City of Canning Minutes – SMRC RRRC WCF Odour Issue – 14 December 2010
4. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ AND OFFICERS’ INTERESTS
Declarations of Impartiality
Cr Elliott SRS-370-10 – Odour Register – Regional Resource Recovery Centre – Canning Vale
Nature of Interest: My daughter lives in the area affected by the odour.Cr Elliott SRS-369-10 – Minister for Environment Appeal Determination – Regional Resource Recovery Centre – Canning Vale
Nature of Interest: My daughter lives in the area affected by the odour.
Cr Elliott then sought a ruling on his interest in the above items and withdrew from the Council Chambers at 6.29pm.
MOVED Cr Mason, Seconded Cr Daly, that the interest declared by Cr Elliott in item
SRS-370-10 – Odour Register – Regional Resource Recovery Centre – Canning Vale and SRS-369-10 – Minister for Environment Appeal Determination – Regional Resources Recovery Centre – Canning Vale, is common to a significant number of electors or
ratepayers.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
5.1 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC GALLERY AT THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING ON 23 NOVEMBER 2010
Mr J Harding,
Question 5: On the subject of GST, and the fact there are recorded instances of manipulation of the GST within the City of Stirling. I refer to the SMRC payment of $509,236.43, GST inclusive, as recorded on page 10 of 12 October Minutes, re: loan payment and interest amounts, and are normally, GST exempt.
(a) Why has City been charged GST, and why would City Officers pay the GST?
(b) What are the breakdown amounts and GST amounts of the payment of the $509,000?
(c) Why is that amount 30.244% of the SMRC claim of $1,638,751.84. I understand that the Council’s responsibility is about 29%.
(d) Is there any reason the payment was not fully detailed in Officer’s answer to a Councillor question?
(e) Which Officer initiated and which Officer authorised that payment, and considering the current legal dispute with the SMRC, why didn’t the Officers choose to contra the payment, a proven business tactic with such issues, or seek Chief Executive Officer, Mayoral, or Council approval, prior to making the payment?
(f) Will City seek a refund from SMRC, for any overpayment or wrong payment?
(g) Is it normal procedure to process payments without Chief Executive Officer, Mayoral approval:
(i) With a payment of that value, and
(ii) Where a continuing legal dispute with Creditor is in progress Mr Mayor, the 4 Underground Power projects proposed by the City have all included large numbers of properties, already with Underground Power, and City and Western Power staff would have known that fact, yet costings for non-existent work, was incorrectly requested, provided, accepted, presented to Council, and then approved.
Answer 5: Please refer to answers provided to your questions that were raised at the Ordinary Council meeting on 9 November 2010.
Additional Information provided to this answer – it is the responsibility of the organisation raising the Invoice to ensure that GST is applied correctly. City has engaged Ernst and Young to undertake a review of the City’s requirements pertaining to the loan obligations.
Question 6: How many City Officers were involved in the costings, and were costings viewed and verified by Council, prior to Council approval, if not, why not?
Answer: The Bentley East Underground Power Project was costed by Western Power. No City of Canning officers were involved in the costings. Council was advised of the Western Power cost estimate.
Question 7: By including those properties, and creating incorrect numbers, is that questionable behaviour and does that suggest the City evaluation of the four projects was flawed, and will that be corrected, for future projects?
Answer: Western Power has advised that their costings for the areas submitted take into account the fact that some areas already have underground power.
Question 8: Did the City Officers withhold the individual ratepayer cost of the Bentley East project, to avoid ratepayer backlash and criticism, as occurred with Wilson West, Parkwood and Wilson East projects?
Answer: No – The costs were provided by Western Power.
Question 9: Did the Councillors, with Cr Dowsett excluded, on 12 October, provide City Officers, with a perceived signed cheque for $8.1 million, which under the present Canning payment system, does not appear to require, any further Chief Executive Officer or Mayoral approval, for a cheque to be completed and issued, plus there appears to be a lack of internal audit and checking systems regarding the subsequent issuing of signed cheques, within City of Canning, dominated by the phrase, “By power of Delegated Authority etc”.
Answer: Council at its Ordinary Meeting of the 12 October 2010 resolved in part as follows:
(a) Council advise the Underground Power Steering Committee of its agreement to proceed with the implementation of the Bentley East Underground Power Program as per the Draft Agreement (DMS7559254) and the Project Budget of $8,125,586.
(b) The Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign the above agreement, following checking by City Officers. The City has not made any payment in relation to the Bentley East Underground Power Program at this point in time.
Question 10: Mr Mayor, will Council address these issues and implement Policies to avoid possible events, similar to what was revealed at Stirling, and also protect the Councillors personal and legal obligations and responsibilities, in relation to Council approval of all financial matters and should Council consider determining whether the Officers, or the Councillors themselves, would conduct their personal finances in the exact same manner, as they allow City finances to be conducted.
Answer 10: Please refer to answers provided to your questions that were raised at the Ordinary Council meeting on 9 November 2010.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
5.1 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC GALLERY FROM THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF 14 DECEMBER 2010
Mr Gleeson,
I notice tonight that you received a question from a Councillor, given that it was question time tonight why did you not read the question and give the public an answer as well?
Answer 1: The Mayor advised that the standing orders do not allow under 2.2.8. The Councillor has to give notice and the answer and the question would be recorded in the minutes.
Question 2: Are you, Mr Mayor, aware and your Council that the application to the City of Canning to rebuild the recycling plant that was burnt down was approved by the State Administrative Tribunal.
Answer 2: The Mayor read the information out from his Mayoral Notes – The front page story in last week’s “Canning Times” incorrectly reported that Council had withheld planning approval for the rebuilding of the recycling facility at the RRRC in Canning Vale, thus “forcing” the SMRC to take Council to the State Administrative Tribunal. The matter went before SAT because the SMRC (listen carefully) chose not to comply by supplying further information required by the City in considering the development application. Rather they waited for the 60 days to elapse so they could take the matter to the Tribunal. I made a media statement at that time in regards to the matter and it is disappointing that the facts were not checked before the article was published. SAT has handed down its decision and once the transcript is available, I will inform our residents of the outcome. What I can say is that in handing down his decision, Senior Member Mr David Parry noted that he was appreciative of the constructive work that had been undertaken by the parties to the proceedings and that Council had properly identified a number of issues with the original application but did not have sufficient information to make a decision at that time.
Question 3: Mr Mayor, I hear your voice, but find if difficult in understanding what you said.
Answer 3: The Mayor – The decision will be recorded in the minutes.
Question 4: That is fine, I will ask this question once more – are you Mr Mayor and your Councillors aware that the application to the City of Canning to rebuild the recycling plant that was burnt down was now approved by the State Administrative Tribunal?
Answer 4: Mayor replied – obviously you are not listening when I gave the report, I have already given an answer and I am not going to repeat myself and you can read the answer in the minutes.
Question 5: So Mr Mayor, you are aware of the approval?
Answer 5: Mayor replied – yes I am aware, I was there and you were not.
Statement: Are you also aware all the objections and conditions to SAT were thrown out and as you may argue these conditions were just the standard conditions attached to a planning application.
Answer: The Mayor asked Mr Gleeson to table the question and a reply would be given to him.
Statement: I will just repeat that again, I am not going to write it down. My questions are going to be recorded.
Question 6: Once again, are you aware that the conditions put to SAT were thrown out whilst you might argue that they conditions were normal standard conditions to an application?
Answer 6: Mr Gleeson, I do not know where you get your information from, apparently where you got your information from is not aware the conditions we put forward was sixteen items and Master, the Chairman, Mr Parry consented to them bar one. This information is not consistent with what went on at SAT because at SAT was myself, the CEO, the legal representative, SMRC CEO and two of their lawyers and Cr Mason was there as well. So where did you get the information from? Tell us where you received your information from? It seems that you do not want to know what the facts are. Tell us. I can tell you what the facts are but you do not want to tell us where you got your information from.
Statement: Mr Gleeson – The information I received is confidential. The Mayor repeated, the information is confidential and requested that Mr Gleeson resume his seat and not proceed any further. The Mayor warned Mr Gleeson to resume his seat again or
would have him removed from Chambers. Mr Gleeson continued however the Mayor intervened and Mr Gleeson was advised this was question time and thanked Mr Gleeson and called for the next member of the public to come forward. Mr Gleeson then retired from the meeting.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
5.2 QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FOR THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF 14 DECEMBER 2010
Mr J Harding,
Question: Is it questionable behaviour that the Executive Finance and Client Services is perceived as failing to fully answer the question and instead refers to the SMRC total claim of $1,683,751.84 payable to WA Treasury Corporation, and does that contravene the City Code of Conduct in any way?
Answer: The City Code of Conduct has not been contravened in this matter.
Question: Did the SMRC submit an invoice or claim, and for what amount, excluding GST?
Answer: Yes for $462,942.21.
Question: Was that a properly formatted Tax invoice, as stipulated by ATO requirements?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Has the City verified that SMRC actually paid the amount of $1,683,751.84 to WA Treasury Corporation?
Answer: Yes and further verification will be obtained through the Ernst and Young review.
Question: Who calculated that figure of $509,236.43, which is 30.244% of SMRC total claim?
Answer: SMRC invoice.
Question: (a) If City, why does the figure exceed the approx 28% liability to SMRC.
Answer: Not Applicable.
Question: (b) If SMRC, why didn’t the City Officers check and verify the amount claimed?
Answer: The invoice was supported by a reconciliation provided by the SMRC to the total repayment requested by the WATC. This will also be the subject of the Ernst and Young Review.
Question: Regardless, does that suggest City Officers do not verify and check amounts claimed by Creditors and pay whatever amount is claimed and does that contravene the City Code of Conduct in any way?
Answer: Procurement and payment procedures are cover by Council policy ( refer) and take place within approved budgets. Refer attached Administrative Policy AF301 – Financial Management – Payment of Accounts.
Question: Does that area need to be addressed, and corrected to conform to basic Business and Accounting Policy?
Answer: Policy and practice is subject to regular review. Administrative Policies are presented to Council for adoption.
Question: Did City Auditors address these perceived abnormalities and loopholes?
Answer: The Auditors undertake their statutory audit applying accepted audit practices and the City received an unqualified audit report.
Question: If no, does that now challenge the validity and correctness of the recent Report by the Auditor?
Answer: An added level of assurance will be provided by the review of the SMRC loans and repayments currently being undertaken by Ernst and Young commissioned by the City of Canning.
Question: Does this perceived irregularity need to be directed to the Auditors or can it be handled by Mayor or CEO?
Answer: If the Ernst and Young review reveals any deficiencies in practices this will be referred to the Auditors.
Question: City’s 2010/11 Budget has been Increased to $1,907,793 from 2009/10 amount of 1,589,670, an increase of 20% or $318,123.
Answer: The City’s Budget allocation for loan repayments to the SMRC has increased as a direct result of additional loan borrowings by the SMRC, together with their refinancing of existing loans, which have attracted a higher interest rate.
Question: Why have loan repayments increased after 1st July 2010, when they should remain static as at 30th June 2010, as it is perceived any Loan increase or Loan movements after 30th June should not incur any financial penalty or obligation to City of Canning?
Answer: A number of factors may contribute to an increase. Loans raised in the last quarter of the financial year to June 2010 and interest rate changes as a result of refinancing are two such factors. The Ernst and Young review will provide added verification.
Question: Is this budget increase questionable and does it contravene the City Code of Conduct in any way.
Answer: The Ernst and Young review is intended to provide added verification.
Question: Was a basic 20% increase applied to all 2009/10 budget figures which incorrectly included the SMRC payments and overlooked in the final analysis by Executives and does that behaviour contravene the City Code of Conduct in any way
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
9. TABLING OF MAYORAL MINUTES WITHOUT DISCUSSION
Thursday, 2 December 2010, together with the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Mark Dacombe, I attended the SAT hearing of the SMRC waste recycle application to rebuild on Council Land, Bannister road Canning Vale. The front page story in last week’s “Canning Times” incorrectly reported that Council had withheld planning approval for the rebuilding of the recycling facility at the RRRC in Canning Vale, thus “forcing” the SMRC to take Council to the State Administrative Tribunal. The matter went before SAT because the SMRC chose not to comply by supplying further information required by the City in considering the development application. Rather they waited for the 60 days to elapse so they could take the matter to the Tribunal. I made a media statement at that time in regards to the matter and it is disappointing that the facts were not checked before the article was published. SAT has handed down its decision and once the transcript is available, I will inform our residents of the outcome. What I can say is that in handing down his decision, Senior Member, Mr David Parry, noted was that he was appreciative of the constructive work that had been undertaken by the parties to the proceedings and that Council had properly identified a number of issues with the original application but did not have sufficient information to make a decision at that time. ———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
(This item of business held over for consideration prior to the end of the Meeting.)
CM-165-10 SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGIONAL COUNCIL – DECEMBER
QUARTERLY LOAN PAYMENT
(File: AA/3/1) cmrpt165 (Council Meeting – 14 December 2010 )
From : Chief Executive Officer
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
13.2 ACTING EXECUTIVE – STRATEGIC AND REGULATORY SERVICES
SRS-370-10 ODOUR REGISTER – REGIONAL RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRE – CANNING VALE
(OCM: 14.12.2010; File: ECH/2/18); j:ssrpt363/eg
From: Acting Executive Strategic and Regulatory Services ID: 69
Amendment
Cr Olsen provided an additional part (b) to read as follows:
(b) Council authorise the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to investigate interim measures, such as the odour hot line number and other necessary measures needed, to monitor and cater for complaints in the affected area of the SMRC’s RRRC facility in conjunction with discussions with the working party committee. Following comment from Cr Olsen, the Mayor then put the amended motion, viz:
Moved Cr Olsen, seconded Cr Daly
(a) That Report SRS-370-10 Odour Register – Regional Resource Recovery Centre, Canning Vale, be received.
(b) Council authorise the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to investigate interim measures, such as the odour hot line number and other necessary measures needed, to monitor and cater for complaints in the affected area of the SMRC’s RRRC facility in conjunction with discussions with the working party committee.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
For: The Mayor, Crs Barry, Elliott, Mason, Clarke, Olsen, Morgan, Daly, Dowsett,
Wheaton and Boylen
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
16. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS
CM-163-10 PROGRESS REPORT OF MATTERS INVOLVING CURRENT LEGAL ACTION IN THE CITY OF CANNING
CM-165-10 SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGIONAL COUNCIL – DECEMBER QUARTERLTY LOAN REPAYMENT
(File: AL/2/4) cmrpt165 (Council Meeting: 14 December 2010)
From: Chief Executive Officer
***CONFIDENTIAL TO MEMBERS ONLY***
Cr Mason moved the following amendment to the recommendation.
AMENDMENT
Moved Cr Mason, seconded Cr Barry That part (a) remain as is, with an additional part (b) to read “That the Mayor and Chief
Executive Officer be authorised to approve the payment of the December 2010 loan instalment to the SMRC in accordance with legal advice and subject to formal confirmation of the amount on receipt of the Ernst and Young report commissioned by the Council.”.
The Mayor then put the amended motion, viz:
That:
(a) Report CM-165-10 Southern Metropolitan Regional Council – December Quarterly Loan Payment be received.
(b) The Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to approve the payment of the December 2010 loan instalment to the SMRC in accordance with legal advice and subject to formal confirmation of the amount on receipt of the Ernst and Young report commissioned by the Council.
CARRIED
