City of Canning Minutes – SMRC RRRC WCF Odour Issue – 23 November 2010
4. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ AND OFFICERS’ INTERESTS
Declaration of Interest
Cr Elliott SRS-335-10 – Odour Monitoring Program – Regional Resource Recovery Centre – Canning Vale
SRS-336-10 – Odour Register – Regional Resource Recovery Centre – Canning Vale
Nature of Interest: My daughter lives in the area affected by the odour.
AF-152-10 – Donations/Financial Assistance Requests from various Organisations
Nature of Interest: I am a Member of the Riverton Baptist Community Church.
Cr Elliott then sought a ruling on his interest in the above items and withdrew from the Council Chambers at 6.02pm.
Cr Olsen entered the Council Chambers at 6.02pm.
MOVED Cr Barry, Seconded Cr Daly, that the interest declared by Cr Elliott in items
SRS-335-10 – Odour Monitoring Program – Regional Resource Recovery Centre – Canning Vale, SRS-336-10 – Odour Register – Regional Resource Recovery Centre – Canning Vale and AF-152-10 – Donations/Financial Assistance Requests from various organisations is common to a significant number of electors or ratepayers.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
5.1 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC GALLERY AT THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING ON 9 NOVEMBER 2010
Mr J Harding,
Question 4: Due to the on-going legal battle with the SMRC, were the Chief Executive Officer or Mayor consulted to approve the half a million SMRC payment, or was it made on delegated authority and is there any question regarding the legality of that approval?
Question 9: Mr Mayor, tomorrow is the first anniversary of Council members illegally leaking confidential data for use at the RRSRA AGM:
(a) Are you attending this year and do you anticipate a repeat performance considering the SMRC events of October 2010?
(b) Were the recent changes within the City Executive staff connected in any way to the leaking of that Confidential Council Information to the RRSRA in November 2009?
Final question Mr Mayor.
******************************************
Mr G W Gleeson
Question: Did the City of Canning have legal assistance at the State Administrative Tribunal when the SMRC took their case regarding the rebuilding of the recycling plant in Cannington when it burnt down, did the City have legal representative when that organisation took their option to the SMRC?
Answer: The Mayor. Can you rephrase that?
Question: Given that the SMRC took as I believe now their plans away from the City and went other SMRC to rebuild the recycling plant in Cannington, did the City of Canning have legal representation there to look at the procedure and if so, why?
Answer: The Mayor. Council made a decision to have legal representation, yes.
Question: Why then did the City of Canning need to have legal representation there when all they wanted was to build a recycling plant on City of Canning land, which is a valuable facility to the City and many other Cities within that SMRC, why would you want to have legal representation?
Answer: The Mayor. Can you repeat what you said in your opening remarks please?
Question: Why would the City of Canning need legal representation there when the SMRC took their case there regarding the rebuilding of the recycling plant, why would you need legal representation?
Answer: The Mayor. Do you know the process of the State Administrative Tribunal?
Question: Yes, I do but I’m asking you Mr Mayor, why would the City have legal representation there when all the SMRC wanted was to rebuild the Recycling Plant?
Answer: The Mayor. That may not be the case? I don’t know where you got your information from, if you don’t ask the right questions I can’t give you the right answer.
Question: I’ll say it again. Did the City of Canning have legal representation
Answer: The Mayor. I gave you the answer, I said yes.
Question: Why?
Answer: The Mayor. Because I ask you, do you know the procedure at the State Administrative Tribunal and you said you do.
Question: Did the City of Canning put a case to stop it or to assist it to rebuild the Recycling Plant?
Answer: The Mayor. That is behind closed doors, it is confidential. If you want to reveal anything, please go ahead.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
5.4 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.
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?
—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
13.2 ACTING EXECUTIVE – STRATEGIC AND REGULATORY SERVICES
SRS-335-10 ODOUR MONITORING PROGRAM – REGIONAL RESOURCE RECOVERY
CENTRE – CANNING VALE
(OCM: 23.11.2010; File: ECH/2/18.); j:ssrpt355/eg
From: Acting Executive Strategic and Regulatory Services ID: 69
MOVED Cr Olsen, Seconded Cr Daly, that this item be deferred to the Consultative Working Group and a meeting be held, so that the Working Group investigate avenues to put in place equipment to accurately record data to back up and aid the City Officers in their investigations and response to odour complaints. The Working Group report back to Council via a Council Forum and then a report is bought back to the next Council Meeting.
******************************************
SRS-336-10 ODOUR REGISTER – REGIONAL RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRE – CANNING VALE
(OCM: 23.11.2010; File: ECH/2/18); j:ssrpt335/eg
From: Acting Executive Strategic and Regulatory Services ID: 69
RECOMMENDATIONS
SRS-336-10
That Report SRS-336-10 Odour Register – Regional Resource Recovery Centre, Canning Vale, be received.
