A REPORT submitted to Snowy Valley Council on Thursday outlined the non-confidential details of lease agreements between SVC and Reflections Holiday Parks.
The detailed report did not disclose the commercial and confidential information in relation to the long-term lease and the monetary aspects.
Prior to councillors discussing this item, and prior to the beginning of the council meeting, former councillor Hansie Armour addressed council noting some of the aspects leading up to decisions on the lease.
Ms Armour said the report to be tabled at that meeting was entirely correct and agreed with what was ‘a well written factual report’.
But, for those things that led up to the ‘debacle’ she said leaves those councillors of the previous Council looking rather ‘silly’, Ms Armour said.
Ms Armour pointed out that when the original information was given to councillors for Expressions of Interest (EOI) in November 2023 they had no idea who Reflections Holidays were.
Councillors, she believes, were not told the true picture – and in fact Reflections Holidays were a corporate arm of the Crown Lands Department on whose behalf SVC managed the land up for Expressions of Interest.
In the report tabled at council on Thursday the background states:
Council was provided with a detailed briefing on the outcome of the Public Expressions of Interest on 6 June 2024. The briefing contained detailed information on the offers that Council had received including both financial offers (commercial rent and capital improvements at Caravan Park sites) and non-financial offers such as in-kind contributions towards marketing and community initiatives.
Expressions of Interest (EOI) Offer from Reflections Holiday Parks – Crown Land Managers
In summary, the offer that was received by Council from Reflections Holiday Parks (Reflections) was assessed by the EOI assessment panel as being a low commercial offer compared with other submissions received.
Reflections only put one financial offer into Council as part of the EOI which was for the Riverglade Caravan Park in Tumut. They put in non-financial offers for the Adelong, Batlow and Tumbarumba Caravan Parks by way of offering a marketing (in-kind) contribution to promote those Caravan Parks sites on behalf of council.
Direct quote from Reflections EOI submission – received 12 February 2024.
The financial offer was considered a low offer compared to other offers Council had received from two other submitters, however Reflections in their EOI submissions did state to Council that this offer included the purchase of the 36 x onsite cabins in the Caravan Park. The onsite cabins in the Caravan Park are of various makes and ages and are in varying condition ranging from new (2-3 years old) to quite old (10-15 years old).
Council has no information or oversight on the commercial arrangement that Reflections have in place for the purchase of the cabins from the current lessee (Riverglade Holdings Pty Ltd), all of which are owned by the lessee.
No alternative offers were provided by Reflections other than they were offering a direct cash contribution to Council’s marketing budget.
Reflections also pledged further in-kind annual marketing support each year for Reflections specialist marketing team to assist in driving local events and visitation to the Region to benefit all park operators.
It is not clear whether either of these contributions (Cash or in-kind) would be increased over the life of the lease with Council if Reflections were awarded the lease on the Riverglade Caravan Park in Tumut.
The Conclusion was –
Overall, Reflections financial offer was considered below market rate compared to other submissions Council received.
Overall, the EOI assessment panel recommended that Council should not accept Reflections cash or “in- kind” offers on any of the four (4) Caravan Park sites, as they were below market offers, as indicated in the other responses Council received for the EOI.
Ms Armour pointed out that this was a conflict of interest and when told who Reflections actually were Council should have disqualified them as tenderers under the guidelines.
She also pointed out that some councillors were not aware that SVC actually owns 20 per cent of the freehold of the park (Lot 2 1.529ha).
“This is river frontage; the new amenities block, half the house and kiosk and front drive are on SVC owned land – without this part of the caravan park it would be hard to run as a caravan park,” she said.
Ms Armour also said that councillors were unaware that a decision by Minister Steve Kamper, had already been made to remove SVC as managers of the crown land in June 2024.
“Our interim general manager at the time (Steve Pinnuck) was informed on 8 August (2024) by telephone call of the decision made, and it was formally gazetted the next day 9 August 2024,” Ms Armour told council.
Ms Armour had acquired GIPA documents stating that Mr Pinnuck was informed by email on 12 July 2024 by Greg Sullivan, Acting Deputy Secretary for Crown Land – prior to the telephone call and the gazetted notice.
The GIPAs give reasons by the minister for his decisions as “Multiple local business and stakeholders made representation to the minister and other NSW elected government officials expressing grave concerns re the potential loss of the cabins and the impact on tourism.
Mr Pinnuck – after being sent a formal written letter requested further information about the reasons for the Minister’s decision.
At Council’s August 2024 meeting discussion was held on this matter with a briefing update on the negotiations Council had undertaken with Crown Lands and the Reflections Holiday Parks General Manager on the status of the future of the Caravan Park.
The briefing provided Council with a detailed timeline of events and the discussions Council has had with both Crown Lands and Reflections since 6 June 2024 and up to the time that Council was removed as Crown Land Manager on 9 August 2024.
The briefing highlighted that Council wanted to negotiate in good faith an outcome that would be mutually beneficial to all parties before any decision was made to remove Council as the Crown Land Manager for Lot 3 of the Caravan Park.
Evidence of both Council and Crown Lands willingness to negotiate a mutually beneficial outcome was provided to Councillors in the briefing presentation.
The briefing clearly outlined that Council had done everything requested of it by Crown Lands, however, as already outlined on 8 August 2024, Council was notified by the Acting Deputy Secretary of Crown Lands that the Minister had made a decision and Council would be removed as Crown Land Manager for Lot 3 and Reflections Holiday Parks would be appointed as Crown Lands Manager for this part of the Caravan Park in its place.
The general feeling amongst Staff and Councillors was that both Crown Lands and Reflections Holiday Parks had been misled in their dealings and negotiations with Council since the commencement of the Public Expression of Interest (EOI) process through to Council being removed as Crown Land Manager on 9 August 2024 and Reflections being appointed as Crown Land Manager in Council’s place.
“There were four entities listed in the GIPAs – the same entities that attached their recommendations to Reflections EOI,” Ms Armour told councillors last week.
She said at no time did either the four complainers or the ministers involved ask any explanation from council staff or councillors, nor was it brought to the meeting of the members of the Business Snowy Valleys.
Ms Armour explained to council that she had met Minister Kamper at a Yass Chamber meeting and asked why he had chosen to terminate SVC as manager of the Crown Land and explained that councillors had no idea what had transpired.
Ms Armour said she felt compelled to speak up to last week’s council meeting as the GIPAs she has acquired makes all this information public and therefore, she has the right to speak out.
“If as a government organisation you want to play in the Corporate World you need to keep to Corporate Rules – conflict of interest is what it is, even if only perceived, and there are strict rules in relation to what might be perceived as collusion,” Ms Armour said.
“The community needs to know that our councillors have acted in our best interest at all times,” she said.
“I am sure they will resolve to achieve the best outcome under these difficult circumstances.
“They are often put in a position, as occurred again this time, that they vote, and yet, have not been given all the information – for many and varied, honest and dishonest reasons,” she said.
Ms Armour then asked councillors to not approve the recommendations as they stood at Thursday’s meeting, but refer the situation for further investigation by an appropriate body.
When the matter came up in open council with recommendations to remove all ‘confidential’ information – councillors passed two motions seven to one.
