We’ve uploaded the main parts of the LIST OF ISSUES in the saga of Glen Eira City Council versus Hansen Yuncken. We make no judgement on the rights or wrongs of either party (that is for the courts and/or mediation). All we can say is that it is extremely illuminating to read the claims and counter claims and then compare this with the continual spin that was perpetrated on unsuspecting ratepayers. Lipshutz’s continual reassurances that council was ‘on top’ of things now certainly rings hollow in the face of what these documents reveal. There is more here than simple weather delays, the finding of asbestos, and changing pool tiles as we were led to believe up until November 2011. Please read and then ponder what this reveals about overall management of such a project.
COUNCIL’S CASE (uploaded here)
There are 3 main facets to Council’s claims – liquidated damages basically for late completion/handover; defective works and variations from the contract. They are also after damages and costs.
For liquidated damages Council is demanding – $1,589,000 plus another $766,000
For utility charges Council is claiming – $137,218.92
For ‘variations’ to the contract Council is claiming – $453,313.44 plus another $321,057.00
For ‘defective work’ council is claiming – $91,319.00
Council finally claims ‘loss and damages’ for $3,084,846.00
HANSEN YUNCKEN’S CASE (uploaded here)
HY deny many of the dates submitted by council as late for handover
HY ‘does not admit’ that a ‘verbal conversation’ took place regarding utility costs payable by HY and nor was the company liable to pay for these costs
On ‘defective’ claims HY denies, disputes and concedes some of these
HY counter claim for $3,001,019.60 ‘on account of variations to work under the contract’
Readers should focus on the concluding tables that HY has supplied in the 244 page document.
COMMENT
The far more vital question concerns governance. For example:
- What have councillors been told in the past 3 years? In what form was any information provided – written, verbal, presentations?
- What questions did councillors ask and were they answered?
- Have any councillors ever clapped eyes on the contract? Did any councillors ask to see and read the contract?
- Have any councillors ever seen the List of Issues?
Answers to these questions will reveal fully how this council functions and its governance.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 24, 2013 at 6:05 PM
After all this these morons give Newton another contract. Ya gotta be jokin’. They should be certified or sacked.
October 24, 2013 at 6:43 PM
The number and range of alleged defects is quite incredible. What I find more incredible but not surprising is the Hansen and Yuncken claim that on countless occasions they were left waiting to receive any answers from council. Yet this is nothing I think compared to the alleged “verbal agreements”. How is it possible that when a sum of half a million dollars is involved that there is nothing in writing? Amateurs like council should never have undertaken a project of this magnitude.
October 24, 2013 at 8:32 PM
You’ve got it in one Mr Evans. Whole project way, way out of their league. However, council did have that jack of all trades – Lipshutz to pave the way with his newly found engineering expertise.
October 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Doesn’t matter who wins cos it won’t make it to court. Settlement is what council wants to save face. I’d back Hansen and Yuncken in by a country mile on this one. Oh and watch out next year for a steep rate rise with all the dough that’s going to barristers, solicitors and even senior counsels perhaps. The cream will be raising prices at gesac. Brilliant work council!
October 25, 2013 at 8:22 AM
Council oversight has always been an issue at GESAC – documentation shows they didn’t even know it wouldn’t open on time until a month before hand. Then during the 6 month opening delay (originally thought to be a matter of weeks) they remained silent and only leaks to the media revealed the opening date slipping further and further away. Even the Official Opening Ceremony lacked the expected pomp and ceremony (any one ever seen a picture?) and no public notification until after the event.
GESAC has been open for 18 months and, now that the initial hoopla has died down, it only rates a mention in an open Council Meeting when it’s time to rip up more parkland for car parking (an issue known and ignored throughout GESAC’s conception and construction). For a project of this magnitude (excluding land, the project cost $45m and has left ratepayers servicing a $25m debt) that was touted as being a commercially viable operation that would add revenue (and therefore reduce rates) to the GE coffers, the lack of information presented is astounding. Any other organization would be regularly presenting separate information on it’s performance (profit and loss, staffing, membership and visitor statistics etc.) but not GE Council. The only information being presented on performance are obscure one liner statements buried in the budget or accounts.
When any organization (public or private) acts this way it’s a sure sign of hidden major issues. The community has been questioning for years and it’s about time Councillor’s started to too.
October 25, 2013 at 3:06 PM
I suppose that something of this size will always have problems and maybe disputes. That does not excuse council from not telling people what’s been happening. On time and on budget is not telling the truth and that’s become the norm for council.
October 25, 2013 at 6:53 PM
It has become apparent to me that the Council is and has been for some time intentionally conditioning the community to passively accept poor performances as the norm.
If you look through the history the Council’s performance progressively gets worse, slowly eroding the community’s confidence in the council’s ability to represent the interests of the community.
If the community passively accepts poor performances which I believe is the goal of the “control group,” In years to come the community will passively accept (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted) It’s a slippery slope.
October 25, 2013 at 10:38 PM
Nope, can’t agree with you. No conditioning going on. The name of the game is cover up.
October 25, 2013 at 10:43 AM
The only peron in council at the time of noticed delay wa Cr Penhalluriack who offered on countles occasion to give advice. He wa never conulted because Cr Ml knew it all! Often mentioned in chamber at meetings.
October 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM
Who the hell is Raj and what’s he get paid.
October 26, 2013 at 7:51 AM
When Council took the damages claim (originally $1.2m) off the GESAC construction cost to enhance it’s widely proclaimed achievement of having bought the project in under budget ($3m) I, along with many others, wondered if Council was being pre-emptory.
Firstly, putting a value a lost revenue for a start-up business that hasn’t started is extremely difficult and secondly, it was extremely unlikely that Hansen and Yunken would just pay up. A costly legal battle was bound to occur.
The damages claim has now tripled and includes significant sums based on verbal agreements which the counter claim alleges never occurred. There is much very expensive legal argey-bargey going on and it’s unlikely that there will be one clear winner.
When the Courts finally determine the outcome, will Council add both the costs involved in their claims and the substantial legal fees incurred to the cost of GESAC construction or will they persist in their under budget claims (claims which also ignore the additional $1.6m spent on car park expansions and re-location of the playground).
January 8, 2014 at 1:10 PM
One of the three stooges. The other two being Martin Snell and Peter Hortis.