See also “Transparency and respect for community by Kangaroo Island council are at low ebb — Knight, Shirley, 2013.07.27”

Kangaroo Island, 2013.08.04

Dear Webmaster,

I have recently been provided by a community member with a copy of the CWMS Management Committee 17 June 2013 meeting agenda (not yet published on LGA website: http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=253I), in which you will note on page 8-9 under ‘reports by officers’ (a copy of which is attached) Council was notified in mid-June that the Cheopis Street preferred site for the wastewater storage dam was not the LGA’s endorsed location nor had the support of the EPA and Department of Health.

The main issue raised with me by my constituents was the omission of this advice in the CEO’s report which was relevant to Council in making an informed decision on the siting of the storage dam at the July meeting.  As an Elected Member, I have a duty and obligation to seek a response to their concern, through ‘questions on notice’ at the August Council meeting.

To fully appreciate the rationale for asking these questions, I would encourage you to peruse Item 10.3 of July agenda on ‘Penneshaw CWMS Update’ and the minutes of the meeting, which both are on Council’s website July agenda: (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20130710%20Council%20Agenda.pdf), the minutes of the meeting: (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20130710%20Council%20Minutes.pdf), the KIpolis entry “Penneshaw planned sewerage dam, QoNs by Cr Liu 2013.04.10 — and sort of answers” and other posts relating to Penneshaw CWMS:

“Earthquake impact on a planned sewage dam overlooking Penneshaw — QoNs Cr Liu, 2013.07.10”

“Penneshaw sewage plans: health, environmental and financial issues — QoNs Cr Liu 2013.06.12”

Further, I am wondering whether my ‘amendment motion’ to put out all site options rather than just one at Cheopis Street for public consultation at the July meeting would have a different outcome if this advice from the CWMS Management Committee was not omitted from the CEO’s report.

I would appreciate it if you would publish these ‘questions on notice’ on your KIpolis website.

Questions on Notice

Kangaroo Island August Council Meeting (14/8/2013)

Penneshaw CWMS Re: Correspondence from LGA CMC

Question 1:

Did the CEO receive correspondence from the LGA’s CWMS Management Committee (CWC) sometime in mid-June 2013, in which Council was notified that the ‘golf course’ site (Option 1) was the CWC’s endorsed site for the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) and storage dam for the revised Penneshaw Scheme and had the support of the EPA and Department of Health?

Question 2:

If the answer to ‘question 1’ above is yes:

(a)   Why was this correspondence with key vital information on the siting of the WWPT omitted from the CEO’s report to Council (Item 10.3 of July 2013 meeting agenda), given that it is a requirement to have all items on the agenda described with accuracy and the relevant documents provided to enable Elected Members to make an informed and responsible decision?

(b)   How then without this information being provided to Elected Members for consideration, could Council fulfil its principal role to act as a representative, informed and responsible decision maker in the interests of the Penneshaw community and its Island wide ratepayers as required under Section 6(a) of Local Government Act 1999?

(c)    In the absence of this essential information, could Council’s resolution adopting Option 3 (Cheopis Street) as the only site for public consultation, be a credible decision?

(d)   Will the community particularly those affected by the Scheme participating in the public consultation be provided with a copy of LGA’s CWC advice on the siting of the WWPT,  so that they are able to contribute in a constructive and meaningful manner to the consultation process?

Question 3:

Given neither Regulatory body (EPA and Department of Health) has advised any prohibitive objection to siting the WWPT and Storage Dam at the ‘golf course’ site (Option 1), and not the other alternative locations, did the CEO seek advice from these two regulatory authorities on the Option 3 site at Cheopis Street?  If yes, what was the advice given to the Council?

Question 4:

If the answer to ‘question 3’ above is no, would it be appropriate for Council to proceed with the geotechnical report, development of design brief, structural design and documentation for the Cheopis Street site (Option 3) without obtaining advice from the EPA and Department of Health first in order to avoid further delay in the commencement of the Scheme and incurring of unnecessary additional consultant fees?

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

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