City of Canning Minutes – SMRC RRRC WCF Odour Issue – 18 January 2011
5.1 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC GALLERY AT THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING ON 14 DECEMBER 2010
Mr Gleeson,
Question 1: 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
Answer: No.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
13.2 ACTING EXECUTIVE – CORPORATE SERVICES
(This item of business held over for consideration prior to the end of the Meeting.)
CR-011-11 RENT REVIEW – SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGIONAL COUNCIL
(File: PRECH/2/18) crrpt011 (Council Meeting – 18 January 2011)
From : Executive Corporate Services
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
13.2 EXECUTIVE – PROPERTY ASSETS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PD-021-11 ODOUR REGISTER – REGIONAL RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRE – CANNING VALE
(OCM: 18.01.2011; File: ECH/2/18); l:paed008/eg
From: Executive Property Assets and Economic Development ID: 69
RECOMMENDATIONS
PD-021-11
That Report PD-021-11 Odour Register – Regional Resource Recovery Centre, Canning Vale, be received.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
16. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS
CR-011-11 RENT REVIEW – SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGIONAL COUNCIL
(File: PRECH/2/18) crrpt011 (Council Meeting – 18 January 2011)
From : Executive Corporate Services
