The transaction in question was the $2,072,071 fire services property levy collected by council on behalf of the commissioner of state revenue.
Cr Seema Abdullah added an amendment for the chief executive to write to local government ministers seeking clarification of the term ‘expenditure’, and whether the fire levy fell into that definition.
“Not every council applies the financial expenditure limit to this transaction,” she said.
“There is some kind of inconsistency across the board.”
Cr Fern Summer voted against the motion after questioning whether the increase was justified.
“We’re essentially doubling it for something that only went over by a small amount and we’re putting things in place to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” she said.
The report to council noted the fire services levy was expected to increase, meaning there could be a risk of further breaches.
As a result of the review, a new condition was introduced to separate discretionary and non-discretionary spending, with different financial limits for each.
The chief executive can now authorise non-discretionary payments that are required to fulfil a statutory duty up to $4 million.
21°C