There’s one item from the last council meeting that we have not as yet commented upon – the Stormwater Harvesting/Flood Mitigation at Boyd Park. This item has a long and convoluted history, culminating in the unbelievable ‘debate’ that occurred in the chamber last December. Here’s some background:

The item first surfaced in December 2010 and its stated purpose was “For Council to consider a proposal to harvest stormwater for park and street tree irrigation from a Council drain in the Outer Circle Linear Park, Murrumbeena.”. A huge underground tank would supposedly hold 1.5 million litres of water. Flood mitigation was an ‘add on’ and certainly not the prime objective. The report noted that Council had been ‘offered’ a government grant of $529,000 but the entire project would cost approximately $1.1 million.  Mention was made of ‘soil contamination’ but considered ‘unlikely’. The recommendation requested council’s approval of the expenditure to match the grant and that this would come from the allocated, budgeted funds for drainage. The project was required to be completed by June 2013.

Pilling and Lipshutz moved the motion for the project to go ahead, PLUS that there be an “on-site” session with residents to “explain” the project. Penhalluriack, Forge and Magee voted against. They argued that a huge water tank would not necessarily prevent flooding (ie. what happens once it’s full; where does the water go?) plus that councillors had not been provided with enough facts and figures to justify the expenditure. Even Lobo (although he voted for) argued that it was a “big waste of money” and that a “cost-benefit analysis” was required.
The final vote was 6 to 3 in favour of accepting.

A year later on December 13th 2011, there was this request for a report –

Crs Penhalluriack/Forge

Please provide a report at the next Council Meeting on the Boyd Park underground water storage and holding tank which council passed on the 14th December last year, and for which council has budgeted some $600k and is expecting a Federal Government Grant of $529k. Councillors were under considerable pressure to approve this project at that Council Meeting since confirmation was required by the end of the December. Has the expected cost of the facility escalated, and what is the currently expected cost? When will the public consultation occur and when will the project commence?

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

The ensuing report (February 2012) had only one paragraph of relevance – the remainder was a regurgitation of the December 2010 report. This solitary paragraph read: “The feasibility was the subject of the 14 December 2010 report. With funding available this financial year, officers plan to complete Stage (b) works by the end of June 2012. Council can then complete the balance of the work by June 2013 in-line with the funding agreement with the Government.”

We note that 14 months down the track there is:

  • No comment on potential soil contamination
  • Part (b) (ie concept planning & design) is still not complete
  • No facts, figures to ‘prove’ any of the claims made a year ago or now.

Then suddenly at the last council meeting (ie 10 months further on) the project rears its ugly head again! This time however, we find:

  • Major pollution which it is claimed will blow the budget completely
  • A new addition to the original objectives – “Help reduce the amount of gross pollutants and sediment entering Port Phillip Bay by trapping materials from the Council drain in Nangana Road”
  • A revisiting of Penhalluriack’s argument that the drought has broken. In the end the report argued: “it is difficult justify the full scope of works as originally envisaged. Instead, officers recommend that Council delete the stormwater harvesting component (it could be retrofitted later if necessary) and consider the following options….” The options were: improving storm water & flood mitigation by the building of a pollutant trap at the estimated cost of $290k to $350K or just flood mitigation. Cost – $190k – $230k!

Of course, Option B was carried with Sounness, Delahunty and Magee voting against.

COMMENTS

This entire project, now over 2 years in duration, has been a total balls up from what we can see! Not once has any statistic of real import been provided to the public or councillors. Not once has there been any explanation as to why the thorough soil testing was not done immediately. Not once has any attempt been made to quantify the extent to which flooding will be reduced. It’s all been on a wing and a prayer and compliant councillors for the most part accepting whatever is put before them!

The debate of December last year is extraodinary for its sheer spin and smoke and mirrors and telling over 200 families who live in the area that they aren’t worth spending any extra money on! Here’s the gist of what was said!

Lipshutz: council had funding but now with discovered contamination this changed things. The minimum that council can do is flood mitigation. Said that the other option of trapping debris would affect 200 houses but this won’t have any real effect throughout the whole municipality.

Esakoff talked about “changed circumstances” and the “relatively small benefit’ versus cost therefore she supported option B.

Sounness said he realised that there were issues and that the storm water authority had to ensure that run off was disposed of safely. Said that he didn’t think the cost to do it properly is that much and if you don’t address debris then more flooding happens. Need option A because it will last for a long time and improve the quality of storm water and reduce flooding and this will improve the park itself.

Delahunty said that there’s an obligation to the wider community and here’s the opportunity to remove ‘gross pollutants from the storm water drainage system. Said that the argument was nonsensical’ to say that because the trap doesn’t do enough we shouldn’t do anything. Said that they’ll soon be hearing about the fantastic financial report ‘so the financial argument doesn’t stack up either’. Hoped that in the years to come they do make decisions that serve the wider community.

Magee: he doesn’t like to spend money ‘recklessly’ but to argue that we won’t do it is not an argument. For $120,000 council has a responsibility to do something. It might only make a small difference but if every council did it then there would be vast improvement. It’s the responsible thing to do.

Okotel- Magee’s suggestion was good but we can’t ‘in all good conscience’ do option A, ‘one drain, in one council’ when a lot of the drains are the problem. Won’t have any benefit. Better to advocate on behalf of residents to state government to fix the problem.

Hyams – question of degree, everyone agrees that money not spent recklessly. Small area, small difference it would make. Have to spend money on ‘things that would benefit them all’. Hoped that Delahunty wasn’t suggesting that just because the financial performance was good that council can now be less vigilant in how it spends its money.

Lipshutz – people have to make a decision. This is going to be a ‘drop in the ocean’ and won’t make much difference. Large downpours cause flooding everywhere and money can be used better in other areas. ‘Let’s do it overall, let’s do it all rather than one”.