There are several items of interest for the Special Council Meeting on Tuesday night –
- As expected no real changes to the ‘draft’ budget and strategic resource documents. In other words, the recommendations and requests from residents have once more fallen on deaf ears.
- Worse still is that no thorough explanation is provided for fee hikes. One recent public question queried why aged care residential bonds should jump an incredible $100,000 in one hit. The answer? – in line with the average for private operations. Questions as to fee increases for child care, also received the silent treatment.
- Community plan (circa 2011) remains untouched except for an ‘addendum’ that is tacked on about 2011 census figures. No attempt to integrate these latest figures with what was written nearly 3 years ago!
Open Space Policy
- Half a page is all that Glen Eira can produce as far as ‘policy’ goes on this issue.
- Yes, open space levies will now be used for the acquisition of further open space, and/or its ‘development’, but this includes the Booran Road Reservoir which won’t have a penny spent on it until at least 2015/16. In fact the entire budgeted amount for the next financial year in this category is the development of Elsternwick Park at a measly $250,000.
- Not a word about increasing the open space levy to at least 5% across all areas of the municipality when land is subdivided. Nor has this council made any attempt to introduce an amendment to give such a policy legal effect. Other councils such as Bayside, Stonnington, Port Phillip and many, many others already have such amendments passed or well on the way. The likely excuse for this inaction is that council is awaiting the Open Space Strategy Review! Reviews and Amendments are not mutually exclusive – the process should have been initiated years ago if the intent was to really ensure that developers paid their fair share.
Defined Benefits Scheme
Here’s the Swabey recommendation –
“That Council endorses the repayment of the defined benefit call ($7.120mil) by June
2015 in accordance with the following schedule:
– 2012-13 – $2.4mil by 30 June 2013;
– 2013-14 – $2.4mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2014; and
– 2014-15 – $2.32mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2015”.
We draw readers’ attention to the fact that here is an official council document that spectacularly fails to declare both the AMOUNT AND RATE OF INTEREST that residents will be forced to pay. We can only speculate as to where and how these sums will be buried in any further official documents.
As for up front disclosure of monies the ‘declaration of rates and charges’ is another case in point. On the issue of pensioner rebate all that we’re told is: Council Pensioner Rebate -$0.557M AND It be recorded that Council grants to each ratepayer who is an “eligible recipient”within the meaning of the State Concessions Act 2004 a combined rebate up to a maximum of $270 (being an amount contributed by State Government & Council) in respect of that land. Hence there is no admission of exactly how much Council is contributing and whether or not this subsidy has risen, declined, or remained static.
Port Phillip is far more forthcoming with its equivalent agenda item –
The City of Port Phillip offers a council rebate of up to $144.00 in addition to the State Government Rebate of $202.90 to all eligible pension card holders. (Agenda items – 25th June 2013)
On the actual rate increase itself, Glen Eira writes only in terms of the cents in the dollar. Anything to help disguise the fact that it’s another 6.5% increase. Port Phillip states clearly – The proposed rate in the dollar will result in an increase of 4.5% in Council’s rate in the dollar.
Whilst these last examples might be seen as trivial, we believe that they represent the entire approach of a council determined to continually downplay all the potential ‘negatives’ and to make it as difficult as possible for residents to decipher what is really happening.
June 24, 2013 at 11:56 AM
so any news on MRC paying commercial rates?
June 24, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Here are the proposed charges –
“For land owned or occupied by the Melbourne Racing Club, a rate of 76% of the
General Rate in the dollar which would otherwise be payable in respect of the
land.
2) For land owned or occupied by the Yarra Yarra Golf Club, an amount determined
in accordance with an agreement between Council and the Yarra Yarra Golf
Club.
3) For land owned or occupied by a sporting organisation operating with liquor
and/or gaming licence, a rate of 60% of the General Rate in the dollar which
would otherwise be payable in respect of the land.
4) For land owned or occupied by a sporting organisation operating without liquor or
gaming licence, a rate of 50% of the General Rate in the dollar which would
otherwise be payable in respect of the land.”
June 24, 2013 at 6:17 PM
Poor ol mrc. They sure need a handout at our expense.
June 24, 2013 at 4:17 PM
7.5% interest rate rings a bell somewhere. It should never be anything close to this rate. Banks are cheaper and other councils have taken this option. No-one’s explained why Glen Eira couldn’t do the same in light of how much they keep squawking about the funds they’ve got available. It stands to reason that you’d try your hardest to get a loan at the cheapest rate and not pay premium dollar unless you’re forced to. Working this out then we’re paying at least $360,000 in interest. Money that could have gone to other good uses.
June 24, 2013 at 7:08 PM
This is off topic, but readers interested in the c60 and racecourse development will find the Moonee Valley Council response to their Racecourse’s revised master plan of interest. The following is taken directly from the officers’ report set down for the 25th June council meeting. For the full report see: http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/about-the-council/~/media/Files/About%20Council/Council%20meetings/2013/25%20June%202013/Agenda%20-%20Ordinary%20Meeting%20of%20Council%20to%20be%20held%2025%20June%202013.ashx
PAGE 35
In summary, whilst the revised Master Plan does make some concessions in terms of the scale of the proposed development, it fails to address fundamental planning issues to Council’s satisfaction.
Discussion
The concerns raised by Council Officers are that the revised Master Plan does not necessarily provide the best outcome for the site, and significant changes are required in order to provide resolution to the issues raised by the proposal.
Many of these concerns were outlined in Council’s previous responses to the MVRC’s initial Master Plan, in 2012. Some of the issues that are of most concern to officers include:
• Car parking and traffic congestion.
The revised plan does not adequately show how the substantial increase in vehicles in the area will be managed. This includes both daily vehicle movements and vehicle movements when events and races are taking place.
• Public access and safety.
There are concerns over the proposed access to the racecourse, where the majority of patrons would be funneled through a single entry point. The proposed access is to be at the eastern end of an extension to Coats Street, via a tunnel under the race track.
The revised Master Plan also suggests that races will operate more frequently. Council needs a full understanding of how this will be managed in such close proximity to the new and existing residential areas, together with consideration of how other major events at the racecourse, would be managed.
• Layout of the site, new residential buildings and the new grandstand.
The proposed layout may have a negative impact on neighbouring properties, in terms of visual bulk, shadowing and pedestrian and vehicular movements.
• Lack of significant open space.
The location and size of open space within the site is insufficient. Part of the interior of the site could be investigated for use as informal recreation, as occurs on some other racecourses.
• Public transport capacity.
The revised plan has still not addressed how the significant increase in demand for public transport in the area will be managed.
• Drainage and infrastructure impacts.
The site has significant drainage issues that have not been considered in the design of the revised Master Plan.
• Density
The appropriate number of dwellings and population for the site should be based on whether the above matters have been resolved and agreed upon.
TUESDAY, 25 JUNE 2013
AGENDA – ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING
PAGE 36
• Economic impact
A better understanding is required of the impact of introducing additional commercial space into the Moonee Ponds Activity Centre, away from where it has been traditionally located.
• Heritage and significant trees.
The proposed development is not proposing to retain any important heritage features of the site. Important buildings and landscape features have been identified within the site. These should be retained and integrated into any future development. Note that the Advisory Committee will be assessing the Heritage Overlays for the site proposed by Council.
• Timing of the development
Council needs to be satisfied that the staging of development will minimise the impact on the surrounding area, and ensure that the necessary infrastructure requirements are provided in a timely manner.
• Planning Controls.
Council also questioned whether the Activity Centre Zone was the most appropriate for the site. There are other controls that may provide a better planning framework, in order to manage
June 24, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Mooney Valley racecourse does not hold university examinations for at least seven thousand students for all campuses of a university like MRC which accomodates all examination candidate from all Monash Campuses ie. Pharmacy College, Clayton and Berwick Campuses as well as the local Caulfield Campus and then hold more than 4 functions a day as Mr. Warren Brown stated as well as the tens of thousands who are jammed in at THE CUP EVENTS FOR THE DRINKING FESTIVAL AND OF COURSE THE HOPEFUL PUNTERS WHO VISIT ONE OF THE BEST OF TEN POKIE VENUES IN THE State. Nor does Mooney Valley offer training facilities for 500-600 horses on Crown Land nor a vetrinary hospital! Nor does Moonee Valley accpomodate 500 horses(as boarders) stabled in the racecourse facility mostly living on Crown Land too or land bought over the years because of a favourabvle rental situation. Currently the MRC now owns over 700 gambling machines in about 17 venues most of which are in a cluster of 12 hotels purchased for $50million all possible once again due to huge profits and low expenses like rent and of course they are reaping the rewards of all thes “investment” because the club as a non-profit sporting organisation only pays 25% tax on gambling to premier rather than the 33% which hotels such as
Zagames pays as well as the costs of land purchases and holding for car parking.
MRC was happy with last year’s profit increase from $15million to $22million in one year.