Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

September 23, 2012

The Newton, Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling Legacy!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

This is what our wonderful councillors and administrators (that really successful ‘negotiating team’) have bequeathed to the residents of Glen Eira!

The first photo depicts the new ‘pedestrian path’ in and out of the tunnel. This is the access to the new playground and park.

 

And this is the dust following a sedan car as it drives through the tunnel.  Imagine walking through the tunnel with a baby in a pram and toddler running alongside — in this dust.  The floor is still dusty sand, and littered with horse droppings. Pity the blog doesn’t have the capacity to convey smell!

 

September 23, 2012

Hyams: Hype, Hyperbole & Hypocrisy

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[11] Comments 

 

September 19, 2012

MRC: Money, Money, Money – But Not For Residents!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[24] Comments 

At last Council Meeting the MRC was sold just under 100 square metres of land for a song – as we stated in a previous post. Poor MRC! Our wonderful councillor gang took pity on this organisation and instead of getting some real returns for the community sold it at bargain basement prices of $140,000.

PS: We need to correct the above paragraph. The land has not been ‘sold’ as yet. There has to be the official advertisement and the call for submissions under the Local Govt Act requirements. We remind residents that they therefore have the opportunity to lodge an objection to the sale.

PPS: We’ve checked this week’s Caulfield and Moorabbin Leader as well as the ‘Public Notices’ section on council’s website and THERE IS NO ADVERTISEMENT APPEARING ANYWHERE CALLING FOR SUBMISSIONS ON THE SALE. Given that administrators have had a week to place the advertisement or put it up on their website, is this another instance of keeping the public ignorant, and therefore silent? Cloak and daggers, but deliberately orchestrated? Make up your own minds – plain ineptitude/incompetence or more sinister dirty tricks?

It’s therefore with great irony we read the following two notices. One is from yesterday’s Herald Sun, and the other is today’s Media Release from the Minister for Racing.

The Herald Sun article was about free entry to race meetings. Speaking about the MRC, Dale Monteith said” The MRC has something like 800 poker machines yielding about $50,000 per machine to fund its business model, we have $108…..The bottom line is no club other than the MRC can make proposals like this because we simply don’t have that revenue stream.”  Yes, Lipshutz & co took real pity on this cash-strapped organisation and sold out for a measly $140,000!

Next there’s this official Media Release:

New Caulfield facility to help grow racehorse ownership

Wednesday, 19 September 2012

A bright and big new lounge facility is to be constructed at Caulfield Racecourse to greatly encourage racehorse ownership and help grow the racing industry.

Minister for Racing Denis Napthine said the new indoor/outdoor lounge facility, to be located in the former outdoor betting ring, will be open to racehorse owners and their guests, regardless of whether their horse is running on the day.

“There are 55,000 thoroughbred racehorse owners in Victoria. It is important to look after these investors in the industry and, most importantly, encourage new owners,” Dr Napthine said.

“The new venue will showcase the benefits of racehorse ownership and feature marquees, food and beverage stalls, racing vision and a stage for entertainment,” Dr Napthine said.

“The new owners’ lounge, a step up from the current cramped facilities, will make a major difference to the raceday experience to those who make an investment – small or large – in Victorian racing by buying and owning a racehorse.

“It is hoped that this new area will also entice owners to attend more race meetings and entice their guests to consider racehorse ownership, which helps to build on the economic benefits generated by the racing industry.”

Melbourne Racing Club Chief Executive Officer, Alasdair Robertson said the club is pleased to be partnering with the Victorian Coalition Government on this important project.

“Racehorse owners are so vital to the racing industry and its ongoing prosperity, so we are thrilled to be able to boost our level of service to owners through the development of a new facility at Caulfield,” Mr Robertson said.

Thoroughbred Racehorse Owners’ Association (TROA) Chairman Jonathan Munz welcomed the recognition of the role of racehorse owners across Victoria.

“Owners put on the show and need to be given the best possible raceday experience. We commend the Melbourne Racing Club and Coalition Government on acknowledging that and showing the initiative to introduce this new owners’ facility at Caulfield,” Mr Munz said.

As a further incentive, the club intends on expanding its hospitality package for Victorian Thoroughbred Owner Gold Card holders, by providing:

  • owners with free access to non-feature meetings and half-price entry to feature meetings;
  • half-price entry to guests to non-feature and feature meetings;
  • free barbeque, beverage package and race book for owners and trainers on the day; and
  • a selection of free finger food after the last race.Costs for this project have been shared between the Coalition Government, providing $120,000 from its Victorian Racing Industry Fund and the Melbourne Racing Club, contributing $136,285.

The MRC, in conjunction with TROA, will also contribute $100,000 per year to operate and maintain the new facility.

 

September 18, 2012

More Muck-Raking And Investigations!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

We present a series of emails from the Municipal Inspectorate. This is the result of a complaint to the Inspectorate to investigate a potential ‘leak’ (presumably by a councillor). The catalyst for this investigation was a public question asking whether more than one firm of lawyers was involved in the O’Neill affair and whether council had hired a consulting firm in its CEO appointment process. Of concern were the costs involved if either of these events took place.

The first email from the Inspectorate read in part as follows:

“I am an Inspector of Municipal Administration appointed pursuant to section 223A of the Local Government Act 1989.  I am currently making some inquiries into a complaint from the Glen Eira councillors, which allege that public questions you asked of the ordinary council meeting of  xxxxx referred to matters which had been earlier deemed confidential by Council.

I am making inquiries to ascertain whether there is any evidence to support a misuse of position breach by any of the councillors.”

Months later, there was another email, the most important paragraph reading:

“The Inspectorate has ascertained that the matters which were subject to your public questions were not deemed confidential by a resolution of Council. The Inspectorate has concluded its inquiries into this complaint as there was insufficient evidence to support a misuse of position breach under the Local Government Act 1989 by any of the councillors. Council has been advised of the outcome of these inquiries.”

Unsure of what the opening sentence actually meant, the resident contacted the Inspectorate seeking clarification. The response was: “Even if a council meeting is closed to the public, whilst the content discussed may be confidential, any resolution made at that meeting does not automatically become confidential unless a resolution is passed declaring it as such. Council meeting minutes usually provide the topics discussed in camera and these minutes are made publicly available.  This was the case in this instance, therefore the Inspectorate was satisfied that there was enough publicly available information in relation to the questions you put to Council.”



COMMENT


These remarks and the events themselves are indeed extraordinary:


    

  • Does this mean that Council has been operating ‘illegally’ for eons since NO RESOLUTION to maintain confidentiality has ever been recorded in the minutes of council meetings?
    • 

  • Is this what we elected councillors for – to spend all their time complaining to ‘integrity’ agencies when residents are merely trying to get answers that should be freely available?
    • 

  • Paranoia does not enhance good governance!
    • 

  • Secrecy, as continually practised in Glen Eira is abhorrent and on the basis of the Inspectorate’s comments, highly suspect, if not in actual breach of the Local Government Act!
    • 

  • How many complaints about Glen Eira City Council has the Inspectorate had to handle in the past ten years? We would not be at all surprised if it constitutes a world record!
    • 

  • We note that Council has again retained the veil of secrecy since it has made no announcement regarding this investigation, nor its findings!
    • 

  • Finally, we note that the scheduled CEO Special Committee of July 31st has still not made its minutes available. Maybe they are hoping that people will forget it ever took place!
    • 


	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 18, 2012



	

			Letters To The Editor
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[15] Comments 


	

		
Hyams selective with facts


Re Cr Hyams’ letter (“VCAT will make decision”, September 4), Cr Hyams says the matter was referred to VCAT following the report of a legal expert. He does not mention that neither he nor then-mayor Esakoff made any effort to require the CEO to go through mediation (normally the case) before engaging the expert.


Cr Hyams does not say he and other councillors have refused to provide me a copy of that expert’s report nor that only one incident of bullying is not alleged against me – comments I made in a private letter to Cr Esakoff.


Secondly, Cr Hyams says legal costs will be determined by VCAT. Whatever the VCAT decision, council will have to pay its legal costs, and most likely my legal costs as well.


Thirdly, Cr Hyams refers to the minister as saying councillor conduct panels are the appropriate place for matters to be dealt with. But they do not give parties the opportunity to properly test the evidence. Once the 40 or so allegations against me were subjected to the VCAT spotlight, they were reduced to four.


Glen Eira ratepayers require explanations from the mayor as to:


    

  • Why he and Cr Esakoff did not require the CEO to go through mediation?
    • 

  • Why he continues to assert I am responsible for the waste of ratepayers’ money?
    • 



I am confident voters will have faith in my integrity, and return me to council office.


Cr Frank Penhalluriack


 +++++++++


The Hyams’ Letter from September 4th


VCAT Will Make Decision


Regarding “Council coffers take hit” (Leader, August 22) some points need to be made clear to understand Glen Eira Council’s action against Cr Penhalluriack at VCAT.


The council made applications to the Councillor Conduct Panel alleging misconduct by Cr Penhalluriack, following recommendations by an independent legal expert on workplace behaviour and by the Ombudsman after lengthy investigations. The council chief executive took no part in any council discussion or decision on the referral of Cr Penhalluriack to the Councillor Conduct Panel.


Cr Penhalluriack exercised his right to refer the case from a Councillor Conduct Panel to VCAT.


Whether the council or Cr Penhalluriack will ultimately be responsible for payment of legal costs will be decided by VCAT. The council’s directors and offer’s insurance may also cover a claim for costs.


There is now a Bill before Parliament that will require councillors to pay their own costs if they refer a conduct matter to VCAT.


The Minister has stated that a Councillor Conduct Panel is the appropriate place for matters of this kind to be heard.


Cr Jamie Hyams


Mayor, City of Glen Eira.


COMMENT


Our view has consistently been that it is high time that the machinations that are endemic in Glen Eira be brought out into the open. That can only occur under cross examination and in public. When we have an administration that has been involved in investigation after investigation, when charges of bullying rear their ugly head time and time again without ever being truly substantiated, then there’s obviously something drastically wrong with the workings of this council.


Recent events, such as the testimony of Jones and Burke, are indicative we believe why the so called evidence must be tested in the public domain. Councillor Conduct Panels are secret. Our view is that they are nothing more than an ‘old boys’ club’. When Hyams and his cohorts have no regard for public monies and can throw away up to half a million dollars, then they should also be called to account.

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 17, 2012



	

			Time For A Change – #2
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance 	

	[4] Comments 


	

		
The June 26th 2012 Special Council Meeting  to consider the budget and the community plan listed the term ‘open space’ 73 times in the minutes of this meeting. Time and time again lip service has been paid to the importance of ‘open space’ – how to acquire more, how to use this to enhance liveability and recreation, and how ‘open space’ is important for all residents. That’s the spin. The reality is far different.


We’ve commented in the past on how little this council has done in regards to open space levies and how out of step they are with the current thinking of many other councils. On the one hand, they bemoan the fact of how little open space is available in Glen Eira and how much it would cost to purchase. Yet, in the same breath, this council imposes minimal financial costs on developers who seek to subdivide land and erect anything from 3 to 4 to 20 storey high density dwellings! They can’t have it both ways!


Even more telling is that these councillors have again turned a blind eye to the inadequacies of the Planning Scheme. Instead of ensuring that subdivisions bring in some real money to pay for open space, our woeful lot have allowed the current rates to stand from at least January, 2006. If the following isn’t an enticement for more and more development, then we don’t know what is! The current levies are:








CRITERIA




PERCENTAGE   OF CONTRIBUTION






The   number of lots in the subdivision capable of containing a   dwelling.


3   lots – 2%


4   lots – 2.5%


5   lots – 3%


6 or more lots –   3.5%






The   site is in McKinnon, East Brighton, Ormond or Bentleigh.


0%






The   site is in Carnegie, Murrumbeena or East Bentleigh.


0.25%






The   site is in Caulfield, Caulfield North, Caulfield South, Caulfield   East, Glen Huntly, Elsternwick or St Kilda East.


0.5%






The   site is not within 300 metres (walking distance) of a park listed in Table   2.


0.25%






Fifty   percent or more of the lots in the development contain   less than 40 square metres of private open space, not including   the area in the front setback.


0.25%






Fifty   percent or more of the lots in the development contain   more than two bedrooms (a study is regarded as a bedroom).


0.25%






A   six or more lot subdivision which does not provide useable   communal open space that has a minimum of 4   metres and provides a minimum area of 60 square metres,   and is not part of the front setback, service area or   driveway.


0.25%








Compare this to:


KINGSTON: about to introduce 5% and 8% in Major Activity Centres


CARDINIA – in all residential Zone 1 – 8%


PORT PHILLIP – all municipality 5%


GREATER DANDENONG – “Any residential or commercial subdivision in the area bounded by Springvale Road to the west, Cheltenham Road, Dingley Freeway Reservation, Dandenong Southern Bypass to the north, EastLink to the east and Hutton/Greens Roads to the south (except for Lot 2, PS 524033N Volume 10804 Folio 885 and Lot1, PS 524033N Volume 10804 Folio 884). 20%”. Other residential zones – 5%


KNOX – “Subdivision of land into lots having an area of 725 square metres or greater in a Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone or Residential 3 Zone. Minimum of 5% of the total land to be subdivided.


Subdivision of land which includes lots having an area of less than 725 square metres in a Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone or Residential 3 Zone. Minimum of 8.5% of the total land to be subdivided.


MANNINGHAM – 5%


MAROONDAH – “All subdivisions 5 per cent. Land at the south west corner of Canterbury Road and Dorset Road, Bayswater North 8 per cent”,


MOONEE VALLEY – “Subdivisions of greater than 10 lots 5 per cent where provided as a percentage of the site value of the land 5 per cent or greater subject to negotiation of the density and layout of the development where provided as land. All other land 5 per cent”.


MORELAND – Location as defined by Plan 1:


1. Brunswick East / North Fitzroy 2.8%


2. Brunswick 3.1%


3. Brunswick West 2.5%


4. Coburg 6.8%


5. Pascoe Vale South 3.4%


6. Coburg North 4.3%


7. Pascoe Vale 3.7%


8. Oak Park 3.1%


9. Fawkner 5.7%


10. Hadfield 4.3%


11. Glenroy 4.0%


12. Gowanbrae / Tullamarine 4.7%


We could go on and on! Suffice to say that the hypocrisy of Glen Eira council is mind blowing. Residents are on the one hand fed the tripe about halting overdevelopment in such areas as Bentleigh and Carnegie, yet every possible enticement has been offered for more and more development in these areas. We can only speculate as to the stupidity and/or ignorance of our councillors, or their complicity in the Newton and Akehurst pro-development vision.

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 13, 2012



	

			Setting The Record Straight!
		


	Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance 	

	[8] Comments 


	

		
We’ve received the following comment, which we believe deserves to be featured as a separate post.


“I know the objector and the lengths she has gone to in order to try and ensure that residents get a fair deal. Unlike so many of us who are prepared to sit back and whinge, this lady has put her money where her mouth is. At the vcat hearing on the subdivision she hired a barrister which probably cost her thousands of dollars. She didn’t have to do this, and god knows, she’s not flush with funds. But she was determined to at least try and get some justice and a decent hearing. She lost of course.


Then there was the centre of the racecourse. I’ve seen her objection and to me it made plenty of sense. She did her homework, running all over Melbourne to see how other councils dealt with pathways. She took photos of these alternate tracks, costed them, and backed this up with medical journal articles that showed how jogging on hard concrete injures people. She met with the MRC, and they were supposed to get back to her and organise another meeting. Of course they didn’t but literally ploughed ahead, with the acquiescence of this council to create their yellow concrete monstrosities throughout an area that is supposed to be a recreation and park land.


It’s incredibly easy to blame one individual as Hyams, Esakoff and now Southwick have done. Just because there is only one objection, doesn’t mean that the rest of the municipality accepts what is happening. I certainly don’t. But I was too lazy, and despondent, to write up a formal objection.


Ultimately she did withdraw her objection. Not because she thought she was wrong, or because the fire had left the belly. I suspect it was simply that the threat of paying out the mrc’s legal costs, which I’ve no doubt they would have tried, was a risk too great to take. Idealism and a social conscience can come at a great cost when you’re fighting unscrupulous councils and a mega industry who don’t care one little bit about who they want to crush and how much it will cost. For council, they simply put their hands into our pockets. For the mrc, well they got Napthine and the whole damn government supporting them.


Southwick’s, Hyams and Esakoff’s attacks are totally without foundation and tell us more about them and their dirty tactics, than they do about the objector. She should be awarded the Citizen of The Year!”

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 13, 2012



	

			The Danby Letter
		


	Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[9] Comments 


	

		
Dear Mr Xxxxxxx,


Many Caulfield Residents have written to me to express their disappointment at the Caulfield Village Development given approval by the Glen Eira City Council. Last month the Melbourne Racing Club awared the lucrative Caulfield Village development contract to the Beck Probuild Consortium.


The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve should benefit all local residents through the provision of a racecourse, public, recreation ground and public park. My office has been in contact with you recently to express my personal disappointment at the size of the development which will take more than 15 years to build, create an additional 1,500 dwellings, including a 15 story (sic) complex, over 5 hectares of land. This will affect all residents in our local area, decrease our local amenity, increase traffic congestion and more parking pressures, overcrowd the area and disrupt the local area with increased commercial activity. The actions of the Council and the State Government in approving this oversized project will cause nothing but future problems for local residents.


This development was strongly opposed before the 3010 State Election by the newly-elected Member for Caulfield David Southwick and the (then Shadow) Planning Minister Matthew Guy. Mr Southwick called it a ‘monstrosity’ and vowed to stop it. Contrary to their stance, then both have since reversed their opinions following election and now support this over intensive development.


VCAT has unfortunately approved the MRC State government grandiose plans for this massive development on land at Station Street and Normandy Road that is now grassed car parks. However, Councillor Jim Magee is the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve’s new board Chairman. He is seeking to change the trust’s oversight making it more independent. He has asked Ted Ballieu to take action by implementing a governance review. I add my support for increased transparency and scrutiny of the actions of the board to ensure the Trust’s purposes are met and amenity of the local area is maintained for all Caulfield residents.


Not all Councillors are supportive of this massive development. On 27th October, you will have the opportunity to cast your vote in the Glen Eira City elections. I encourage you to consider current Councillors standing for re-election and their stance with regards to this monstrous development. The candidates standing in your ward against this development include Frank Penhalluriack and Mary Delahunty and their respective teams.


If you, like many of your fellow residents, share my anger at this development, I encourage you to contact the Glen Eira City Council to register your disapproval for this development on (03) 9524 3333 and email mail@gleneira.vic.gov.au to express your concerns at the size of this development in our local area.


Yours sincerely,


Michael Danby MP


Federal Member for Melbourne Ports

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 11, 2012



	

			Time For Change!
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[27] Comments 


	

		
In just on two weeks the deadline for nomination for council elections will be upon us. It is therefore time for reflection and for answers to the following questions:


    

  • Has this crop of councillors ‘delivered’?
    • 

  • Have they made major progress on such vital issues as planning, traffic management and consultation processes?
    • 

  • Have they really and truly delivered the best outcomes for the vast majority of residents?
    • 



Our answers to the above have to be a resounding ‘No’. What we have witnessed over the past 4 years is simply more of the same. And that ‘same’ is anathema to the hopes and aspirations of this community. Put simply, we sum up the past few years as:


    

  • Higher and higher rates
    • 

  • More and more investigations and waste of public monies
    • 

  • Horrendous decisions (C60; 10 storey developments; centre of the racecourse; no notice of motion; continued gagging of councillors – to name but a few)
    • 

  • Governance at an all time low with no transparency, no accountability, and too much secrecy
    • 

  • A dysfunctional council run by a ruling clique (the ‘gang’) that far too often ignores community concerns and favours hidden administrative agendas
    • 

  • A pro-development council with no sign of even attempting to control and rein in inappropriate development – ie. low open space levy; dropping development contributions, dropping of commercial policy, removing childcare from non residential uses in residential areas policy and amendments galore that favour developers
    • 



These are just some of the perennial problems that Glen Eira has faced for more than a decade. Many of these councillors have simply been there too long and even the ‘newbies’ have been seen to flounder and lose their way..


We urge all readers to think carefully about their votes and the significance of this upcoming election. Glen Eira desperately requires reform. It desperately requires a change in corporate culture, where it is councillors who lead and officers simply follow. Under Newton, this has never been the case. It is time for long overdue change! This can only happen if most of the current incumbents are denied your vote.

	

			

	
 



									

							

					
September 7, 2012



	

			Censorship & Public Questions
		


	Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance 	

	[4] Comments 


	

		
For the second time in a row a resident’s public question has been edited. Vital information that clarifies the circumstances is thus being with-held, resulting in answers that are anything but accurate and reflecting what actually happened. The full question was:


Please find below two public questions for this week’s Council meeting (4 September 2012).


Please publish each public question in the Minutes in full. Please refrain from editing my public questions.  


Public Question 1 


I refer to my earlier public question I posed directly to Mr Lipshutz for Council meeting 14 August 2012.


To recap, a group of Rowan Street Elsternwick residents met with Councillor Lipshutz on Monday 4 June 2012 regarding Council’s decision to install 2 hr parking restrictions in the street based on only 8 of the total 15 properties responding to Council’s consultation.


Councillor Lipshutz in his reply to the public question at the 14 August Council meeting indicated that he had advised the residents group that Council Transport Planning department was to hold off implementation for a month. The installation was completed on 25 July to the absolute shock & amazement of the residents.


However, Councillor Lipshutz, we must beg to differ, following our meeting with you on 4 June or in subsequent exchange of emails, you gave NO INDICATION of a timeframe what so ever. In fact we the residents kept you informed frequently via email of progress we were making in collecting all 15 residents survey responses. In fact out last email to you on 13 July 2012 indicated that we had collected all but 2 responses  – at that stage the majority of respondents had indicated clearly that they were NOT IN FAVOUR of the restrictions.  


Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is: When and how (via email/letter?) did you inform the residents group of the one month timeframe?


 COUNCIL’S VERSION AND RESPONSE –


Councillor Lipshutz, our question to you is: When and how (via email/letter?) did you inform the residents group of the one month timeframe?”


Cr Lipshutz responded to your Public Question at the Council Meeting. He said:


“ There was no so called residents group but rather there was a meeting with two residents of which you were one. As you will recall, following a questionnaire by Council, there were more non responses than responses and of the responses there was a majority that did not oppose parking restrictions being imposed. You may also recall that I advised you that if you wished to halt Council imposing those parking restrictions it would be necessary for you to move with alacrity in providing Council with evidence that a clear majority of residents opposed those restrictions. You undertook to do so and I accordingly requested that Council withhold action.


Council acceded to my request and initially there was no time frame discussed as it was my understanding that inasmuch as you were being proactive in obtaining responses there would be little delay.


I am informed that a period of 6 weeks ensued without the foreshadowed responses and accordingly Council thereupon proceeded. This took place at a time when I was on leave from Council and overseas.


The arrangement to withhold action was never open ended one and given that you did not comply with your end of the arrangement Council was not prepared to wait indefinitely. The ball was very much in your court to demonstrate that a clear majority of residents opposed the implementation of parking restrictions and it was not for Council to wait indefinitely.” 


SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS & ANSWERS


 “Please outline Council’s current parking restrictions enforcement strategy for Elsternwick. Please also provide statistics and data (i.e. frequency of inspection by date by name of street/road by result of enforcement activity (i.e. parking fine issued and amount or no parking fine) of Council parking restrictions enforcement activity in Elsternwick for 2011-12 & 2012-13 to date.”


The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:


“Council enforces parking restrictions uniformly across the municipality. The fundamentals applying to enforcement include:-


 Ensuring residential streets in proximity of shopping centres are balancing the parking demands of residents, shoppers and shop keepers alike.


 Placing an emphasis on safety related offences in general.


 Placing an emphasis on school crossings and drop off/pick up around schools.


 Ensuring a turnover of customer car parking aimed at improving the economic viability of shopping centres.


The specific statistical data you requested is not available in the form you have requested it.”


 +++++++++++++++++


“Has Glen Eira City Council received a claim against it for a sum of $4.2M for incompleted payments to GESAC’s contractors or does Glen Eira City Council feel so aggrieved by the work undertaken by it’s contractor that it has withheld over 10% of the money it owes?”


The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:


“Agenda Item 9.20 in this Meeting is the Finance Report to the end of July 2012.


That Report states that Council had paid $36.99m against the contract awarded for $41.2m. The Report also states that the contractor had applied for adjudication under the Security of Payment Act. The application was for $4.2m. It would not be correct to say that the application involved either “incomplete payments” or “withholding money Council owes”.


The adjudication has been completed. As at today, Council has paid $39.99m against the construction contract that was let for $41.2m. The contract provides for processes to determine matters in dispute. These include claims which would result in deductions in Council’s favour as well as claims which would result in additional payments. Those processes are underway. Each monthly Finance report will include the status of expenditure under the contract at that time.


GESAC continues to cover all its operating costs and make a contribution towards the costs of borrowings.


++++++++++++++++++++++


 “I notice that the Crs Forge and Penhalluriack have erected a billboard pledging zero rate increases. I ask Cr Forge what services and capital works she intends to cut in order to achieve this outcome, and whether she has in fact previously voted in favour of rate rises. If Cr Forge is unable to answer this question at the council meeting, I ask how can she justify making such a public pledge without knowing how it will be achieved.”


Cr Forge responded to your Public Question at the Council Meeting. She said:


“There are many avenues that Council can reduce expenditure which would contribute to limiting additional rate increases. A good start would be to reduce new staff hirings and to rationalise staff replacement of those who leave.


There is also a cost saving to be had by deferring capital works and infrastructure programs. eg. Item 9.15 of tonight’s Agenda where Council spent approx. $750.00 on the Murrumbeena Park Play Space. We have to balance what is spent on ‘essentials’, viv a vis what would be ‘nice’ or ‘prestigious to have!


In regard to your question whether voted in favour of rate increases? Yes, I have in the year 2010 – 2011, to help with the costs of financing the GESAC development. I was not on Council when the GESAC development was approved.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++


 “My question relates to usage of the multi-purpose courts at GESAC and is in 2 parts: 1. It is clear to the casual observer when visiting GESAC that the courts are not utilised for significant periods of time during the weekend, therefore please advise what proportion of the hours allocated for use by the Warriors Basketball Club from Friday to Sunday are actually being utilised; 2. Given that the initial allocation was for only 12 months, how & when will interested parties be advised of the process to apply for allocations following expiry of the initial allocation.”


The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:


“The indoor courts at GESAC are multi-use. They cater for netball, basketball, indoor soccer, other sports, all-abilities programs, gym classes and more. The courts are not only for basketball.


GESAC opened at short notice. The builder advised of Practical Completion on 3 May 2012 and GESAC opened to the public on 7 May 2012.


Most sports played in the indoor stadium are team sports which are played in Seasons. As it was, GESAC opened mid-season. The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened.


On 15 May 2012, Councillors were advised:


“Opening at short notice has been fine for individuals Opening at short notice has not been fine for Seasonal activities. Many Clubs and teams have commitments at other venues. Seasonal activities will get fully underway from the start of the next Season(s). This is true of all Seasonal sports. GESAC is arranging casual hire of the courts. ”


No Club has breached its allocation agreement. GESAC is covering all its operating costs.


The Warriors Basketball Club is operating in accordance with the Expression of Interest (EOI) accepted by Council. The Warriors are currently utilising the facility against the following allocation


 Fridays the facility is used between 6.30pm – 10 pm against the allocation of 6pm – 11pm. This is subject to game allocations from the Victorian Junior Basketball League as Friday night is primarily for representative basketball games.


 Saturdays the facility is used between 9am – 6.30pm against the allocation of 8am – 7pm


 Sundays the facility is used between 9am – 10pm against the allocation of 9am – 11pm


In these allocated periods, the Warriors are currently utilising 57.5 hours a week against the allocation of 88.5 hours. This equates to around 2 courts being in use at all times on average and has been growing since the facility opened.


As President of the McKinnon Basketball Association, you would know that the representative basketball season is currently in its finals period. Due to this it should be noted that representative squad training and representative games which make up a large proportion of the court use on Friday nights and Sunday morning and afternoons are currently greatly reduced.


In relation to part 2 of your question, all sports will be operating in new Seasons from October 2012 (or earlier). Council will be reviewing allocations after the Council has had the opportunity to properly assess the utilisation rates in the new seasons and learn from the experience of the start up phase at GESAC.

	

			

	
 



									

						
« Previous Page — Next Page »