service Communication et relations publiques (Communications and Public Relations Department) is currently working on a pilot project with the Service TIC (ITC Department). Increasing digitalisation is the trend. With this in mind, we plan to revamp the Reider displays in the different districts, which will also enable us to advertise non-profits' cultural events electronically. This pilot project will be rolled out initially in two of the city's larger districts.

Question posed by François Benoy

Regarding the €16,000 annual payment that the City received, was this the fee per column, or for all of the advertising columns installed in the capital? When will the pilot project begin? Where do things stand with the regulation of 22 February 1965 on public posting (règlement concernant l'affichage public du 22 février 1965)?

Response provided by Lydie Polfer

The €16,000 was to the total amount per year. No specific timeline has been set yet. As for the regulation on public posting, some of the provisions are set out, in part, in the building regulations (règlement sur les bâtisses), and others in the General Regulations on Public Order and Safety (Règlement général de police). Public posters cannot be put up without the Mayor's authorisation.

Question posed by François Benoy

The regulation of 22 February 1965 on public posting, which can be found on the City's website, should be revised.

Response provided by Lydie Polfer

We will look into that matter.

Question posed by François Benoy

In 2021, the "ZUG" (Zentrum fir urban Gerechtegkeet) citizens' group conducted a study on the pedestrian crossings in Luxembourg City and concluded that 27% of them were dangerous and did not comply with the traffic code (Code de la route). As far back as 2015, an audit found that pedestrian visibility was inadequate in the area around almost half of all pedestrian crossings – 154 out of 309.

At the Municipal Council meeting of 15 November 2021, in response to a question I had previously asked about this matter, the Alderman for Mobility said that "[ZUG's] approach is not the same as that of our Service Circulation (Traffic Department). Its study of all the pedestrian crossings found that only 32 of the 475 pedestrian crossings in question needed to be inspected more closely, while the others were in compliance." Six months later, on 2 May 2022, Mayor Lydie Polfer announced, "We will make improvements where we can."

Is the City of Luxembourg's study of the pedestrian crossings done? Were the 37 pedestrian crossings that the City found to be non-compliant upgraded to comply with the provisions of the traffic code? Have improvements also been made on other pedestrian crossings? Were the provisions of the traffic code adhered to when new pedestrian crossings were created? Has the City consulted with the Ministry of Mobility (Ministère de la Mobilité) in order to enforce new guidelines, other than those that date back to 2008? The dispute between the City of Luxembourg and ZUG on the publication of the City's study is ongoing. Why is the College of Aldermen still refusing to publish this study? The aldermen's mission statement doesn't say anything about the College of Aldermen's policies on transparency. What is the College of Aldermen's position on this matter? Was the announced mobility plan published in its entirety, with all of the analyses and all of the preparatory work?

Response provided by Patrick Goldschmidt

The study was completed a while ago. Our departments re-examined all of the pedestrian crossings in the city and made the necessary improvements. As for the number, nothing has changed. The position we took three years ago has not changed either. We continue to interpret the traffic code as saying that the distance of 5 metres between a pedestrian crossing and a parking space must be enforced only in the direction that traffic is travelling to ensure pedestrian safety. This is in keeping with a verbal agreement with the Ministry of Mobility. There is an exception to this principle in the vicinity of schools, where we enforce a distance of 5 metres on both sides of the pedestrian crossings in both the direction of traffic and the opposite direction.

As for the legal proceedings on the publication of the study by our relevant department, the pleadings have been scheduled for September 2024.

An in-depth discussion on transparency would take longer than the time we have allotted for questions. In any case, I would like to make it clear that the College of Aldermen has nothing to hide when it comes to transparency. We reach out to residents whenever we can. We present projects to them and encourage them to get involved – be they for new playgrounds, new buildings, or the mobility plan.

Question posed by Nathalie Oberweis

A few months ago, the kitchen serving City-operated crèches was closed due to a technical problem. Since then, meals served at crèches have been provided by the company Sodexo. However, the City's website still says that the meals are prepared in the City's kitchen in Rue de Chicago, with input from a dietician to ensure that they are nutritious.

Is this unfortunate situation only temporary? What is the term of the contract entered into with Sodexo? What medium- and long-term solutions are being considered? Doesn't the City think that it should invest in a kitchen like the one that existed before, for the sake of children's health? What will happen to the staff who used to work in the kitchen that is now closed?

Response provided by Paul Galles

The kitchen in Rue de Chicago, which supplied five of the seven crèches managed by the City of Luxembourg, had to be closed in October 2023 due to a technical problem. We initially thought that the problem could be resolved in eight weeks, but the geopolitical and financial situation made it hard to get the replacement parts we needed. We therefore decided to seek assistance from Sodexo.

We care deeply about the staff issue. There are three chefs, a chef in training and a deliveryperson. There was a temporary supply of manpower to Sodexo, with these people keeping their salaries, benefits and status as City of Luxembourg employees, in accordance with the Luxembourg Labour Code (Code du travail).

One of the chefs was tasked with carrying out an inventory of the kitchen in Rue de Chicago and preparing for its closure. We did indeed find that repairing the kitchen would be much more difficult and expensive than it had seemed at first. To find a long-term solution, after closely analysing the pros and cons, the College of Aldermen decided in December 2023 not to repair the kitchen and, instead, issue a call for tenders for the provision of meals, which would be delivered cold and then "regenerated" in the different crèches.

The public call for tenders stipulates a 10-year term for the contract. Of the four companies that responded to the call for tenders, Sodexo submitted the bid that was the best value for the money (the weighting was 70% for the qualitative assessment and 30% for the financial assessment). The contract was awarded to Sodexo on 26 February 2024, and Sodexo started providing meals on 15 April. The meals are prepared at the "Konviktsgaart", where Sodexo already cooks meals for the City of Luxembourg.

As for the quality of the meals, we are working with nutritionists from the company Signa Consulting. We have worked with this company over the last few years. The "Infant Feeding" guide published by the Ministry of Health (Ministère de la Santé) and the National Action Plan for the Promotion of Organic Agriculture (PAN-Bio 2025) are among the resources we draw on. Great care is taken to ensure that the meals contain the proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins and so that they should.

The temporary supply of manpower will end by 31 October 2024 at the latest. The City of Luxembourg will reassign the employees in question to new positions, so there will be no issue there.

As for the website, the content will be updated accordingly.

Question posed by Nathalie Oberweis

What is the City doing to ensure that Sodexo heeds the consulting firm's recommendations?

Response provided by Paul Galles

The City is Sodexo's customer, which means that we tell Sodexo what we have agreed upon with the consulting firm, and Sodexo must meet these requirements.

Question posed by Pascal Clement

Since 15 April 2024, the City of Luxembourg's municipal officers have been able to exercise their extended powers and book 17 violations of the General Regulations on Public Order and Safety in the capital. According to the information I have, four municipal officers are also authorised to book other violations of the General Regulations on Public Order and Safety.

The announced outreach campaign does not seem to have affected residents' behaviour. Exactly what actions did the outreach campaign involve?

In response to my request, I received a digital copy of the leaflet on 14 February 2024, and was told that it would be distributed starting on 19 February. However, no one I know has received this leaflet yet. Was there a problem with the distribution? To whom and where was it distributed?

Even though it was announced – during the discussion on the prohibition of begging – that the leaflet would be sent to the Municipal Councillors, it wasn't until 24 April 2024 – i.e. the day after I asked the question again – that a digital copy was emailed to them. Why didn't the Municipal Councillors receive a copy of the leaflet before 15 April?

Since 15 April, I haven't seen any changes in people's behaviour – for example, regarding taking out bins. What early feedback has come in?

Another suggestion: don't you think it would be a good idea to extend the municipal officers' powers even further to include the provisions of Article 7.1 of the General Regulations on Public Order and Safety ("It is prohibited to soil public spaces and thoroughfares and, subject to the provisions of the regulations on waste, to discard, leave or otherwise dispose of any objects whatsoever in these areas")? This would also empower them to book offences on discarding paper, cigarettes and chewing gum.

Response provided by Lydie Polfer

I'd like to start with your last question. The four employees who completed the special training and who were sworn in by the district court in February can book these offences.

The outreach campaign did take place. We haven't received any negative feedback. When Councillor Clement asked his question in February 2024, I told him what we were doing. We will make sure that in the future, all leaflets published by the City are available in hard copy in the lobby of Luxembourg City Hall.

The municipal officers had the leaflets distributed by giving them to business and restaurant owners, and to people who had violated a provision of the General Regulations on Public Order and Safety.

It goes without saying that life doesn't become perfect overnight simply because there is a new regulation. Councillor Clement is therefore correct when he points out that people are not yet abiding by all of the provisions.

To date, five administrative fines have been issued. Three of them were for unauthorised obstruction of a public thoroughfare, such as by trucks during a move. In the other two cases, the people in question had failed to apply for a permit for business activity in public spaces.

Offenders can either pay a one-time fee of €25 immediately, or dispute the offence. In the second scenario – which has happened only once so far – the case is forwarded to the civil servant responsible for fines at the Ministry of Home Affairs (Ministère des Affaires intérieures), who can either cancel the fine, or issue an administrative fine of €25 to €250.

Question posed by Pascal Clement

Am I right in understanding that the leaflet was distributed by the municipal officers, and not sent to all households? So doesn't this mean that it is entirely possible that the residents of the neighbouring municipalities have never seen the leaflet?

Response provided by Lydie Polfer

The leaflet is posted on the City of Luxembourg website, www.vdl.lu. We've often said during Municipal Council meetings that we need to try not to distribute paper copies of every document. So no, this leaflet was not sent to every household's mailbox. This topic has come up often in Municipal Council meetings, plus there have been good in-depth articles about it in all of the newspapers and, as I just said, the leaflet is posted on our website.