MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012 Item 7: Notice of Motion - CR Withers That: 1. The MRC holds off presenting its submission to the Minister for Local Government in relation to the withdrawal of the City of Stirling to allow time for an offer to be presented to the City of Stirling to have them remain a member of the Mindarie Regional Council on the following premise:- a. Stirling's kerbside waste comes to MRC at the members' rates; b. MRC and Stirling work together to find a way for Stirling's kerbside waste to be delivered to the RRF when required; c. Stirling's Atlas bales will be:- i. given an indefinite exemption from tipping at MRC; and ii. if delivered to MRC will be charged at the nominal landfill cost per tonne ($100); d. Stirling's other waste is given an exemption and Stirling agrees to tip it elsewhere. This waste will be charged at the members' rate if delivered to MRC. 2. The MRC authorises the CEO and Chairman (and other officers and councillors as appropriate) to hold discussions on this proposal with the City of Stirling and to report the results to the next meeting of the Council. 3. Should the negotiations with the City of Stirling be unsuccessful then the submission to the Minister for Local Government be finalised in line with Council's resolution of 28 March 2012 and presented to the Council for endorsement at its meeting on 25 October 2012. Purpose The purpose of this motion is to provide the City of Stirling with an incentive to retain its membership with the MRC and to:- 1. Move towards a situation where MRC's assets, particularly its RRF, can be used to their optimum potential; and 2. Achieve a small drop in costs per tonne, which will benefit all members of MRC. When debating this motion, it was agreed the three motions should be put separately, and the following note was recorded:- Motion 1 - Lost 2/9; Motion 2 - Lost 2/9; and Motion 3 - Carried 7/4. Comment - the City of Stirling members did not support any of the 3 motions and stated they believed they were financially better off withdrawing from the MRC. H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 133
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting 25 October 2012 Item 1: Review of Council Members Fees, Allowances and Expenses MRC members' fees, allowances and expenses were last reviewed in 2008 where the MRC resolved to increase fees to bring them in line with industry standards. A new schedule was adopted as follows:- Chairperson Deputy Chair Members Fees - Proposed - Current $14,000 $13,000 $7,000 $6,000 $7,000 $6,000 Allowances - Proposed - Current $ 8,000 $ 6,000 $2,000 $1,500 0 0 Expenses - Proposed - Current $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Deputy Members Fees remained at $140 per meeting. The new fees were proposed following research with other Regional councils to identify a new market trend. The forecast financial impact is a shortfall of $42,500 on the adopted Budget which will now require to be funded at the half yearly review. Item 2: RRFA Performance Measures - Compost Management This matter was deferred from the Special meeting held on 20 September 2012. Whilst the matter is rather technical and part of the legal contract documentation, the following comments were provided by MRC administration. Contractual Implications The RRFA sets out the Compost Target to be achieved with the KPI and also the Fee abatement mechanism applicable to any associated non-compliance. The fee abatement mechanism was originally set up to compensate the MRC for any additional expenses that were incurred as a result of the KPI non-compliance. The fee abatement mechanism is not a windfall for the MRC but a cost recovering mechanism. The abatement value was estimated as the likely cost recovery required in the event of the KPI noncompliance. Based on the RRFA, the MRC is within its rights to abate the BioVision fee if there is a noncompliance with any of the KPI targets. If there was a non-compliance with the compost KPI and the MRC was to insist on the fee abatement being implemented (as is the MRC's contractual entitlement), it is possible that BioVision, through the dispute mechanism could request that the MRC demonstrate that it has incurred losses equivalent to the abated fee. This would be extremely difficult for the MRC to substantiate and hence BioVision is likely to have an entitlement to request a further change to the RRFA. H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 134
Page 1 and 2:
Council Minutes 27 NOVEMBER 2012
Page 3 and 4:
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
Page 135: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 The projec
Page 225 and 226:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 10.2 FORME
Page 227 and 228:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 COMMUNITY
Page 229 and 230:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 11. URGENT
show all

MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?