Councillor Performance
Archived Posts from this Category
May 22, 2013
Parking: Compare & Contrast
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[7] Comments
May 19, 2013
Screwed Again?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[10] Comments
On the 20th May (ie tomorrow) a Planning Panel hearing will be held regarding Amendment C80. To refresh people’s memory, this concerns the rezoning of part of Glen Huntly Rd PLUS an application for a 5 storey development consisting of up to 62 units!
When this first came up before council in 2011, councillors voted unanimously to seek authorisation from the Minister to exhibit – even though Esakoff proclaimed some ‘concerns’ over the application part of the amendment. Then on December 18th 2012, following the Minister’s approval, and after much argey-bargey in council, this resolution was passed unanimously –
Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff
1. That Council request the Minister for Planning to refer Amendment C80 to an Independent Panel to consider the submissions, but limited to the rezoning application.
2. Advise the Minister and the Independent Panel that Council has abandoned planning permit application GE/PP-24474/2012.
So what is Monday all about? Here’s the Department’s blurb on what this Panel Hearing is about (taken from the DPCD’s website) –
Given the history of C87 where residents were literally duped, mislead, and deceived we have little faith that the fate of the C80 will be any different. With the C87, Lipshutz and Hyams in particular were at great pains to tell residents that they could forward their objections and recommendations and that the Panel would consider them. However, when it came to the Panel Hearing it turned out that the TERMS OF REFERENCE had been set and that the panel could not consider anything extraneous to these terms – for example, why other properties could not be included as part of the Significant Character Area. Our suspicion, given the notification above, is that we are probably heading down the same path – ie the Panel terms of reference stated above INCLUDE the application for the 5 storey, 62 unit development. It will therefore be most enlightening to see what and how Council’s planning department argues on this one. Will they actually carry out a Council resolution and desist with the arguments for the application, or will they simply toss their hands in the air and use the woeful excuse that the Planning Panel has the legal authority to make a decision on the application as well? Will residents be screwed once again? And it would be most enlightening to know if the Minister was ever notified of the existence of this resolution as stipulated?
If tomorrow’s hearing includes consideration of the application together with the rezoning of the land, then residents have once again been duped. Far more important is the question as to the value of any council resolutions and whether these councillors really know what they are doing.
May 17, 2013
The Show Goes On!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance[10] Comments
Tuesday night’s agenda is definitely geared towards a ‘feel good’ session. We have the Arts & Culture strategy, the Disability strategy and finally the report on River Red Gum maintenance in Glen Eira. Never mind of course that it doesn’t include all the trees that Sounness identified in his Request for a Report. Also, the promised and re-promised tabling of the draft Local Law for May, is still a no show. There are however a few items of interest.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE
No community reps were present. In fact, it looks like the 3 sitting reps may have been given the boot since the committee has decided to advertise via expressions of interest and to ‘inform’ current members. It will be fascinating to see if any of the current sitting members re-apply and whether they are given the nod. If not, then will they be given any plausible reason for their ‘departure’?
Delahunty has been ordained as Chairperson, but only after a split vote with Hyams. Here’s what we’re told – Director Community Services called for nominations. Cr Esakoff nominated Cr Hyams; Cr Lobo nominated Dr Delahunty. Following acceptance of nominations a vote was held and the voting was tied. After further discussion it was agreed Councillor Mary Delahunty be appointed as Committee Chairperson, and agreed in principle that the chair would rotate to Cr Hyams after a year
If this isn’t pre-empting a council decision on who will sit on which committees, then we don’t know what is!
Also noteworthy is the ‘review’ of the Engagement Strategy and the stated intent to investigate methodology and VLGA ‘principles’. We wait with bated breath!
PLANNING ZONE REFORMS
Whereas other councils (Whitehorse, Stonnington, Bayside) keep publishing updates on their progress with the Planning Zone Reforms and the likely impact on their municipalities, all residents in Glen Eira get to know is the occasional throw away line in the Records of Assembly. For example:
Cr Okotel – can the MAV assist Councils to understand the new planning zones
Cr – Okotel – new planning zones
Workshop – new planning zones
We remind readers that these new zones come into operation on July 1st 2013 and Councils have 1 year to ‘adapt’. Within this year other councils are completing or undertaking their Housing Strategy & Neighbourhood Reviews. Glen Eira, we fear, is quite willing to rely on its antiquated data and suspect policies. More importantly, why have residents not been provided with any information since the release of council’s response?
AMENDMENTS
We must take some credit for the following VCAT Watch item. It concerns a decision where council argued that its yet to be advertised Transition Zone Policy should be considered in the application. We took them to task for arguing for something that doesn’t exist as did the member in his decision. In Quarterly Reports we’ve been told that this amendment is ‘on hold’ until the zone reforms come in. Now we’re told – Councillors will recall that the Minister for Planning refused Council’s request for authorisation to place Amendment C90 on public exhibition.
Why we ask? Why wasn’t this information forthcoming at the time with reasons clearly explained? Why argue for this at VCAT when it is KNOWN that the amendment as it stands can’t get to first base? Why can’t residents be told the truth right from the start and, in fact, what is the truth?
PS: please also note that the tree labelled as River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis at Duncan McKinnon plus the very nice photograph (n0 6.) does not exist anymore! IT WAS CHOPPED DOWN EARLIER THIS YEAR. So much for the accuracy, comprehensiveness and full disclosure of this report!
May 15, 2013
Planning The Glen Eira Way!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[8] Comments
With another 75 dwellings on the cards at the Alma Club location, we thought residents should know what has been going on in Glen Eira. Below are a series of decisions granting permits for multi-unit developments over the past 18 months or so. The decisions include both VCAT rulings and permits granted by either DPC or council resolution. Far too many of these developments can only be described as ‘over developments’ that the current planning scheme actively encourages, especially in Housing Diversity Areas. When 3 storey blocks can contain up to 30 units and where up to a quarter do not receive daylight, when open space does not matter, when vegetation is not protected, when no development contributions are collected, and when the extent of impervious surfaces grows and grows, then something is drastically wrong. And when car parking is continually waived then the flow on effects are obvious. Add all these up and the result is planning mayhem and carte blanche for developers. We have excluded developments that are basically 2 and 3 dwellings and concentrated only on developments over 8 units per block.
- 451 South Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204. Construction of a four (4) storey building (with roof-top terraces) comprising a shop and ten (10) dwellings; a reduction in the standard car parking requirement; and waiving of the loading bay requirement
- 14 Maroona Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising 26 dwellings and a basement car park on land affected by the Special Building Overlay and a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement
- 3 Morton Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163. Construction of five storey building comprising up to 38 dwellings with basement car parking
- 40 Koornang Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163. Construction of a four storey building comprising up to 21 dwellings, basement carparking, two shops on the ground floor and the reduction of the carparking requirement
- 433 Inkerman Road ST KILDA EAST VIC 3183. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising thirty (30) dwellings and basement car parking on land affected by the Special Building Overlay Amended application
- 160 Hotham Street ST KILDA EAST VIC 3183. Construction of a four storey building comprising of up to thirty (30) dwellings A reduction in standard car parking requirements
- 170 East Boundary Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165. Construction of a three storey building (and a basement) comprising up to 12 dwellings and to alter access to a road zone category 1
- 14 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204. Construction of a part two-storey and part three-storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings with a basement car park
- 19 Lillimur Road ORMOND VIC 3204. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising eleven (11) dwellings with basement car parking
- 269 Grange Road ORMOND VIC 3204. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising up to twelve (12) dwellings and basement car park
- 18 Lillimur Road, Ormond.3204. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising fifteen (15) dwellings with basement car parking
- 2C Walsh Street Ormond. 3204. Construction of a three storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings with basement car park
- 17 Murrumbeena Road Murrumbeena. 3161. Construction of a three storey building comprising twelve (12) dwellings. Reduction in visitor car parking requirement and a variation to the car parking design standards.
- 8 Railway Parade, Murrumbeena. 3161. Construction of a three storey building comprising fifteen (15) dwellings and basement car parking
- 117-125 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163. Construction of a part four storey part three storey building, use of the land for dwellings, two levels of basement and a reduction in car parking requirements on land affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay
- 1044-1044A Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD SOUTH VIC 3162 Construction of a three-storey building comprising up to twelve (12) dwellings with basement car park
- 687 Glen Huntly Road CAULFIELD VIC 3162 Construction of a three storey building and basement carpark, comprising two (2) offices, up to nineteen (19) dwellings and reduction in the standard car parking requirement
- 127 Murray Street CAULFIELD VIC 3162. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising no more than twenty eight (28) dwellings with basement carparking
- 290 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD VIC 3162. The construction of a three storey building comprising up to ten (10) dwellings and basement car parking
- 400 Dandenong Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising up to seventeen (17) dwellings with basement car park, a reduction in the car parking requirement and alter access to a road
- 402-404 Dandenong Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC 3161. Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising up to thirty-four (34) dwellings, a basement car park and alteration of access to a Road in a Road Zone Category 1
- 193-195 McKinnon Road MCKINNON VIC 3204. Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising of two shops and up to twelve (12) dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement and a waiving of the loading bay requirement
- 61 Centre Road, Bentleigh. Five (5) storey building comprising two shops and 32 dwellings. Reduction in the standard car parking requirement. Waiving of the loading bay requirement in accordance with the endorsed plans.
- 688 Inkerman Road, Caulfield North. Three-storey building (plus basement) accommodating 12 dwellings and associated car parking.
- 54 & 56 Rosstown Road, Carnegie. The permit will allow the development of the land with two shops and 17 dwellings, use of the land as a shop, reduction of the standard car parking requirement and waiver of the loading bay requirement in accordance with the endorsed plans.
- 111 – 113 Poath Road, Murrumbeena. 3 storeys; 2 shops and 8 dwellings, with 10 car spaces across three levels.
- 2 Belsize Ave. Carnegie. The permit will allow the development of the land with thirteen (13) dwellings
- 18-20 Etna Street, Glen Huntly.Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising up to twenty-seven (27) dwellings and associated basement car park and A reduction in car parking requirements in accordance with the endorsed plans.
- 249 Neerim Road, Carnegie. 3 storey, 11 dwellings
- 23 Bent St., Bentleigh. Three storey building comprising 26 dwellings with basement car parking
- 633-635 Centre Road, Bentleigh 4 storey, 10 dwellings;
- 289-291 Kooyong Road, Elsternwick. Use of the land for the purpose of a Medical Centre, construction of buildings and works and a reduction in the car parking requirements
- 815 Centre Road Bentleigh East 2 storey 8 dwellings
- 658 and 670-672 Centre Road, Bentleigh East; · The permit will allow for 658 Centre Road, Bentleigh East construction of a four storey building comprising up to 46 dwellings, six shops and a convenience restaurant, use of the land as a car park, alterations to access to a Road Zone Category 1, reduction in standard car parking requirement and waiver of loading facilities in accordance with the endorsed plans subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of this order. For 670-672 Centre Road, Bentleigh East construction of a four storey building comprising up to 40 dwellings, five shops and a convenience restaurant, alteration to access to a Road Zone Category 1, reduction in the standard car parking requirement, waiver of loading facilities and removal of an easement in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 of this order.
- 221-229 Glenhuntly Road, Elsternwick. The construction of a ten (10) storey building for up to 89 dwellings, 3 shops, 1 ground floor office, reduction of standard car parking requirements and loading bay requirements in accordance with the endorsed plans.
- 1094 & 1096 Glen Huntly Road, Glen Huntly. 3 storey 38 dwellings
- No. 270 Centre Road, Bentleigh. Four storey building, a reduction in the car parking requirements for a shop and dwellings, and waiver of a loading bay in accordance with the endorsed plans. (8 dwellings?)
- 7-13 Dudley Street, Caulfield East. Five storey building containing up to 71 dwellings; the construction and use of a five storey building for student accommodation (containing up to 116 student bedrooms), a convenience shop and basement car park (accommodating up to 101 car spaces) and the reduction of the standard car parking requirement and changes to the built form
- 650 Centre Road, Bentleigh. Three storey building comprising 13 dwellings
- 95 Nicholson St., McKinnon. Three (3) storey building comprising 26 dwellings
- 1 Mackie Road, Bentleigh East. Development of a three storey apartment building, comprising 29 dwellings
- 1044-1044A Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield South. Three storey apartment building of fourteen (14) dwellings with basement parking and reduction in the provision of visitor parking.
- 32 Mavho Street, Bentleigh. Construction of a three storey building comprising 10 dwellings with basement car parking
- 426 Hawthorn Road , Caulfield South. Construction of a three storey building comprising eleven (11) dwellings
- 98 – 100 Truganini Road, Carnegie. Construction of a three storey building with basement car parking comprising 28 dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay.
- 14 & 16 Maroona Road, Carnegie. The permit will allow the construction of 26 dwellings in a three storey building
May 9, 2013
Oh Calcutta!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[9] Comments
Council |
Dwellings approved |
Subdivisions approved |
Area sq.km |
Density/sq km |
GLEN EIRA |
1,280 |
1,031 |
38.67 |
3183.57 |
Bayside |
35 |
492 |
36.96 |
2402.79 |
Boroondara |
613 |
18 |
59.96 |
2621.93 |
Hobson’s Bay |
457 |
8 |
64.21 |
1298.35 |
Kingston |
1,142 |
1,266 |
91.33 |
1465.91 |
Knox |
965 |
455 |
113.79 |
1295.7 |
Manningham |
837 |
215 |
113.47 |
1003.73 |
Monash |
964 |
150 |
81.48 |
2002.21 |
Port Phillip |
187 |
1,300 |
20.63 |
3905.51 |
Stonnington |
1,498 |
568 |
25.64 |
3509.97 |
Whitehorse |
830 |
888 |
64.25 |
2289.22 |
Yarra |
757 |
512 |
19.53 |
3530.48 |
May 8, 2013
Measuring The ‘Measures’
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[10] Comments
We’ve commented previously on council’s so called ‘Action Plan’ and the simple fact that there is absolutely no correlation between the objectives, actions, and ‘measures’. This follows on after repeated reports by the Auditor General and the reporting standards of councils – how there is a reliance on OUTPUTS rather than OUTCOMES and how so very little of budgets contain well worded rationales and data to substantiate the various claims.
In this post we will focus on the Town Planning & Development set of objectives since this has been repeatedly highlighted as a major concern by residents.
|
OBJECTIVE |
ACTION |
MEASURE |
| Plan for a mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in different stages of their life-cycle within the City. | Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal Change/Housing diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings in larger medium density proposals | Ensure Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies are working by directing most dwellings to Housing Diversity |
COMMENTS
If council was fair dinkum then the measure would state something along the lines of ‘report statistics on the number of 1, 2 and 3+ bedroom dwellings and their location within both the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change Areas’. Further, it is a bit hard to ‘plan for a ‘mixture of housing’ or enforcing a policy that ‘encourages’ 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings when there is no Urban Design Framework and no such prescriptive clauses within the Planning Scheme. Needless to say there is no information provided on how these objectives and the associated policies are to be evaluated! Revealing that 65% of new dwellings go into Housing Diversity says nothing about the number of bedrooms in each dwelling!
|
OBJECTIVE |
ACTION |
MEASURE |
| Encourage and support community involvement in the planning permit application process. | Promote Council’s suite of fast track permit application processes. | Report to Council, year on year, the percentage of applications using fast track process. |
COMMENT
Strange how ‘encouraging’ ‘community involvement’ is limited to only one aspect of the planning process – fast tracking of the application, which of course is designed to assist developers and applicants rather than the broader community. We also have to scratch our heads and wonder how on earth the ‘reporting’ of PERCENTAGES can in any shape or form be interpreted as a policy designed to ‘encourage’ involvement! Both the actions and the measures we maintain are totally unrelated to the objective!
|
OBJECTIVE |
ACTION |
MEASURE |
| Provide a fair, transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process | Improve the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) efficiency by reducing the number of planning application needing to be referred for a decision by undertaking mediation | Undertake ten (10) mediation meetings |
COMMENT
Suddenly ‘fair transparent and inclusive’ is reduced to mere ‘efficiency’. If the underlying philosophy of pro-development remains the same then ‘efficiency’ is no indication of ‘fair, transparent and inclusive’. Further, 10 mediation meetings provides no measurable outcome nor even a sizeable proportion of applications. And what if all of these ‘mediation’ meetings are failures –will the public be informed as to the outcomes of such meetings? In our view, ‘fair, transparent and inclusive’ must involve the promise that:
- All objectors will be informed of amended plans and council’s position within the legal timeframe. This has not occurred on numerous occasions
- That objectors learn of officer’s determination not on the Friday before a council meeting where the decision will be made, but at least a week ahead so that they have the opportunity to acquaint themselves fully with the logic of the officer’s report and to contact their councillor representatives
- That objectors are fully informed of their rights and the processes involved and that councillors do not attempt to abort discussions and questions as has again been the case on various occasions at Planning Conferences.
|
OBJECTIVE |
ACTION |
MEASURE |
| Undertake community consultation and engagement to ensure the Glen Eira Municipal Strategic Statement, Glen Eira Planning Scheme and town planning process meets the needs of local residents and ratepayers. | Survey participants in the Delegated Planning Committee process to ascertain satisfaction rates | 80% satisfaction rating of participants in the DPC process |
COMMENT
This has to be our favourite from the list because of its total nonsense. If the objective is to ‘undertake community consultation’ to ensure that the Planning Scheme and its associated processes are in line with ‘needs’ and expectations of residents, then limiting ‘consultation’ to mere SURVEYS of only ONE ASPECT of the planning process is entirely ludicrous. Consultation involves more than a ‘survey’ – especially when the questions asked remain top secret and are never published! One might then well ask why only 80% and who are the most ‘satisfied’ in this sham ‘consultation’ – the applicant or the objector?
The planning scheme was last reviewed in 2010. Three years later we are still awaiting half of the promised actions to materialise. To the best of our knowledge no ‘community consultation’ has occurred since then although the oft cited community satisfaction survey reveals year after year major DISSATISFACTION with planning in Glen Eira.
The take home message from this community plan is that there is no intention of changing anything. It is full steam ahead to what we believe is the detriment of the community. The least that ratepayers should expect is that when a community plan is funded and devised that the measures, actions and objectives are worth the paper they are written on.
May 6, 2013
The Alma Club: Bye Bye Open Space!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[16] Comments
PS: As a footnote to the entire issue of planning and the failure of this council to not only implement but have any strategic vision for the city, we thought that residents would be interested in the following comments from one VCAT member in a recent decision. This concerns a Dudley St application which has been making the rounds for nigh on 6 years. The area is listed as MINIMAL CHANGE, yet application after application has been rubber stamped for 5 storey student accommodation and other developments. Here’s what the member stated in his decision –
It is perhaps unfortunate that the future of this area is being considered on an ad hoc basis through multiple permits and amendments to permits when the locality has offered a real opportunity for a strategic planning exercise to acknowledge the land’s relationship to the Phoenix Precinct and other attributes. Sadly, the street interface along Gibson Street with garages, a substation and an extensive area of encased fire services, is an example, in my view, of a lost opportunity to achieve a quality and integrated solution for an area that could have had a much higher level of street amenity. Having said that, there is a strategic context provided by the Scheme within which decisions about individual applications can be made and the lack of a specific position in policy about the area’s future direction does not provide a reason to refuse the current amendment request.
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/512.html
May 6, 2013
When Is A ‘Report’ Not A Report?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[5] Comments
What does ‘Report to Council’ mean, especially when part of a proposed ‘Action Plan’ that is the foundation of a Community/Council Plan? In other councils such a phrase would be self evident – ie an officer’s report tabled and discussed at an ordinary council meeting. Not in Glen Eira. Here it can mean anything and everything, including disappearing entirely and never to be heard of again.
We’ve compared the 2012/2013 Action Plan against the objectives for the coming financial year and there are indeed some strange goings on. Apart from the usual humbug of measures not having anything whatsoever to do with objectives, there are many ‘reports to council’ which never saw the light of day in a transparent and accountable fashion. Perhaps they never even landed in the hands of councillors behind those tightly closed doors? Here is just a sample and we cite verbatim:
- Review and update council policy ‘Exclusion of Specific Developments’ from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme to implement measures to ensure multi-dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking. MEASURE: Report a revised policy to Council.
- Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan. MEASURE: Report provided to Council.(We note that on June 28th 2011 this was removed from the Planning Scheme. This also applies to the ‘Transition Zone’ policy which we discover is now ‘on hold’)
- Council Engagement Strategy and consultation processes reviewed. MEASURE: Engagement strategy updated and posted on Council’s website. (Please note that the Engagement strategy was last looked at by council on the 11th October 2011. Not only hasn’t this been revisited since but the full policy is nowhere to be found on Council’s website. What is up there is the pathetic little ‘6 steps’ which date back to at least 2009).
There are many, many more omissions and changes that the current Community Plan does not even mention or account for. Residents should not have to scour through the fine print in order to discover what is truly happening. Nor should secrecy and the pathetic games of semantics replace transparency and good governance. When the stated outcome is ‘report provided to council’ that must mean one thing only – a full and comprehensive document that is produced in the agenda for ordinary council meetings. We repeat ourselves ad nauseum – secrecy is the opposite of good governance, transparency and accountability.
May 3, 2013
The Budget
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[11] Comments
This is our first preliminary look at the proposed budget. It is admittedly a very pleasant surprise that the rate increase will be kept to 6.5%. It is however worth pointing out the rate increases at neighbouring councils –
Manningham – 4.8%
Whitehorse – 4.1%
Kingston – 4.45%
Port Phillip – 4.5%
Bayside – 3.5%
Stonnington – 4.3%
Boroondara – 4.7%
SUPERANNUATION LIABILITY
Glen Eira has decided on the following strategy – “ The Defined Benefit Superannuation Call will be paid off over three years (before the next Review comes into effect) without reducing services of capital investment or increasing Rates”. This is presented as $2.4 million repayment the coming financial year and then $2.3 for the following 2 years. We do not know the interest rate on this debt!
Other councils have opted for different strategies and their comments are worthy of note –
Council’s Budget and Strategic Resource Plan shows that Council has forecast to borrow $7.90 million during 2013/14 to repay a liability Council has to the Vision Super Fund for a shortfall in earnings by Vision Super to meet its actuarial forecast for payments to defined benefits superannuants. This borrowing is consistent with the Financial Strategy as the alternative to borrowing is a debt repayment schedule offered by Vision Super with an effective interest rate of 8.82%: bank loans are lower than the Vision Super rate and therefore are an economic alternative. (Manningham)
The increase in net cash inflows from operating activities is primarily due Council paying $9.78 million to Vision Super in August 2012, being the discounted call amount for Council’s share of the Local Authorities Superannuation Defined Benefits Scheme liability shortfall.
In August 2012 the Local Government Defined Benefit Superannuation Scheme sent us an invoice for $14.3 million to cover our share of the shortfall in employee superannuation. It is payable immediately after 1 July 2013. This impost presents us with a major financial challenge not of our own making. While a likely shortfall was noted in last year’s budget the actual amount was well beyond what we expected. Because we don’t keep that sort of surplus cash in the bank, we will borrow to repay the liability in full – taking advantage of the relatively low interest rates currently available. In addition, we will repay the loan in just five years at an annual cost of $3.3 million. This strategy will save ratepayers over $9 million in interest compared to a standard twenty year loan. Our rate rise this year could have been a little lower but the savings we achieve with our approach will give the community a much better result (Boroondara).
There’s therefore much that is not revealed. Is Glen Eira ‘borrowing’ from the Vision Fund at 8.82% per annum? Did they investigate any cheaper bank loans? Would any bank even give them a loan since recent borrowings totalled $25 million? Clearly Glen Eira was never in a position to pay out up front. The result is probably millions in further interest repayments.
FEES AND CHARGES
- Many of GESAC user costs have increased. What impact will this have on membership and attendance? Why the need for these increases? Isn’t this a case of killing the goose that laid the golden egg? Is this why there’s the neat little rider in the budget about handing control to increase prices to the Manager of GESAC?
- Bin charges go up and up again – 240 litre bin up by another $17 to $377 pa and the 120 litre bin up by $8 to $173 pa.
- Child care fees up again – $5 per day for 3 to 5 year olds to $100 per day.
- No figure provided for council’s actual contribution to pensioner rebate. Has it gone down?
- Staff numbers keep increasing – another $5million in staff costs and numbers up by 28 for EFT
OPEN SPACE
There’s a welcome addition in terms of open space via the statement: “As part of the current budget process, Council will adopt a Policy that all Public Open Space Contributions will be used solely for the acquisition of additional public open space or the upgrading of additional public open space for community use. Contributions would not be spent on existing open space. (Additional open space includes the disused Glen Huntly Reservoir)….In 2013-14, the Budget provides $250K for the upgrading of Elsternwick Plaza, owned by VicTrack”.
The budget also contains this plan – $5 million in 2015/6 and $4.5 million in 2016/17 for the Booran Rd Reservoir. Last year the budget papers had it down as – 4 million in 2017/18 and 3.5 million in 2018/19. So, the ‘redevelopment’ has been moved forward a year or so, but the estimated cost has escalated another 1.5 million. In other words, all that has been gained by this ‘policy’ is not MORE open space in the next financial year but some neat account balancing.
We ask: is the above more sleight of hand, especially since only $250,000 has been made available in the upcoming financial year. What happens if a property does suddenly become available? Will council even consider its purchase?
This is our most important comment however. Council estimates that the open space levies for the coming year will only bring in $2 million. Last year the figure was $1.9 million. Given that there are over 1000 subdivisions in Glen Eira per year, and at least 20 to 30% of these would be for 3 subdivisions and more, then an increase of a piddling $100,000 is quite unbelievable. So how many developers are thus being let off the hook? And why is there no mention of the potential increase in the open space levy given that countless other councils are exacting at least 5% across all of their municipalities.
We will comment further in the days ahead once we’ve had a chance to go through the budget in greater detail.
PS: there is one current ‘innovation’ in this budget that rears its head for the first time. In all previous budgets Council saw fit to include after each category the FINAL FINANCIAL FIGURES for that category in the User Fees & Charges – for example: “Total Asset Management”; “Total Glen Works”; “Total Property and Facilities” etc. This year, no such figures are provided! Hence residents have absolutely no idea how much revenue is brought in for each of these individual categories. Transparency and accountability have again taken a huge hit, despite the Auditor General’s recent report on the need for councils to justify every single cent in language that is accessible, and comprehensible!
May 1, 2013
The Conservatory ‘Debate’
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space[14] Comments
Prior to reporting on this ‘debate’ we wish to highlight these points:
- For some councillors the conservatory has been allowed to become ‘dilapidated’. For others it has been ‘preserved’ and ‘fixed up’.
- Only one councillor mentioned long term consequences such as ‘water, electricity, sewerage’ if this becomes a cafe. What has not been mentioned is ACCESS to serve a cafe – ie will we have loading bays? will more parkland be ripped up for roads and carparks?
- If a cafe, no councillor mentioned outfitting costs and who will pay for this – council or lessee. For example at GESAC $300,000+ was spent on outfitting the cafe!
- Lipshutz’s inconsistency continues – in 2011 he called the conservatory ‘an icon’!!!!!!!!
LIPSHUTZ: Read out the officer recommendations. Stated that the conservatory issue is ‘vexed’ and has come up several times. Previous survey was ‘inconclusive’, Said that ‘many people’ including himself have got ‘concepts’ about what should happen including a ‘cafe/tea rooms or other uses’. ‘There’s no suggestion’ that the place would be ‘demolished’. The motion ‘ensures’ that ‘concepts are brought before the community’ and that people can then come to council after ‘consultation’ and then council would decide. Went on to say that there are plenty of ways that this ‘can be used’ such as cafe or simply ‘flowers and gardens’. The conservatory is ‘much loved’ but also ‘maligned’ building and people want to make sure that it’s used properly and that the motion will make this happen. Didn’t want to see ‘a patch up job’ on the place. Important that the ‘community come in and tell us what they want’. Stated that there are ‘beautiful’ areas to the east, then the lake, and the western side which is ‘not used at all’. Wants to see that part ‘developed’ so it ‘can be used for recreation’.
DELAHUNTY: important that community has input to get this ‘right’ but the question is what’s ‘right’. It’s always been her ‘ethos’ that the role of a councillor is to ‘represent’ and there are strong views about this issue and community groups such as Friends of Caulfield Park ‘can inform us’ and ‘own this process’ as to what it will look like down the track and not ‘spend the community’s money’ on what mightn’t ‘be the end result’. Said that previous consultation wasn’t about concepts and ‘possibly didn’t ask the right questions’ nor ‘broad enough’. Thus she thought that ‘we have to take the lead’ and tell people ‘these are the options’ and ‘hoped’ that community groups ‘take hold of this’. They should ‘inform us’ and ‘help us deliver’ the outcomes. Previous survey ‘only heard from 312 people’ and that’s ‘possibly not enough’ and wanted a ‘more ringing endorsement’ about what to do. ‘Will cop’ that this (ie consultation) has been ‘done before’ but ‘let this be the last time’.
PILLING: said that the motion was a ‘mish-mash’, not clear and ‘confusing’. Said that the last resolution was to fix up the conservatory and ‘protect’ it and that this motion just ‘delays that’ . Accepted the ‘good will’ of councillors but said that it should be fixed up and then consult. ‘Opening it up to commercialisation’ is bringing up a ‘can of worms’. Said the motion ‘was confusing everyone’ and that it’s a ‘mish-mash’. Said he was in favour of community groups coming in, but this motion doesn’t ‘seek to do’ that. Also, there’s ‘a precedent here about commercialising our parks’ and mentioned surrounding, existing cafes and competition and ‘that’s not our role’.
MAGEE: admitted that he’d been in favour of a cafe for many years and went past that morning and asking himself ‘how can this go forward’. Then he realised that over the last 4 years he’d been ‘fighting’ the MRC for ‘overcapitalising and commercialising’ crown land. So he felt like a ‘real hypocrite’ because favouring a cafe in the park was ‘exactly what I was criticising others for’. Therefore he ‘can’t support commercial activities on crown land’. Read out the 2011 motion about ‘full restoration’ of the conservatory and then said ‘here we are two years later’ debating about consultation. Said that what they’re trying to do is ‘give back’ to the community what they were given in the seventies. Wanted a ‘full restoration’ and then going back to the people. He ‘liked’ the idea of plants being there. ‘we have to restore it to its former glory’ and remember why it ‘was put there in the first place’…..’I won’t be supporting anything that goes as far as commercialising any land’ in parks.
LOBO: thought about this for a long time and it involves an ‘icon’ in the park. Said he’d visited last week and received ‘half a dozen’ phone calls from people asking ‘not to dilly dally this process’ any longer because it’s already been ‘considered’ on 3 previous occasions – 2006, 2010 and 2011. Said that if they’d already considered the issues when they sent out the survey and only got 312 responses then ‘maybe at the time they did not realise the importance of this place’ . Handing this over to ‘money making’ businesses is akin to the MRC using ‘crown land to make money’ . Council should go ahead with ‘full restoration’. ‘What we are achieving by sending another costly survey is beyond my reasoning’. If the results are similar to previous surveys then it’s ’embarrassing’ and a ‘futile exercise’. Cited Einstein about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a ‘sign of insanity’. When the city is crying out for open space building something on the open space is the opposite. Said that it looks like council is heading down the track of ‘encouraging cafes, two dollar shops and massage parlours’. Wanted to ‘get on with the job or restoring this icon’.
SOUNNESS: stated that this building came from Rippon Lea where they had lovely gardens, much open space, high ceilings. This conservatory in comparison to that is ‘small and squalid’. Accepted that ‘it’s got a lot of history’ but was ‘rejected from Rippon Lea’. The question then becomes what’s the best use? Admitted that ‘I do not know’. Said that this is like grit in the eye in that ‘it’s a small matter for Glen Eira’ – ‘it’s not a GESAC’; it’s a ‘small thing’ but it’s ‘hung around and irritated’ a lot of people. It’s never going to become the best conservatory and win awards. If it’s a teahouse then you’ve got to think about power lines, sewerage, and water and whether ‘this is the best use for our park’. Went on to say it’s a ‘lot of money to spend on something’ if the returns are small either way.
OKOTEL: said that since the last consultation was in 2006 there had been a ‘sufficient gap’ for this now to be ‘relooked at’. Basically repeated the officer’s report on numbers for and against from the 2006 survey. Commented that the petition that also ‘went out’ doesn’t say if those people who signed also filled out the survey so there could have been duplication and she didn’t think that since this was ‘seven years ago we don’t have those records anymore’. Said that in 2006 there was support for a cafe so community recognised that there was need for development and that currently and ‘unfortunately’ the conservatory is ‘falling further and further into dilapidation’. Thought it was important that councillors take into view the community’s wishes and don’t just follow their own perceptions. That they need to ‘take direction from the community’. Hoped that this was true on ‘every issue’ and ‘take direction from consultation we have with the community’. “Consultation is a fundamental job for council to undertake’.
ESAKOFF: ‘looked forward’ to community views even though different comnmunity. Said that the motion ‘opened it up to more opportunity’ and ‘not just a cafe’ but ‘other uses as well’. Responded to Lobo’s comment about 2 dollar shops saying that they wouldn’t survive without community support.
HYAMS: didn’t ‘think’ that this was commercialisation of parks since tea rooms would add to the park by getting people to come into the parks as in other parts of the world. Objective isn’t to ‘work for the benefit of the operator’ but to ‘bring further life to the area’. Said that in 2006 ‘the majority was in favour’ of a cafe. And that with the petition you ‘can’t put the petition on the same level’ as ‘a neutral community survey’. ‘When you put out a neutral question’ via the consultation survey then ‘you get back the response of the community’ which isn’t true for a petition which also doesn’t capture all those people who refused to sign a petition. ‘so all you get is one side of the argument’. Said that the ‘equivalent’ would be like getting the survey and then discarding all those ‘that say they don’t want a cafe’. Said in 2006 council decided to ‘push ahead’ with tendering although ‘for some reason that didn’t proceed’ and in 2010 officers thought it should come ‘to new council’ and then a year later ‘council changed its mind’. So it’s not a question of coming back again and again on the issue until they get the tea room. Said that suggestions to ‘do the work and then consult’ doesn’t make sense because it ‘may well end up as a waste of money’ if people want a ‘tea room’ and they’ve ‘already put on a roof’ that’s appropriate for a ‘green house’.
LIPSHUTZ: compared Lobo’s and Sounness’ comments and ‘wondered whether we’re talking about the same building’ – ‘in this particular case’ he agrees with Sounness. ‘It’s not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. But people are concerned about it and that’s why the motion is as it is.
Argued that the motion isn’t saying ‘commercialising the park’. It says that ‘we may’ if that’s ‘what the community want’. Motion is all about ‘seeking consultation’ about what people want. Also said that ‘we have protected’ the conservatory; ‘we have fixed it up’ and that ‘we’ve done the works’ and that the motion isn’t about ‘protecting’ but ‘deciding where we go from here’. It’s not a ‘mish-mash’ because all it’s saying is going to people and asking what they want. He’s not afraid to say that a cafe is something that he’s wanted for ‘some time’ and that ‘it’s an excellent idea’. ‘Our role’ is to ensure that parks are used to the fullest potential and it’s silly to ‘have open space that nobody uses’. If in the end it’s about flowers then that’s ‘wonderful’ – ‘it’s for the community to decide’. Not enough to think that ‘let’s build it and they will come’. They didn’t build GESAC and then ask the community what they wanted. ‘we came with a concept’ and then invited the community. ‘This is what this motion is all about’. ‘It is not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. ‘Let’s get the community involved and end it once and for all’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED 5 TO 4.
Glen Eira Debates 