Hi Gabriel,

Please find below, for KIpolis, the CEO’s reply to my QoNs at the 10th July 2013 Kangaroo Island Council Meeting.

Please note that the CEO did not answer ‘question 1’ fully, in particular question (e) relating to a possible conflict of interest in appointing the same consulting engineering firm to provide an opinion on its own advice on ‘dam break risk’.

Questions on Notice

July Meeting of Council (10/7/2013)

Penneshaw CWMS

Re: Resolution 20.1 passed by Council at Its April 2013 Meeting 

Question 1:

Has Resolution 20.1 passed at the April 2013 meeting, namely: “That Council request the engineers undertaking current work to prepare a further brief on the probabilities of damage to an earth wall due to an earthquake in the vicinity of Penneshaw”, been actioned by the CEO?  If the ‘resolution’ has been executed:

(a)  When was the request made?

(b)  What were the terms of reference or instructions given to the engineering consultant for the preparation of the report?

(c)  What is the time frame for the report to be produced for Council consideration?

(d)  What is the estimated cost of the report?

(e)  Is it appropriate for Council to appoint the same consulting engineering firm to provide an opinion on its own recommendations and designs as detailed within Sheets C08 & C11 supplied at the May 2012 workshop, when there may be a conflict of interest for the appointment? If not, please explain.

Council answer

Yes – an email request detailing the resolution in full was sent to our Engineer on 24 April 2013. We are yet to receive a response; this has been raised with them and they have apologised for the oversight and will attend to our request as soon as possible.

 

Question 2:

Given Council was briefed at the May 2012 workshop by its engineers through a ‘power point’ presentation, of the consequences and risks associated with a dam (detailed within Sheets C08 & C11 Agenda Item 15.4: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20120613%20Council%20Agenda-1.pdf ) being sited at the end of Cheopis Street, on what basis was this site chosen in preference to the recommended location on the top of Binneys Track shown on 2008 Layout Plan:  (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Penneshaw-CWMS-Scheme_Layout-2008-August.pdf ) and other alternative sites identified by the consultant?

Council answer

The site was preferred by Councillors as it represented a compromise between the costs associated with the original Binneys Track proposal (the issue of vertical lift and the ongoing high costs of pumping effluent up to this site were raised by Councillors during the early assessments). The other alternative site to the south of the Golf Course has issues in terms of visual amenity, cost of land, proximity to watercourse etc. A report in the July Agenda discusses this further.

 

Question 3:

Have the risks of siting an earth dam on land above and close to the residential area and issues related to earthquake-induced liquefaction (which is a common cause of earth dam failure) been taken into consideration and factored in the designs and the construction costs of the dam shown on Drawings-Sheets C08 & C11?  If so, why does Council need to conduct a further assessment on the designs and analysis of dam break risks?

Answer

Yes it has – our Engineers would not have suggested the site and the design if they had not assessed these issues as being minimal. They have made it clear that detail design work would formally address any risk associated with the topography, tectonic, precipitation activity and other land based parameters. However, there have been repeated suggestions implying that a lagoon in this location would present major issues despite no facts being made available to substantiate this. We have maintained that once the facts are established, these perceived risks will either be validated or dismissed. Council will make its own assessment of the advice it receives and will resolve whether to proceed with this site or not at this time.

Given the repeated suggestions implying that the design is in some way unsuitable, Council determined in April to formally request that this work be carried out in order to bring facts to the fore as soon as possible.

 

Question 4:

If the matter in ‘question 3’ above was overlooked, why should this Council need to pay extra consultant fees for further advice on the ‘probabilities of damage to an earth wall due to earthquakes’ as directed by Council in ‘Resolution 20.1’ of April 2013 meeting ?

Council answer

As above. Due to the continued suggestions implying the design is unsuitable Council determined to specifically request additional work be done before the rest of the project is completed. At this stage we have not been informed whether this work will attract additional fees or otherwise.

*************

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com