Putting the Beef back in the “Beef Capital”

PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING THE CASINO NRLX

ALL RATE PAYERS AND BUSINESS’S WELCOME

LET’S GET CATTLE BACK IN THE CASINO NRLX

Meeting will be chaired by omas George with o cial invites to Richmond Valley Mayor and Aldermen also Members of the Casino Auctioneer Association, State and Federal Members.

MONDAY SEPTEMBER 4 AT 5.30PM CASINO RSM

NRLX, it would show “good faith” with the Richmond Valley Council showing they are flexible in trying to resolve the situation.

RV Agriculture (owned by Richmond Valley Council) needs to sell the Cattle they are running in the holding paddocks and return these paddocks to the agents.

This 6-month period would give all parties time to reach an agreement and would give all parties time to reach an agreement and would reinstate the NRLX to the premium selling facility in the northern part of the state. Casino would also become the Beef Capital again.

I would further propose that a NRLX working committee be established for this 6-month period, comprising of 1 or 2 representatives each from RVC, Agents, Transporters, Casino Businesses, State Government representative and Buyer’s representation. This committee should be chaired by an independent person.

I also believe the only way forward on this matter is for the RVC to lease the concerns it has raised on this matter. Because agreements between the parties have not been reached, I have convened a public meeting to address these matters before this situation becomes irretrievable.

This meeting will be held at 5:30pm at Casino on Monday September 4th, 2023.

Kind regards, Allan Berry

Deputy Mayor Greg Clancy lodged the motion, to overturn a decision of the February 28 meeting involving the controversial Treelands Drive Community Centre.

He lodged it just before the extraordinary council meeting on August 18 called to note the progress of tender negotiations with companies vying for the Treelands Drive project and another controversial council project, building the Grafton Aquatic Centre.

But in a press release and on local radio station Loving Life FM, the council’s general manager Laura Black claimed the rescission motion was unlawful. The release said that prior to the council’s extraordinary meeting on August 18 the general manager received a rescission motion citing the names of five councillors, and the signatures of four. During the meeting, a motion was moved by Cr Greg Clancy and ruled out of order by Mayor Ian Tiley as it was not a matter that could be considered at the extraordinary meeting. The release then said subsequently, the rescission motion has been ruled unlawful. Unless it is withdrawn, its exclusion will be reported to the September ordinary meeting.

Council Tender Assessment Panels for both the Yamba

On radio Ms Black said she could implement it because, actions had already been taken.

“You can’t rescind resolutions where the action has already been taken or is commenced, substantially commenced,” she said.

But Cr Clancy said his advice was the motion with four signatures, more than met the threshold of a legal motion.

“I believe the rescission motion is lawful and I look forward to it being dealt with at the September meeting,” he said.

“There’s a number of councillors who have decided we need to look at Option B as the preferred option for the Treelands Drive Community Centre and this can be decided at the September meeting.”

He dismissed Ms Black’s claims the rescission motion was unlawful because things have been done to further the project, which a rescission motion could not undo.

“I have legal advice that this is a decision for councillors to make,” Cr Clancy said.

“I believe the rescission motion should be presented to the September meeting, where the councillors can decide to support it or not.”

Cr Clancy said from his understanding the report for the rescission motion could come to the September meeting and include a note from the general manager outlining her concerns with the motion.

He said his rescission motion and possibly another to rescind the council’s decision to proceed simultaneously with a decision to simultaneously fund both stages of the Regional Aquatic Centre, were a fiscally cautious move. He said pursuing both projects as originally planned would expose the council to borrowing perhaps tens of millions of dollars.

“I would have few problems with the council borrowing a couple of million,” he said. “We haven’t borrowed since about 2015 from memory and I think we’ve got ourselves into a position where some borrowing is responsible.

But he said there had been mention the pool project could cost $30 million or more and this was beyond the debt limit he thought council could live with.

Cr Clancy’s rescission motion, which included the signatures of Crs Clancy, Peter Johnstone, Bill Day and Jeff Smith plus the name of Cr Tiley, sought to rescind a rescission motion passed at the February 28 council meeting.

It overturned the council resolution from its December 2022 meeting to pursue Option B for the community centre project.

The February 28 rescission motion was not typical as it did not come from the council, but from council staff.

Cr Clancy objected to it on that basis, but a Cr Tiley ruled it admissible because conditions had changed to the extent which led him to believe the council could lose an $11.1 million grant for the project if it followed that path.

That advice led to two councillors, Cr Tiley and Cr Bill Day to publicly declare they had changed their preference for Option B to Option A.

But in the intervening months it has emerged from documents obtained from the council and the Department of Regional NSW under GIPA, that the grant funding was not at risk and the funding body considered both Options A and B equally viable.