Noosa Waters Lock Update 11-01-2023

Dear Members,

The NWRA Committee is aware of concerns held by some of our members about the proposed works to the Lock and Weir. The purpose of this post is to report on the discussions held between the NWRA and the Council about those concerns, which are:

1. The scope of the works covered by the tender;

2. Whether the company selected by the Council to carry out the works has demonstrated a capacity to deliver; and

3. If there are any cost overruns for any reason, whether the canal side residents will be subjected to another “canal levy” to cover that overrun.

In Summary: Your Committee and the Council have had a series of positive and productive meetings and discussions, the net effect of which is that members will not be charged any additional canal levy, even if the works go over budget. For the detail, see below.

President Neale Bertram, together with Secretary John Lee and Committee Member Malcolm Butcher, met with Scott Waters (CEO, Noosa Shire Council) on 23 December 2022. We started the meeting by agreeing it was important the Council and the NWRA have a mutually respectful and transparent relationship, and that we would continue with that principle in mind. Aspects of our discussions are necessarily confidential, however we raised the issues mentioned with the following outcomes:

1. Scott gave us access to the tender documents the Council relied upon in reaching its conclusion that the preferred tenderer is able to carry out the works properly and within budget;

2. We considered that the documents shown to us gave a reasonable basis for the Council to reach those conclusions;

3. Scott addressed our concern regarding cost overrun. He assured us that any cost overrun would not result in any additional “canal levy”, but would be met from the Council’s general rate revenue;

4. We agreed that NWRA has no power to authorise or prohibit the works to the lock and weir, and it is the Council alone who has that power. However, the Council would rather proceed with the support of the NWRA than without that support;

5. We could see from the documents reviewed that the Council has followed its documented policies in its consideration of the single tenderer and that those documents supported the awarding of the contract;

6. We raised the scope of the project and the option of reducing it to include only the components that are in urgent need of replacement. Scott advised that Council’s position to have a major renovation is its preferred option as it reduces the risk of critical system failure in line with the Council’s asset management protocols and will also reduce the number of lock closures required;

7. Scott has agreed to provide regular project updates that we will share with members during the course of the project.

Without revealing the detail of our discussions with Scott, we understand the above precis of those discussions to be accurate, apart from one possible issue. The only possible point of contention is whether the Council’s position as summarised in point 3 above would be subject to some “rise and fall” provision in the contract, so as to possibly result in a further “canal levy” being imposed.

We understand that the proposed contract is a standard contract identified as AS 4902. If that is so, then as a matter of fact AS 4902 does not contain any rise and fall provision. Indeed, Clause 2.7 thereof says: “(Rise and fall) The contract sum is not subject to adjustment for variations in the cost of labour and materials unless, and then only to the extent that, the Contract expressly elsewhere provides that such an adjustment is to be made and states the formula by which that adjustment is to be calculated.”

We asked if the Council could provide us with a copy of any clause/s relating to the rise and fall provision. Scott agreed that there were none, however he also said any construction contract has standard rise and fall provisions. We asked again to be provided with any clause relevant to this Lock and Weir contract.

We had not received a response from Scott by the time the flyer from the Council was delivered on 9 January 2023. The compelling conclusion is that the Council now accepts that the position taken by your Committee is correct (that is, that there is no relevant “rise and fall” provision, and therefore no risk of a further “canal levy” being imposed).

In the interests of preserving our good relationship with both the Council and its newly appointed CEO, we will send a copy of this post to Scott, and invite him to identify any factual errors we might have made in it, in which case we will further inform you.

In conclusion, while the NWRA has no power to either authorise or prohibit the works to the lock and weir and it is the Council alone who has that power, we appreciate the Council’s desire to give the NWRA visibility and clarity to the decision-making process.

We thank both Scott and the Council officers for their co-operation in this matter.

Kind regards,

Neale Bertram

President

On behalf of the NWRA Committee