The above is a movie in which a very young Robert Redford and an even younger
Natalie Wood were the main characters. It is a very sad tale indeed, with no
happy ending.
Forty-one-years on since this Tennessee Williams play was retold, York has its own saga relating to condemned property, or at least one that the public should not enter without being sure they have the best possible accident cover.
Are we now blissfully unaware of who the main protagonists in York’s drama are, or just doing our best to forget?
Are we chalking-up ‘Chalkies’ to a bitter, financially painful experience?
Or do we remember that Martin Roddis from Hendry Group Pty Ltd undertook a building compliance assessment report which condemned this property as being unfit for public use soon after it was bought on June 19, 2015, for a staggering $625,000.
The Shire of York is certainly aware of the Martin Roddis report. Hopefully, it is now in pursuit of recompense for the substantial losses made when a Commissioner was king- and looking after some blissfully happy humble servants very well.
In addition the Shire should also be questioning the lending policy of the Department of Treasury which, in this case, allowed a hugely inflated price to be paid for an alleged community investment, using government/public monies, without undertaking any form of due diligence regarding the loan. (Or had it been lied to.)
After the sale there was even an attempt at another blissful arrangement, where the Commissioner was prepared to do his very best to lease the property back to its recent owners.
This is alleged to be for storage purposes only, suggesting that the former owners were already aware that the property was ‘unfit for public use’.
Unfortunately the lease arrangement fell over. The Commissioner and his oppo, Graeme Simpson, where told by the DLGC that the lease would have to be advertised in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1995- Sect 3.58 so the possibility of really, really cheap rent, sort of went out through a broken window.
Forty-one-years on since this Tennessee Williams play was retold, York has its own saga relating to condemned property, or at least one that the public should not enter without being sure they have the best possible accident cover.
Are we now blissfully unaware of who the main protagonists in York’s drama are, or just doing our best to forget?
Are we chalking-up ‘Chalkies’ to a bitter, financially painful experience?
Or do we remember that Martin Roddis from Hendry Group Pty Ltd undertook a building compliance assessment report which condemned this property as being unfit for public use soon after it was bought on June 19, 2015, for a staggering $625,000.
The Shire of York is certainly aware of the Martin Roddis report. Hopefully, it is now in pursuit of recompense for the substantial losses made when a Commissioner was king- and looking after some blissfully happy humble servants very well.
In addition the Shire should also be questioning the lending policy of the Department of Treasury which, in this case, allowed a hugely inflated price to be paid for an alleged community investment, using government/public monies, without undertaking any form of due diligence regarding the loan. (Or had it been lied to.)
After the sale there was even an attempt at another blissful arrangement, where the Commissioner was prepared to do his very best to lease the property back to its recent owners.
This is alleged to be for storage purposes only, suggesting that the former owners were already aware that the property was ‘unfit for public use’.
Unfortunately the lease arrangement fell over. The Commissioner and his oppo, Graeme Simpson, where told by the DLGC that the lease would have to be advertised in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1995- Sect 3.58 so the possibility of really, really cheap rent, sort of went out through a broken window.
So why did the best Commissioner, the world
has ever seen, decide not to advertise ‘Chalkies’ for lease to someone else?
One theory is that he was smart enough to realize other potential lessees might query the structural state of the building, seek independent advice and be told it was unfit for public use.
As of today’s date this property, valued at half the original sale price, with a supposed rental value of around $550 per week is still empty. At the full sale price of $625,000 the lease, per week, should have been between $900 and $1,000 rent return.
Therefore- anyone contemplating the question ‘to lease or not to lease’?, the answer should be no, let it stay empty!
Right now the ‘Shire of York versus the Chalkies sale’ will be a legal case of ‘best’ of luck.
So, in future, if you see a property once known as St. Patrick’s Convent School, then the Ragged Robin Restaurant and finally Chalkies, located at 25 to 27 South Street York, for sale? Remember the meaning of ‘Caveat Emptor’.
Be aware that as of January 12, 2017, an unnamed licenced independent valuer has the property’s Market Value as $385,000, although you will have to protect your investment with $650,000 worth of insurance.
On March 2, 2017, the Shire of York commissioned Ralph Beattie Bosworth, Perth quantity surveyors to do a heritage building, concept estimate for one (1)- a proposed community building, and two (2)-a proposed restaurant, without the risk of public injury caused by the roof or walls caving in.
So since the beginning of this year, the Shire has had an independent Valuer, a quantity surveyor and the YRCC’s investigators, SGL, all beavering away for a ratepayer funded fee.
Before this, a report was commissioned from a company called BCA Consulting that specializes in independent evaluations of the risks that buildings may pose to life, limb and property. Its main claim to fame is advising the owners on how best to manage their fire, health and safety obligations.
Then there was another engineering report from McDowell Affleck, Structural Engineers. Rumour has it this was McDowell Affleck's second report and a watered down version of the first.
It appears that the current Council is worried about the public risk factors inherent in this community asset’s probably dangerous dilapidation.
One theory is that he was smart enough to realize other potential lessees might query the structural state of the building, seek independent advice and be told it was unfit for public use.
As of today’s date this property, valued at half the original sale price, with a supposed rental value of around $550 per week is still empty. At the full sale price of $625,000 the lease, per week, should have been between $900 and $1,000 rent return.
Therefore- anyone contemplating the question ‘to lease or not to lease’?, the answer should be no, let it stay empty!
Right now the ‘Shire of York versus the Chalkies sale’ will be a legal case of ‘best’ of luck.
So, in future, if you see a property once known as St. Patrick’s Convent School, then the Ragged Robin Restaurant and finally Chalkies, located at 25 to 27 South Street York, for sale? Remember the meaning of ‘Caveat Emptor’.
Be aware that as of January 12, 2017, an unnamed licenced independent valuer has the property’s Market Value as $385,000, although you will have to protect your investment with $650,000 worth of insurance.
On March 2, 2017, the Shire of York commissioned Ralph Beattie Bosworth, Perth quantity surveyors to do a heritage building, concept estimate for one (1)- a proposed community building, and two (2)-a proposed restaurant, without the risk of public injury caused by the roof or walls caving in.
So since the beginning of this year, the Shire has had an independent Valuer, a quantity surveyor and the YRCC’s investigators, SGL, all beavering away for a ratepayer funded fee.
Before this, a report was commissioned from a company called BCA Consulting that specializes in independent evaluations of the risks that buildings may pose to life, limb and property. Its main claim to fame is advising the owners on how best to manage their fire, health and safety obligations.
Then there was another engineering report from McDowell Affleck, Structural Engineers. Rumour has it this was McDowell Affleck's second report and a watered down version of the first.
It appears that the current Council is worried about the public risk factors inherent in this community asset’s probably dangerous dilapidation.
How much these reports on
‘Chalkies’ have cost local ratepayers since 2015 is anyone’s guess, but an
educated one would be at least $60,000.
The renovation estimate to convert “Chalkies’ into a usable safe community building is $906,000, Plus GST.
For a restaurant it is $1.163,000, Plus GST, which is for base building works only with no costs associated with the fit-out or embellishments included. (Why the Shire has requested a cost assessment for a commercial restaurant is anyone’s guess- when it still has the Forrest Bar & Café and should know all about the negative public perception of ‘competitive neutrality’.)
In these quotes no allowances are made for many things, including engineering costs, the costs for replacement of the existing roof structure, the necessary ground stabilisation (under-pinning) , and other major infrastructure upgrades.
The estimate of $906,0000 (excl.GST) is based on the assumption that the Shire of York undertakes a competitive tendering process for any restorative work. The Moore Stephens Draft Fraud and Risk Assessment clearly states that the Shire’s recent tendering processes put ratepayer funds at Extreme Risk. It does not even check if its contractors have any appropriate insurance cover.
If you add-on the original sale price and GST, the current total cost for a rejuvenated, rather than totally renovated community building is around $1.6million in ratepayer dollars. As a restaurant, $1.9million plus change.
All this for a property valued at $385,000- when the roof could still cave in.
So any potential purchaser faces a major liability from a Shire of York asset sale.
On the silver screen in 1966, Robert Redford, played Owen Legate, a man with the power to condemn a town.
In this decade, in the plot scenario for York, Tim Jurmann plays Tim Jurmann acting as the Senior Building Surveyor for the Shire of York with the power to condemn buildings, or at least demand that they are repaired to the standard required under all building regulations.
A Building Surveyor is a trained professional, working for the community in its best interest, with the authority to ensure all buildings are safe and accessible to the public. Mr Jurmann is a senior one of these.
Mr. Jurmann has played this role for the Shire of York since February 2010.
The renovation estimate to convert “Chalkies’ into a usable safe community building is $906,000, Plus GST.
For a restaurant it is $1.163,000, Plus GST, which is for base building works only with no costs associated with the fit-out or embellishments included. (Why the Shire has requested a cost assessment for a commercial restaurant is anyone’s guess- when it still has the Forrest Bar & Café and should know all about the negative public perception of ‘competitive neutrality’.)
In these quotes no allowances are made for many things, including engineering costs, the costs for replacement of the existing roof structure, the necessary ground stabilisation (under-pinning) , and other major infrastructure upgrades.
The estimate of $906,0000 (excl.GST) is based on the assumption that the Shire of York undertakes a competitive tendering process for any restorative work. The Moore Stephens Draft Fraud and Risk Assessment clearly states that the Shire’s recent tendering processes put ratepayer funds at Extreme Risk. It does not even check if its contractors have any appropriate insurance cover.
If you add-on the original sale price and GST, the current total cost for a rejuvenated, rather than totally renovated community building is around $1.6million in ratepayer dollars. As a restaurant, $1.9million plus change.
All this for a property valued at $385,000- when the roof could still cave in.
So any potential purchaser faces a major liability from a Shire of York asset sale.
On the silver screen in 1966, Robert Redford, played Owen Legate, a man with the power to condemn a town.
In this decade, in the plot scenario for York, Tim Jurmann plays Tim Jurmann acting as the Senior Building Surveyor for the Shire of York with the power to condemn buildings, or at least demand that they are repaired to the standard required under all building regulations.
A Building Surveyor is a trained professional, working for the community in its best interest, with the authority to ensure all buildings are safe and accessible to the public. Mr Jurmann is a senior one of these.
Mr. Jurmann has played this role for the Shire of York since February 2010.
In August 2014 he became
Director of a Crowe Certification, Shire of York and according to his Linkedin
profile still claims to be the Shire of York’s Building Surveyor to this very
day.
Between 2010 and 2014, ‘Chalkies’, was a privately owned, commercial property used for the sale of antiques, therefore accessible to the public. (Mr. Jurmann was the Shire’s Building Surveyor.)
Other than continuing minor earth tremors, the only event severe enough to cause damage to ‘Chalkies’ was the severe windstorm on January 30, 2011. It is unknown if any damage was reported, or investigated. (Mr. Jurmann was the Shire’s Building Surveyor.)
In 2015 the property was found to be unfit for public use, suggesting it was also unfit for public access. (According to Mr. Jurmann he was still the Shire’s Building Surveyor.)
The fact that the property now requires $1 million spent to make it a safe community building tends to suggests that the structure was sold when it was not all it was ‘cracked-up’ to be’? In fact it was far more cracked up than it should have been.
Who then is the biggest culprit, a Commissioner who abused his powers, a Building Surveyor who appears not to have done his designated job at the time - or the owners who allowed a near useless property to be sold with the loan repayments coming from their friends and neighbours rates? Remember they have been paid $240,000 more than it is registered as being worth.
A cryptic clue is that it could be a synonym of euphoria, heaven, pleasure and paradise and rhyme with kiss. Or maybe you prefer one of the other two, maybe all three. All you can do is your best!
The facts from which you can make these choices are listed in the two ‘Released under Freedom of Information’ documents published below.
David Taylor.
Between 2010 and 2014, ‘Chalkies’, was a privately owned, commercial property used for the sale of antiques, therefore accessible to the public. (Mr. Jurmann was the Shire’s Building Surveyor.)
Other than continuing minor earth tremors, the only event severe enough to cause damage to ‘Chalkies’ was the severe windstorm on January 30, 2011. It is unknown if any damage was reported, or investigated. (Mr. Jurmann was the Shire’s Building Surveyor.)
In 2015 the property was found to be unfit for public use, suggesting it was also unfit for public access. (According to Mr. Jurmann he was still the Shire’s Building Surveyor.)
The fact that the property now requires $1 million spent to make it a safe community building tends to suggests that the structure was sold when it was not all it was ‘cracked-up’ to be’? In fact it was far more cracked up than it should have been.
Who then is the biggest culprit, a Commissioner who abused his powers, a Building Surveyor who appears not to have done his designated job at the time - or the owners who allowed a near useless property to be sold with the loan repayments coming from their friends and neighbours rates? Remember they have been paid $240,000 more than it is registered as being worth.
A cryptic clue is that it could be a synonym of euphoria, heaven, pleasure and paradise and rhyme with kiss. Or maybe you prefer one of the other two, maybe all three. All you can do is your best!
The facts from which you can make these choices are listed in the two ‘Released under Freedom of Information’ documents published below.
David Taylor.
ALL ABOUT CHALKIES (There are
answers of sorts from the Shire President raising more questions?)
1) Why was Council briefed on the complaint lodged with the Public Sector Commissioner just three months ago?
2) What took so long to progress to this lodgement as the property has been owned by the Shire since 2015?
3) Wasn’t a demand made in public in 2016 directly to you for Council to investigate the activities of Commissioner Best including his purchase of Chalkies?
4) Prior to that you were advised, in writing, in October 2015 that the building was unsafe, then reminded in January 2017 and told the cost of repairs in March, 2017. Was Council not shown these documents straight after their receipt?
5) In fact from 2015 there has been extremely damaging reports from the Hardy Group, BCA Consulting, McDowell Affleck, an Independent Valuer and Ralph Battie Bosworth. Were you ever shown these documents and if not? why not?
1) Why was Council briefed on the complaint lodged with the Public Sector Commissioner just three months ago?
2) What took so long to progress to this lodgement as the property has been owned by the Shire since 2015?
3) Wasn’t a demand made in public in 2016 directly to you for Council to investigate the activities of Commissioner Best including his purchase of Chalkies?
4) Prior to that you were advised, in writing, in October 2015 that the building was unsafe, then reminded in January 2017 and told the cost of repairs in March, 2017. Was Council not shown these documents straight after their receipt?
5) In fact from 2015 there has been extremely damaging reports from the Hardy Group, BCA Consulting, McDowell Affleck, an Independent Valuer and Ralph Battie Bosworth. Were you ever shown these documents and if not? why not?
6) Why does the CEO have the right to report potentially serious mistakes to
authorities prior to advising Council?
7) Why bother mentioning the WACCC when the matter is being dealt with by the Public Sector Commissioner?
8) The CEO WOULD have to tell Council if he had directly contacted the WACCC, or had been contacted by them!
9) Why suggest there was ‘a quote’ when it is in black and white there were two?
10) Mr. Tim Jurmann claims he still works for the Shire of York- does he?
7) Why bother mentioning the WACCC when the matter is being dealt with by the Public Sector Commissioner?
8) The CEO WOULD have to tell Council if he had directly contacted the WACCC, or had been contacted by them!
9) Why suggest there was ‘a quote’ when it is in black and white there were two?
10) Mr. Tim Jurmann claims he still works for the Shire of York- does he?
RESPONSE
Very interesting. Chalkies was sold
in June 2015. In October 2015 you (Shire) were told it was unfit for public use
and Best had already gone.
According to you, you and Council were finally briefed three months ago, making it around June 2017, two long years after the event.
Mr. Martin arrived around May, 2016. Thirteen months is one hell of a long time between finding out something isn’t right and advising the proper authority, then advising you and Council. If he was not advised by staff and/or Council in a timely manner-then the question is why not and the onus comes back to you.
According to you, you and Council were finally briefed three months ago, making it around June 2017, two long years after the event.
Mr. Martin arrived around May, 2016. Thirteen months is one hell of a long time between finding out something isn’t right and advising the proper authority, then advising you and Council. If he was not advised by staff and/or Council in a timely manner-then the question is why not and the onus comes back to you.
Regarding your reference to the CCC, Mr. Martin, should advise you if he has contacted the CCC on any matter concerning the Shire, unless he was dobbing you and Council in. Even then the CCC would have to advise you as the defendant.
David Taylor
Windows 10
SHIRE RESPONSE
From: David Wallace
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 1:01 PM
To: davidgrant
Subject: Re: QUESTION
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 1:01 PM
To: davidgrant
Subject: Re: QUESTION
The CEO has a duty to report anything
on that doesn't seem right to the proper authorities then notify myself and
councillors.
Except for if he notifies the CCC
then he can't tell anyone.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1
4G on the Telstra Mobile network
QUESTION
-------- Original message --------
From: davidgrant
Date: 4/09/2017 12:44 pm (GMT+08:00)
To: David Wallace <david.wallace@york.wa.gov.au>
Cc: Paul Martin <ceo@york.wa.gov.au>
Subject: RE: QUESTION
Thank you David’
Just a couple of things. Councillors were ‘briefed’ meaning that were not involved in the decision making process to refer the matter to the public sector commissioner? Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t councillors elected to make those judgement calls or does the tail wag the dog?
A quote- no it was two quotes. One for a community building, and one for a commercial property, a restaurant which the Shire of York should not get involved in! That may be a question that comes back to haunt you.
The only interpretation of Tim Jurmann is that he was allegedly extremely slack at his job and/or the Shire was slack in forcing him to enforce building codes.
This is a job he claims to be doing to this day. What do you intend to do about that?
Regards David Taylor.
Just a couple of things. Councillors were ‘briefed’ meaning that were not involved in the decision making process to refer the matter to the public sector commissioner? Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t councillors elected to make those judgement calls or does the tail wag the dog?
A quote- no it was two quotes. One for a community building, and one for a commercial property, a restaurant which the Shire of York should not get involved in! That may be a question that comes back to haunt you.
The only interpretation of Tim Jurmann is that he was allegedly extremely slack at his job and/or the Shire was slack in forcing him to enforce building codes.
This is a job he claims to be doing to this day. What do you intend to do about that?
Regards David Taylor.
SHIRE RESPONSE
From: David Wallace
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 10:23 AM
To: davidgrant
Subject: Re: Chalkies
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 10:23 AM
To: davidgrant
Subject: Re: Chalkies
Hi David
Councillors were briefed about 3
months ago about this building and on a way forward. We have been made aware of
a current sworn evaluation and a quote on bringing the building up to
code.
All information regarding the
purchase of this building was refered to the public sector commissioner. The
agenda item regarding what to do with this building is now waiting for a
response back from the public sector commissioner.
Regards
David Wallace
How many white elephants will we have by the end of this decade? I fear the motor museum is next.
ReplyDelete