Former Port Lincoln Mayor Peter Davis was with Council when it created the city’s existing aquatic centre, and warns of its ongoing financial difficulties. He recalls that when the facility, then known as the Port Lincoln Leisure Centre was first built it was predicted to financially break even, but design faults and insufficient patronage created significant losses. Davis explained “at the end of the first financial year the loss turned out to be about $117,000. That loss spiralled upwards to about $300,000 within about five years.” Davis said attempts to increase patronage and reduce losses, by building a stadium alongside the swimming facility, were unsuccessful. He adds “the losses spiralled upwards … the cost of the Leisure Centre complex then was about $700,000 a year, including the repayments.” As a result, the facility was sold in 2000 to the Sarin Group for $1.5 million, from whom the Councuk are now buying it back. – See more at: http://www.ausleisure.com.au/news/port-lincoln-council-to-buy-and-refurbish-city-pool/#sthash.5TYYsGdJ.dpuf
Item No: C1213 Item 16
Subject: ANNETTE KELLERMAN AQUATIC CENTRE – STATUS OF WORKS AND
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ADCO CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
File Ref: 1493/79721.13
Prepared By: William Blunt – Executive Manager, Major Projects
This report provides a summary of the ongoing issues with the completion of the Annette
Kellerman Aquatic Centre, the defective and incomplete works, the commissioning of systems
and the proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW against ADCO Constructions Pty Limited
1. Council move into closed session to deal with this matter as the information
contained in CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS 6 and 7 of this report are classified as
confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2)(c), (d) and (g) of the Local
Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:
a. the information within this report, if disclosed, could confer a commercial
advantage on persons with whom the Council proposes to or may conduct
b. it is not in the public interest to reveal all details of these tenders of the
assessment process. Companies have provided sensitive information about their
operations in the confidence that their details will not be made public by Council.
The practice of publication of sensitive information provided by companies could
result in the withholding of such information by companies and reduction in the
provision of information relevant to Council’s decision; and
c. as it contains advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal
proceedings on the grounds of legal professional privilege.
And in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the
Chairperson allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this
part of the meeting should be closed.
OR, WHERE THE MEETING IS NOT CLOSED:
1A. Council resolve that CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS 6 and 7 to the report be treated
as confidential in accordance with Section 10A of the Local Government Act 1993,
as it relates to a matter specified in Section 10A(2),(c) and (d) of the Local
Government Act 1993, and as such is to be treated as confidential;
2. Council receives and notes the report;
3. Council approves an Expression of Interest and Selective Tender process to appoint
one or more specialist contractors to undertake rectification, completion and
3 December 2013
4. Council notes that funding for rectification works from the Property Reserve will be
proposed in the December 2013 budget review;
5. Council seek recovery of all funds spent on rectifying defects, completing the works
and commissioning from ADCO under the terms of the Contract and otherwise via
the proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales; and
6. The General Manager responds appropriately to any media and community
concerns and enquiries.
Council entered into a Contract with ADCO Constructions Pty Limited (ADCO) in September
2009 for the construction of the new Annette Kellerman Aquatic Centre at Enmore Park,
On 15 August 2013 an article appeared in the Inner West Courier regarding recent
temperature issues experienced at the Centre. A copy of the article is included as
ATTACHMENT 1. This was not the first time patrons had raised issues with regard to the
Prior to and since Council began operations at the Centre on 11 December 2010, there has
been a growing list of identified defective and incomplete works that together with a significant
dispute regarding practical completion, commissioning of services and the recovery of monies
already paid to ADCO (as a result of a Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment
Act determination – see below) has resulted in Council taking action against ADCO in the
Supreme Court of NSW. The action seeks repayment of monies and damages in excess of
This report provides Council and the community with an overview of the ongoing issues.
Notwithstanding these issues, the Centre continues to perform above expectations remaining
as one of the top performing aquatic centres in Australia with strong support from the
community. It is also recognised that the Centre‟s construction has been funded by the
community via a special purpose aquatic projects rate levy and that the community has a high
expectation that the Centre has been constructed appropriately and has a long life
For a brief explanation of some of the contract terms and the methodology for the
administration of the building contract by the Superintendent – see ATTACHMENT 2.
Council and ADCO signed a contract for the
Within a month of commencing the works, in November 2009, ADCO claimed it had
discovered material in the ground remaining from the former aquatic centre which they said
was classified as General Solid Waste (material meeting this classification has to be disposed
of at higher tipping rates than natural ground). They claimed additional costs of $514,253 and
20 days extension of time.
The Superintendent issued a determination rejecting the claims.
ADCO lodged the matter into the formal dispute resolution process under the terms of the
contract. ADCO claimed they had excavated 5,500 tonnes of material. The claim was backed
up by “tipping dockets” issued by their subcontractor, but as the Expert (appointed to
determine the dispute) later said, the tipping dockets and ADCO‟s load counts were not cross
referenced by ADCO to any plans or narratives in their evidence.
In preparing its submission to the Expert, Council and consultants reviewed the matter
extensively and with the assistance of land surveyors and the project‟s cost planner, Council
identified that the maximum amount of material that could possibly have been removed as
General Solid Waste, was no more than 1,859 tonnes.
The Expert agreed with Council‟s position but ordered that a component of the claim be paid
being $158,049. This was a substantial reduction from ADCO‟s claim of $514,253. The
Expert did not offer an explanation for the significant discrepancy between ADCO‟s claimed
tonnes and what was identified by the surveyors to be possible. The Expert reduced ADCO‟s
claimed extension of time from 20 days to 12.
During the remainder of the onsite works and up to December 2011, ADCO did not lodge any
other notices of dispute for any other determination issued by the Superintendent with regard
to practical completion, liquidated damages, variations, notices of defective works or any other
3 December 2013
As identified in ATTACHMENT 3, ADCO included a contractual statement with their Payment
Claims lodged on 1 June 2011, 30 June 2011 and 26 August 2011 that there were no disputes
between them and Council.
But, on 22 July 2011 and 23 September 2011, ADCO lodged their applications under the
in frank interviews, members of the Sydney Islamic community discussed the development of their mosques and fund-raising that they say has been wholly focused on construction and community development.
In fund-raising circles, Saudi Arabia is a five-star destination. The Saudi government first gave to Australian Muslims in 1974 – a donation of $1.2 million – and since then, some observers guess, about $100 million has followed.
But the co-editor of Muslim Communities in Australia and a politics lecturer at Monash University, Shahram Akbarzadeh, said it was time for Muslims here to “cut the cord” from overseas funding sources.
“Having a reliance on Saudi funds makes a community indebted to the Saudi [religious] line,” Dr Akbarzadeh said.
The chairman of the Supreme Islamic Council of NSW, Gabr Elgafi, also believes that mosque and school fund-raising committees should be more self-reliant.
Albanese’s comments are a case study in hypocrisy. They also reveal anxiety within the media and political establishment at the prospect of rising popular opposition to the police-state laws being introduced by the Abbott government, and the US-led Iraq-Syria war that is providing the excuse for these laws.
First, Albanese did not vote against, or utter a word of criticism of, thelegislation when it was debated and passed. He joined hands with the government, as did every other Labor MP, in defeating limited amendments by independent and Greens MPs purporting to curb any threat to journalists. Albanese also backed Labor leader Bill Shorten in brushing aside similar criticisms by one Labor backbencher, Melissa Parke.