Councillor Liu’s Questions on Notice, Kangaroo Island Council, 2011-05-04

Re: Footpaths Construction, American River Land Division

I refer to Cr Waklom’s personal statement commenting that the American River’s new subdivisions were handed over to Council without footpaths and the CEO’s response which stated, “The developers of the two American River subdivisions placed a bonded amount into reserve and Council currently hold these funds. There have been several attempts by the Technical Services Manager to have these developers undertake the installation of the footpaths, with many commitments but no action forthcoming”.

As Council has an obligation and responsibility to protect the interests of those people who purchased land within these two subdivisions, I seek response to the following questions:

1. What was the amount of the ‘Bond’ currently being held by the Council and was it subject to CPI rises?
2. When was the bond issued to the Council?
3. What was the extent of footpaths bonded for? Please provide the lengths and types of the footpaths agreed to by the developers and the estimated cost of the installation at that time.
4. What would be the present cost to install these footpaths now?
5. Will the ratepayers have to meet the shortfall of the footpath cost if the value of the work exceeds the bond amount and the developers refuse to pay for the additional cost incurred by Council?
6. When was the last time Council communicated with the developers to undertake the installation of the footpaths and what was the response?

Answers from Council:

Answer 1
There was a bonded amount of $32,726.00 provided by the developer of Stage 1.
The developer of Stage 1 sold the Stage 2 site to another developer and there is a bonded amount of $32,500 held for the footpaths in this subdivision.
The bonded amounts attract interest from investment, but no CPI increment was requested by the Planning Manager or Corporate Services manager at the time.

Answer 2
The Stage 1 bond was formalised prior to completion of the subdivision, which was mid 2005.
The Stage 2 bond was provided to Council on the 14th of January 2008, prior to the completion of works.

Answer 3
Stage 1 footpath is listed as being 620 metres in length, and there was a requirement to construct a 1.20m wide footpath of interlocking block paving.
Stage 2 footpath is listed as matching Stage 1 in style and width, and is noted as 361m in length.
The requirement was to provide a footpath on one side of the street(s) only.

Answer 4
Based on current estimates for similar work on Kangaroo Island, at other sites of similar characteristics the rate of $78.00 per m2 is estimated. This would lead to a cost over run on Stage 1, but matches closely the bonded amount held for Stage 2.
Both developers have been requested by council staff to complete the works, however, council is not privy to the estimate costs provided to the developers by contractors.

Answer 5
In letters to Kangaroo Island Council in 2007, the developer of Stage 1 made the commitment to undertake the work. It has been advised to that developer that Council require a footpath at this location and this has been pursued on several occasions with that initial developer, and the subsequent owner of the Stage 2 development. It is considered that the developers are required still to install footpaths at their cost.

Answer 6
Communication between the developer of Stage 1 and Council dates back to 2006/2007, and interaction between this person, the Planning Manager of that time, and the Corporate Services Manager of the time, are recorded.
In 2008, the current Chief Executive Officer wrote to the developer of Stage 1 and advised that Council preference was for the footpath to be constructed when the land division was undertaken, and further, the construction of the footpath was to be in accordance with the subdivision specification document.
In addition to the above, the former Technical Services Manager has requested action from both developers at regular intervals since 2008, and has directed contractors to meet with developers on at least two occasions. The last such interaction was in 2010, when a local contractor met developers and offered estimate costs. The then Project Manager awaited confirmation of agreement between developers and contractors, however, none was made evident.
Both developers have been offered opportunity to submit alternatives to the specification, in the form of concrete footpaths, but no action has yet been advised.