Council has repeatedly got up on its high horse and asked that developer application fees be raised so that near ‘full cost recovery’ be returned to council. We have no problem with this. What we do have a major problem with is the appalling lack of governance that was exhibited at the MAV State Conference and the motion put up by Esakoff. Not for the first time are motions submitted that have not been determined in open council (hence authorised by a council resolution) but decided in backroom discussions. This time however, the motion flies in the face of a council resolution that was passed on the 28th April 2015.
Here is what the resolution stated:
Crs Delahunty/Lobo
- That Council note the enclosed case study in which Government set a fee of $10,261 to cover State government costs for VCAT but only $4,939 for much more work undertaken at the expense of Council (ie ratepayers).
- That Council note that ratepayers are subsidising property developers by more than $1m each year because State Governments have not increased planning application fees at all since 2009.
- That Council notes that all rates are higher than they would otherwise be in order to cover the cost of processing developers’ applications.
- That Council write to the Minister for Planning, enclosing this Item,and requesting him to increase the planning application fees for developments over $500,000 to cover the full cost of administering applications (including the costs of taking part in VCAT proceedings and administering conditions of permits), or to the levels already set by the State government for VCAT, whichever is higher.
- That, if the Minister implements part (d) of this resolution, Council undertakes to pass on the full effect of the savings (estimated at around $1m pa) to ratepayers in the first available rates year to the satisfaction of the Auditor General and/or Essential Services Commission.
- That Council copies this correspondence to the Premier of Victoria and the Minister for Local Government and also to the relevant state representatives of the Southern MetropolitanRegion, Caulfield, Bentleigh and Oakleigh and also to the Chari (sic)of the Essential Services Commission for their information.
- That Council also forward a copy of this report and motion to the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Victorian Local Governance Association to assist in their efforts to save the ratepayers of Victoria subsidising the costs of developers.
AMENDMENT
Crs Lipshutz/Okotel
That paragraph e be excised from the Motion. (this refers to returning monies to ratepayers – our explanation)
The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED unanimously.
Several things are worth noting in the above –
- God forbid that money should be returned back to ratepayers and rates reduced! Better that it go into council coffers
- No surprises in who pushed for this amendment
But then there is the question of Esakoff’s motion at the recent State Council. It read –
That the MAV calls on the State Government to increase town planning application fees for commercial projects to full cost recovery
The resolution of April 2015 did not single out COMMERCIAL PROJECTS. In fact, the wording was crystal clear – all projects over $500,000. This motion has not been rescinded. Therefore it still stands. So why, did Esakoff table such a motion that did not adhere to council’s formal position?
In our view, this is just another example of the wheeling and dealing, and abysmal level of governance that occurs in this council. Decision after decision is made in the backroom with no concern for residents and no concern for alleviating their rate burden.
PS: a reminder as to which councillors voted for the amendment – ie not returning any savings to residents. No prizes for guessing who they are –
LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, PILLING, ESAKOFF, HYAMS.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 28, 2015 at 12:22 PM
Another gilt edged gift for developers. Most new development isn’t happening in the commercial zones but in grz and rgz. Why these developers aren’t targeted is because council wants to make it look like they care but in reality the message is still go for it developers. We will make it as easy as pie for you.
October 28, 2015 at 2:19 PM
Somebody should write a book about governance in Glen Eira. It would end up being like war and peace. Mammoth. They have all been taught very well on how to sidestep what is ethical, right and proper.
October 28, 2015 at 4:29 PM
The illustrious Andrew Newton has quietly resigned!
Of interest is this background:
The new Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act was passed by the Upper House at 9-15 pm on 20 October, according to Hansard, and the CEO of Glen Eira Council announced his resignation at the close of a Glen Eira Council meeting, at 7-07 pm. Beating the gun,so to speak, by two hours and eight minutes.
So, it appears that Glen Eira Council is now set for convulsive change (for the better): the completely unexpected has happened.
1. Over the last few years, meetings of the Council’s internal Audit committee have been frequented by observers from the Auditor Generals Department, and sometimes the Auditor General himself attended meetings. Council’s financial position was then, and still is, dire. Cash assets are down, the hundreds of millions from sale of land assets (properties) has been spent, and the GESAC swimming complex still has not produced a profit. The Council Budget even states there is ‘low working capital in the balance Sheet’.
2. The principal spokesperson for Council was the Community Relations Officer, Paul Burke, but now legislation requires that to be done by the Mayor.
3. Early this year the Council Audit committee itself had a shake up; one auditor, who had been on the committee for about 15 years resigned, and was replaced by TWO new people.
4. Also, this week, the State Government passed legislation (a few days ago) to enforce due governance in local government.
One of the provisions now requires Council’s Audit Committee to report directly to council, i.e. not to the CEO.
(Perhaps we will now find out what happened to the $100 million that went missing from the accounts some years ago and was never reported to council).
5. Council’s Annual Report (May 2015) notes ‘During the year, Council was advised that the audit of the Glen Eira City Council would be undertaken directly by the Victorian Auditor General’s Office…’ Perhaps a forensic audit will finally be able to uncover the facts.
6. More interesting though, is the fact that Glen Eira CEO Andrew Newton has just unexpectedly resigned, at the conclusion of a council meeting on 20 October 2015.
Aged only 58, earning $350,000 to $400,000 pa., and in the middle of a five year contract, according to Council’s Media Release he has now decided to ‘move to Advisory, Non-Executive and Voluntary work…’ He actually tendered his resignation around 7-07 pm. At that time, Hansard reveals that the Upper House was still debating the Bill, and had adjourned for dinner. After the resuming the debate, just two hours and eight minutes after Newton’s unexpected resignation, the Bill was passed at 9-15 pm. to become an Act of Parliament.
October 28, 2015 at 7:03 PM
There’s more that might be mentioned in relation to the Annual Report. Buried away on page 209, we find that it looks like council will be at court once again over its empire building (pavilion) contracts. It is indeed quite remarkable that every single contract that Newton has undertaken has come a cropper big time. We still do not know how much Duncan Mackinnon is really over budget and what other costs will now be incurred – and this doesn’t even account for the delays in construction – years past originally cited construction dates. There’s also a mention of Centenary being late and occupancy not handed over? Another brawl with contractors? GESAC is another case entirely and how much this is costing ratepayers is still unknown. We repeat – every major construction that this council has signed off on, has ended up either costing more, or ending up in legal squabbles. And it is the ratepayer who bears the cost.
Here’s the fine print from page 209 –
(c) Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion
Council took the balance of works on the Duncan Mackinnon Reserve Pavilion project out of the hands of Maxstra Constructions Pty Ltd (Maxstra)
in December 2013 as Maxstra was unable to provide Council with an acceptable response to a ‘show cause’ notice. In June 2014, Council appointed
FIMMA Constructions Pty Ltd (FIMMA) to complete the balance of the works. In the period between Maxstra’s removal from site and FIMMA’s
appointment, Council undertook some works on the site which it managed itself.
The contract with Maxstra remains on foot. Council holds unconditional security from Maxstra in accordance with the contract of approximately
$480,000. Under the contract Council is entitled to be reimbursed for any additional cost incurred in completing the works and/or rectifying
defective works. Conversely, Maxstra also has rights under the contract to make claims against Council where a breach can be shown.
Either party is entitled to pursue damages and cost recovery through civil proceedings. The final obligations of either party will not be known
until all works at the site as originally contracted have been completed, and then any claims from both parties fully assessed.
(d) Spring Road Landfill
Spring Road Landfill is a closed landfill in the City of Kingston that the City of Kingston currently monitors and manages. It is possible that
the City of Kingston may seek costs from Glen Eira City Council in future to cover an 11.61 per cent share based on a management agreement
established when the landfill was active and used by the City of Moorabbin. It is highly uncertain if the City of Kingston will call on Glen Eira City Council to cover future costs and current material suggests that any remediation works would be minor and Council’s costs immaterial.
October 28, 2015 at 4:59 PM
I see Pilling voted with Liberal mates aaaagain, he has withdrawal symptoms if he uses his own independence a votes against them.
Esocoff has alway botched her position of MAV, honestly she not the the brightest of light-bulbs.
If councillors or the bureaucrats held a policy position for more than a few seconds it would be a record.
Just make it up as you go, would be GE’s moto