ITEM 9.7 – MRC
(ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ & SOUNNESS WERE APOLOGIES FOR THIS MEETING)
Delhunty moved an alternate motion that included: that the MRC has entered into a lease with the Alliance group involved with the level crossing removal project where “commuters’ will be allowed to ‘park for free’. This is a ‘sub lease arrangement’ and is ‘valued at approximately $90,000 -$100,000’ for 2 months. Motion also said that council write to the Trust to ensure that ‘they are aware’ of the arrangement. Also copies go to Minister for Environment & Climate Change, Lisa Neville, Auditor-General and members of parliament. Seconded by Magee.
DELAHUNTY: said that the report was first off about access arrangements for the public and what has been happening. Not a lot has been happening but there are ‘other current arrangments’ including a ‘commercial’ deal that has ‘been struck between the Alliance’ and the MRC ‘that values the Guineas car park, conservatively’ for $90,000 for 60 days. That’s just over $1,400 per day. In the ‘stalled’ lease negotiations between the Trust and the MRC ‘their offer and their apparent independent valuation’ is ‘offering the community 30 cents a day’. From this disparity, we ‘can see how absolutely outrageous’ the MRC’s offer on the lease is. ‘It shows what contempt they hold the community in’. ‘We won’t put up with it’ when the MRC itself values the land far more highly. Thus in the private arrangement the MRC ‘are making now what would cover’ their current lease. Even the 95,000 for the lease is a ‘poor outcome’ for the community when there is a valuation which says they should be paying closer to a million dollars for the lease of the land. Said that the starting point for any negotiations should be ‘what they have valued’ the car park land as. She is ‘hopeful’ that in passing this information on to ‘ those negotiating’ the lease that there will be ‘a better outcome for the community’.
MAGEE: started off by saying that the MRC ‘doesn’t seem able to put their hands on the agreement’ of 2011 and he suggests that ‘they look in the same filing cabinet’ where they can’t find the documents for the leases for the ‘northern stables’ and Aquinita Lodge. Ratepayers and taxpayers of Victoria are ‘paying in excess of a billion dollars’ for the grade separation but the MRC is ‘making a profit out of it’. They think that ‘you need us’ so we are ‘happy to sub-let Crown Land which you own’ and make you pay for the land that you own’. When the price they are paying for t’that small car park’ is ‘extrapolated’ across the 50 hectares of land then the ‘one million dollars is insignificant’ because it becomes more like ’40 or 50 million dollars’. Said that the MRC ‘are not what they portray’ themselves to be – they aren’t community minded nor a ‘friend of Glen Eira’. They have the ‘absolute need to profiteer’ and to ‘charge’ the taxpayers of Victoria to ‘park on their land’. ‘This is not only appalling. This is sickening’. Said that the ‘minister should be aware of this. The minister should be commenting on this’. If the MRC are ‘allowed to sublet’ the Guineas car park, then they can ‘sublet any part’ of the racecourse. Question is ‘what are they allowed to do’. Said there is ‘no lease in place’ and that it is an ‘ongoing, day by day’ process. Plus ‘anyone who sits back and accepts this’ is equally in contempt with the MRC.
OKOTEL: endorsed the motion and ‘queried how genuine’ the MRC are about ‘talking with council’. From the ‘invitation’ in the letter printed in the agenda, council has ‘sought’ a meeting with the MRC but it is ‘disappointing that they don’t seem to be able to make the time’. Said that there is no time set aside ‘as yet’. Thus, whilst the tone of the letter suggests they are ‘willing to have an open discussion’ that’s not happening but it’s important for council to ‘continue to advocate strongly’. ‘Despite’ the letters they get ‘very little progress is being made’.
HYAMS: asked for an amendment that when ‘further information’ is received that a report be tabled. This amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and seconder.
DELAHUNTY: what needs to be finalised is the lease but negotiations ‘have broken down’ because there is ‘an incredible discrepancy between valuations’. The MRC has for the last 20 years paid about $90,000pa. They think it’s valued at $100 per year and the ‘council obviously thinks much higher’. The lease to the alliance shows that the MRC doesn’t value the land at $100 per year but much more and they are ‘trying to take the trust and the community for fools and we won’t stand for it here’. Their subletting will ‘help move the lease’ negotiations forward because it shows their own valuation of the land.
MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Glen Eira Debates 
August 12, 2015 at 8:54 AM
What an astonishing discussion. What’s presented above is absolutely astonishing in that
. it reveals how little Councillors actually know (the value of parking leases varies (Delahunty = $90 – 100K vs $1,400 x 60 days = $84K), the area and the capacity of the car parking being provided is not mentioned (by the way, the Guineas Carpark capacity is 449 vehicles)
. the actual topic of agenda item 9.7 (ie. the status of the current lease negotiations, centre of the racecourse infrastructure provision and the removal of perimeter fencing) is brushed aside and remains unaddressed. As is the totally substandard Officer’s Report presented to Council.
. Magee’s comments on the MRC’s inability to find the “2011 agreement” (presumably on the removal of fencing) is equally applicable to Council and the Trustees. It’s probably also attributable to that agreement only ever being presented as a “draft” (Council Minutes 27/4/2011)
. despite Magee (having spent 4 years as a Trustee and 1 year as Trustee Chairman) and current Trustee Hyams (3 years) being present, not one word is mentioned that the Reserve’s regulations prohibit the MRC subcontracting out leased areas.
. if the MRC has been able to negotiate such fees, how much is Council receiving for allowing dirt and heavy duty equipment storage on EE Gunn Reserve for two months and any rehabilitation costs. How does Council intend to compensate the residents and sporting clubs for that disruption.
While I applaud the long overdue grade separation, I’m sure everyone (aside from the MRC) is outraged that the MRC is receiving a handout from the public purse for the public’s use of crown land
. which MRC pay’s a pittance for and
. which the MRC has usurped by ignoring that land’s specific purposes of “a public park and public recreation ground” and focusing on the “racecourse” purpose (refer Auditor Generals Report Sept. 2014)
I’m also equally sure that everyone (except the MRC) will be equally disturbed at how easy it is to divert our supposedly illustrious leaders attention towards a symptom rather than the main cause (ie. the MRCs strangle hold on the racecourse).
August 12, 2015 at 4:08 PM
This is the latest abuse of public land. Couple this with the four storey screen, the cinema that can run until 1am all year round with alcohol being served and the seemingly endless array of noisy and busy events and residents aren’t getting anything in return. You can’t blame the mrc. If they are allowed to get away with all this and make a lot of money then they will continue. Blame must lie with the pathetic politicians who undoubtedly want to keep their noses in the trough as someone wrote and the equally lax council. Okotel has admitted that there has been discussions and correspondence. Nothing is in the public sphere. That’s the fault of this administration. They could and should be screaming from the rafters and making this as public as they can. They haven’t for years and at each step of the way have stepped aside and let the mrc have their way. It’s the old story again and again. Blaming someone else for not standing up for residents rights as happens all the time with planning. Its either vcat as the enemy or here its always been the claim that the minister will call the c60 in if council doesn’t play ball. For once I want this council to show some guts and non partisanship and insist on a royal commission and to inundate every single media organisation and member of parliament with this demand.
August 12, 2015 at 9:41 AM
Why Cant Glen Eira Councillors/Trustees get the Governor In Council and/or the Auditor General on to the case. Its appalling the inaction of all parties to managing the Racecourse for All !
August 12, 2015 at 10:18 AM
When is the State Government going to stop rewarding the MRC for placing their profits before allowing the public rightful use of public land?
Since the Auditor Generals Report what has the Govt. done and what has Council done?
August 12, 2015 at 11:08 AM
A better question could be – when is council going to stop rewarding the mrc by giving them every permit they apply for and when is council going to be upfront and publish every bit of communication it has had with these bastards and when is Hyams as a trustee going to get up and say something worthwhile instead of sitting like a stuffed dummy. The same goes for Esakoff and Lipshutz. When is council going to do something about the fences that were supposed to be removed and all the fences inside the grounds that have grown and grown and taken public land and when will council stop the noise from show after show and define once and for all what is a major event and what isnt and when will they make sure that there is proper traffic management when these things are on. The politicians are useless but this council is even more useless and incompetent and doesnt give a stuff about what happens to the locals living nearby. The mrc can’t be trusted and council cant be trusted.
August 12, 2015 at 12:13 PM
So the State Govt. is paying more for crown land than the MRC is paying for that land.
Can anyone advise me how I can my snout in that public trough?
August 12, 2015 at 10:05 PM
I can understand the outrage being expressed by the Glen Eira Complaints site contributors. However, MRC is still the manager of the whole of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve as it was so for over 150 years. As a manager of this property it is their obligation to get the best deal possible for themselves for any activity organised, including the lease of the Crown Land and fulfill the negotiated obligations with the Trust established by a deed as well as obligations to the owners of the Land, that is the State Government. This I am sure they are doing diligently, legally and proudly from the beginning.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the Council, which has no say in development or management of the land under MRC control, unless the arrangement are changed by the owners of the land together with the CRRT. This is difficult to do as many have tried and failed. If it would be easy VCAT could have been approached to deal with some aspects of MRC activities. So far nothing. As the report indicates the only aspect that the Council can deal with is the issue of access to the Guinness Carpark.
Let’s get to the real issue here. The Alliance, consisting of John Holland, KBR, VicRoads, PTV, Metro Trains and LXRA (Level Crossing Removal Authority) comprise the project team for the removal of level crossings at North Rd, McKinnon Rd, and Centre Rd. There will be closure(s) of the rail line and of the parking lots at the stations. Buses will replace trains for a number of months. But, to provide the public using trains with an alternative parking, the Guinness Carpark can be used for free to access Caulfield station. I think it is very sensible on the part of The Alliance. As for the cost, I am sure it has been evaluated and negotiated carefully on a commercial market basis. I do not think it has much to do with the value of the land, but rather what the market says it should be under such circumstances.
If anyone wants to know the reasons for the costs, you may be lucky and enquire to the LXRA CEO Kevin Devlin. You will probably find there is more of the users of the Guinnea Carpark then of the readers of this site. Good luck to you all complainants to put a spanner in the works of the $6 billion dollar project.
August 12, 2015 at 10:33 PM
You are incorrect on several crucial points.
1. The Melbourne Racing Club is not the land manager for the “whole of the Racecourse Reserve”. The land manager is the Department and it is the Trustees who are there to oversee for the three purposes of racecourse, public park and
2. Council has got a vital say as the “responsible authority” in handing out permits. They can refuse as they have done on several minor issues like renovating the Tabaret and this will head to Vcat. On all the major issues council has played along especially in creating the special committee and claiming that four individuals in fact represent “council”.
3. As the responsible authority council has also sold off land to the club at rock bottom prices.
I don’t accept that Council could not have done anything else. Their unwillingness and failure to challenge and defend its case on the Caulfield Village is the prime example.
August 13, 2015 at 10:05 AM
I agree with you Conanon, obviously, when it comes to MRC and it’s snout in the public trough (as illustrated by this particular instance of yet another hand out to the MRC from the public purse), it’s all about political and vested interests not public interest.
However, if you read the above complaints, not one is about stopping the long promised and overdue grade separation project or that the selection of the first of Glen Eira’s grade separation projects is yet another politically motivated (marginal seat) rather than a public interest decision (ie. Dandenong Line). The complaints are all about how public dollars are spent and the accountability of the public authority spending those dollars, even a “paltry $90-100k” in a $6b project.
The car parking agreement is related to 450 little used car parks located on Crown Land that MRC leases from the Trustees for a pittance (less than $5000 p.a. or $420 p.m.). Yet the landowner (public) is paying not the land manager (Board of Trustees) but the leasee (MRC, despite lease conditions and Trustee Regulations prohibiting subleasing) a conservative $45,000 per month. That’s a profit margin, that although enviable, is impossible to justify or deem equitable
Yes Conanon, aside from during an election year, it is difficult for the public to get it’s views heard, however, while it’s easy to brush them off, you need to realise they have to start somewhere. Given the public billions to be spent on grade separation over many years, this agreement is not an auspicious start.
August 13, 2015 at 5:20 PM
I agree with you Anonymous that the ‘public’ is being shafted time after time. Unfortunately, unless we all start understanding that there is no such legal entity as a ‘public’ that has rights in our legal system then we are only deluding ourselves as to what is happening and how we can organise ourselves to influence events. There are only individuals or legal corporate structures that have ‘rights’ if they own property. The more valuable the property the more ‘rights’ the individual or the corporate seem to have, at least for the purpose of exchange of benefits between parties in a contract.
The general ‘public’ has no such potential benefits or powers. As you have suggested the ‘public’ may have its views aired and even change its representatives, but that does not mean that the government of the day can change the contracts willy nilly. The best examples are the East West Link project and the Desalination project before. More importantly, the problem with the ‘public’ is that you will always find some of the ‘public’ for an issue, and others of the ‘public’ against an issue. That nefarious concept of the ‘public’ is pretty useless. You need to get your voters supporting the ideas and the candidates of your choice to get some movement for a change.
As to the particular issue of the cost of providing the car-parking. I am not sure that the agreement struck by MRC with the Alliance is some-kind of a sub-lease. I recall that Monash Uni used the Racecourse Reserve for parking purposes during their exam periods for many years. Again it was only for a short time and I would think that this would be a benchmark for negotiations between MRC and the Alliance. Again I would stress the issue of agreements and/or contracts between corporate entities. The Government of the day would be very careful not to be seen to be involved to this degree of detail as it would be seen as a Governance issue between 2 parties in a contract. May be it should be, but I think it could open up a ‘pandoras box’.
D.Evans is just a constant complainant, who wishes things should change, but has no idea of how it could be done properly. For example, let us assume that we vote in new Councillors next year. We will probably be in the same situation as we were in the first term of Glen Eira, a divided Council with governance issues raising their ugly head again. And who gains from that? Only administration. We’ve had 3 investigations into Glen Eira, all to do with governance issues that ‘clobbered’ Councillors and tightened the grip of the administration on its power and operations. Unless this site debates properly what has happened and why, why why it has happened, I cannot see much improvement in the future, regardless who will be elected next year.
August 19, 2015 at 2:01 PM
Has anyone written to the responsible Minister and asked for them to intervene?
It seems the louder the bell rings, the harder the Government ignores it.
Maybe for a encore, the MRC will pick up Caulfield Racecourse and ship it to China for $2 Billion. I wonder if the Government will notice a big hole in the ground then?
August 19, 2015 at 2:58 PM
We know that residents have written to MPs and council has several times resolved to do the same. Just on a year now since the Auditor General tabled his report and all is quiet on the western front – apart, of course, from the MRC acting as it always has!