GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

July 23, 2016

Parking: Glen Eira Versus Moonee Valley!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments

A petition was tabled with 63 signatures on ‘parking in Caulfield’. The petitioners stated that they didn’t ‘want 2 hour parking on one side of the street’ only and that council ‘reverse’ this decision because it ‘was done without hearing first’ what residents wanted. They asked council to introduce 2 hour parking on both sides of the street. They listed quite a few streets where this should happen.

Delahunty moved motion to ‘note and accept petition’ plus that officers ‘provide an update on preliminary and final findings’. Lipshutz seconded.

DELAHUNTY: acknowledged that there’s been an increase in parking issues and ‘that no area is safe’ from this. Thought it right that council is petitioned, but that it comes in the middle of a process ‘that we’re undertaking to gather some more thoughts’ and that the public will be ‘updated’ when the process is ‘done’.

LIPSHUTZ: claimed that because of the parking policy at Caulfield Hospital that what is happening is that ‘the nurses who are employed by the hospital are now parking in these streets’. But if there was 2 hour parking on both sides of the street ‘all that would happen is that the parking would shift’ to other local streets. Thus what ‘has to happen is a concerted approach and a total review of parking in the area’. That’s happening through ‘the review’.

TORRES: said that council is ‘reviewing broad areas’ and that ‘car parking can’t be looked at on a street by street basis’ and that restrictions in one street ‘has the potential to displace parking’ in another street’ so the issue has to be seen in a ‘broader area’. Also said that ‘we are going to consult with the residents in this area after one month’ in order to ‘obtain preliminary feedback and findings on the effect of the changes’. After the ‘prelimary findings’ council would ‘continue to receive feedback and engagement’ with residents and then they will have a ‘far more comprehensive review to report’ at the end of February.

LIPSHUTZ: he supports council in reviewing ‘overall parking’. ‘There is a problem, there’s no doubt there is a problem’ for people living on the south side of Glen Eira Road and people are now parking on the north side as well. Thus ‘there needs to be a concerted approach’ and that is ‘the right way to go’.

LOBO: said this is the second petition within 4 weeks – another one from Bentleigh. Agreed that cars might shift from street to street but residents pay their rates and council needs to start thinking about building ‘3 or 4 parking storeys’. Claimed that this ‘is a result of the developments taking place’ and that ‘infrastructure will not be enough if we are going at the rate we are going’. Wanted council to ‘get our wheels in motion’ to have ‘3 or 4 storey’ parking facilities in Bentleigh and Caulfield and ‘particularly 2 or 3 in Carnegie’.

DELAHUNTY: said that in the area of the petition there is the impact of ‘local employment’ and this is something they ‘want to encourage’. But ‘how do you do that in a hospital setting’ when you’ve also got shift workers. Claimed the ‘solution’ was to ‘listen to the residents’ and that the petition ‘forms part of the consultation’. Acknowledged that it is an ‘incredibly difficult’ issue.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS

There is much here that is unacceptable in our view –

Why weren’t residents consulted first before any action was implemented?
On what statistical basis were these changes made? Why hasn’t the evidence been provided?
Torres’ claim that council can’t look at parking ‘street by street’ is surely open to challenge. Moonee Valley Council seems quite capable of investigating its municipality street by street. Why can’t Glen Eira?

FYI – we urge all readers to consider the Moonee Valley approach in terms of direct community input, comprehensive community consultation, and real street by street evaluation. It is also worth taking a look at the links to the documents provided in this URL – http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/for-residents/parking-and-transport/current-transport-projects-and-studies/local-area-traffic-management-plans/buckley-park.aspx

For Residents

Buckley Park Local Area Traffic Management Study

We have been undertaking Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) studies in selected precincts within the municipality in order to manage vehicle movements, review parking restrictions and improve the residential environment.

In 2015/16, we are undertaking a LATM study of the Buckley Park precinct as part of this ongoing LATM program. The study area (pdf, 222KB) is bounded by Keilor Road, Lincoln Road, Buckley Street and Hoffmans Road in Essendon.

The study includes an extensive community consultation process to involve the local community in identifying traffic and parking issues and provide opportunities for community feedback on the developed traffic and parking proposals.

Working group

We have formed a working group comprising 10 community volunteers, Ward Councillors, Council officers and traffic engineering consultants.

The role of community volunteers is to provide local information, act as a contact for the local community and to provide feedback in the development of traffic and parking management plans for the area.

View the Terms of Reference for the working group.

Initial community questionnaire – traffic and parking issues

A questionnaire on traffic and parking issues in your local area was posted to properties in the study area in August 2015.

The closing date for questionnaire responses was Monday, 14 September 2015. Thank you to everyone who responded. The information you provided has helped to identify problem areas and assist us to develop draft traffic and parking management plans for the area.

Draft traffic management plan

A draft Traffic Management Plan (pdf, 1.1MB) setting out recommended solutions to traffic issues has been developed and circulated with a questionnaire to all properties and property owners in the study area for community comment.

The draft plan aims to address the key issues identified by the community in the initial questionnaire on traffic issues distributed to local properties in August 2015, as well as feedback from the Working Group.
The proposal has been considered on an area wide basis to minimise any adverse impacts on adjacent streets.

The objectives of the draft plan are to:

Reduce the incidence and potential for vehicle and pedestrian crashes in the local area.
Improve the safety of local streets by reducing traffic speeds.
Discourage through traffic from using the local area.
Develop proposals that address traffic concerns raised by the community, while maintaining adequate levels of accessibility for local residents, local businesses and emergency services.
Maximise the safety benefits with the available funding (with priority given to reported crash locations and those streets with the greatest level of community concern).

The closing date for questionnaire responses was Friday, 1 April 2016. Thanks to everyone who responded.

The community response to the draft plan is being reviewed by the Working Group, prior to presenting a recommended Traffic Management Plan in a report to Council.

Draft parking management plan

As part of the LATM study, the existing parking conditions within the local area have been reviewed. A draft Parking Management Plan (pdf, 340KB) setting out proposed changes to the parking arrangements in the Dean Precinct local area has now been developed.

This component of the project has involved the collection of an extensive set of parking occupancy data in addition to community and Working Group feedback.

Using the parking occupancy data, the streets where parking changes are warranted have been determined based on our Parking Demand Management Framework.

Our Kerbside Road Space User Hierarchy was then used to determine appropriate parking restrictions in each street.

Below are streets which have proposed changes to existing parking arrangements along with the general location of the changes:

Street	Location
Collins Street	Queen Street to Market Street
Cooper Street	Spencer Street to Buckley Street
Gilbertson Street	Keilor Road and Market Street
King Street	Collins Street and Lincoln Road
Lincoln Road	Queen Street and Market Street
Queen Street	Lincoln Road to end
Spencer Street	Collins Street to Lincoln Road
William Street	Collins Street to Lincoln Road
Keilor Road	McCracken and Collins Street

Residents and property owners in the streets that are directly affected by the proposed parking arrangements have been sent a questionnaire survey to seek their views on the proposals. Alternatively, community members can also provide their views on the proposals via an online questionnaire (external link).

The closing date for responses was Friday, 1 April 2016.

The community response to the draft plan is being reviewed by the Working Group, prior to presenting a recommended Parking Management Plan in a report to Council.

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

We make no comment on the outcome for Moonee Valley – ie how ‘good, bad, poor, inadequate’, etc. their plans are. What we wish to highlight is the PROCESS. How one council can, if there is the will, to involve its community before decision making, rather than after the fact which is what Glen Eira consistently does. That means that ‘consultation’ is nothing more than a token exercise when the decision has already been made. Nor are those councillors who consistently endorse such a top-down approach doing anything to engender real confidence that resident views will be listened to and acted upon. Ultimately, drastic and dramatic change is required!

July 20, 2016

The Circus Continues & More Rights Eroded

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[19] Comments

Item 9.9 – Local Law Public Question Changes

Lipshutz moved motion to accept ‘as printed’. Esakoff seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: started off with the less ‘controversial’ aspects of changing the local law such as defining the meaning of ‘drones’ and ‘urgent business’. On public questions repeated the changes – ie questions have to be 150 words or less; submitted 24 hours earlier than currently; 2 questions per person and ‘if present at the meeting the questions will be read out’. If not present then answers ‘will be forwarded to him’ but ‘not minuted’. Claimed that he received ‘numerous’ questions ‘every day of the week’ up to 3 or 4 a day. Those he can’t answer he ‘refers to an officer’. Said that ‘today’ with emails, phones, etc. it is ‘pretty easy to ask a question’ and to contact councillors. ‘So why do we need public questions’ even though it ‘is important to have some public questions’. In his time on council there has been a ‘diminution’ of the aspect of public questions. Claimed that people ask public questions ‘not because’ the ‘answers they really want to know’ but because ‘they are simply out to embarrass councillors and council and that is inappropriate’. Councillors job is to ‘make decisions’ for the benefit of the community and ‘all of us work very hard on that’ and what they get paid doesn’t compensate for the ‘many hours’ they put in. They don’t do it ‘for the money’ but for the community. People might think they do the wrong thing but the ‘way to handle that is at the election’. So they are trying to do ‘the right thing’ and ‘when you get questions that are seeking to embarrass the council’ then ‘that is inappropriate’. ‘If you want to have a question answered come to the council meeting’. ‘Many questions are being asked’ by residents who ‘have no interest in the council meeting at all’. They send a question in because ‘they want it in the minutes’. Went on with changes to Right of Reply where there now didn’t have to be a written statement provided to all other councillors beforehand but this was ‘subject ‘ to councillors being given notice ‘by 12 noon of the day’. Thanked submitters and said that these ‘had been considered’.

ESAKOFF: said that Lipshutz ‘had covered every single point’ so she didn’t have anything to add.

DELAHUNTY: whilst she ‘agreed with some of the changes’ she was voting against the motion. Thought that the proposed changes to public questions ‘ actually diminishes the participation’ of residents. Said that ‘the submissions we received endorsed my views on this’. Said she would like to see ‘public questions spoken here in the chamber’. Agreed that councillors get phone calls so ‘what happens here in the chamber should actually reflect real life and not seek to distance ourselves from it’. Said she’s got a ‘great respect’ for Local Government and its ‘proximity to people’ and the ‘participatory element’ and ‘would hate to see that diminished in any way’. Stated that ‘the more’ the chamber becomes ‘about us talking and not residents talking’ and if you’ve got questions then you ‘are seeking to embarrass people’ then ‘that’s a lack of respect’ and ‘the more we show that lack of respect’ the ‘more distant we become’ from residents. Gave an example of going out to consultation on raising rates for the budget and said ‘we don’t engage enough’ with residents and that this ‘chamber should be your chamber’ and people should be able to ‘walk in and ask questions’. Thought that all councils ‘should be the same across Victoria’ in terms of meeting procedures. Thought the motion was a ‘retrograde step’ in community participation. Found it all ‘quite insulting’.

MAGEE: said his email and phone is ‘advertised widely’ and he does get questions. Said that public questions have included getting ’16 to 20 questions from one person’ and ‘we do have the responsibility to conduct council business’. Said that ‘most of the questions’ are about ‘questions that were asked at the previous council meeting wanting clarification’ because either the questioner ‘didn’t understand or didn’t get the answer they were looking for and wanted clarification’. ‘But to wait half an hour’ before times for questions are closed before submitting the question , and they’ve got 26 questions tonight so to ‘try to answer on our busiest day’ in the three week period between council meetings is unacceptable because ‘these questions could have been asked 2 weeks ago’. Said that ‘there’s never been a question asked of myself that hasn’t been answered’. To say ‘you didn’t answer my question’ properly at the council meeting and then to ‘discover that the question came in at 2 minutes to 12’ so he ‘understands’ why Lipshutz is ‘bringing this into the local law’. Told people to ask their questions as ‘early as possible. You will get an answer’.

HO: said that he would ‘take’ questions from the public at his ‘consultation’ meetings at the café and they can also email him. His ‘consultation’ time would be 10am Tuesday.

SOUNNESS: also has ‘concerns’ with the motion. He feels ‘fairly strongly but not massively strongly’ about the public questions aspect. Acknowledged the submission from the Glen Eira Environment Group. Wasn’t sure whether the 150 words per question should be ‘limited’. ‘Personally I do feel that we should have a record’ of every decision made by council as to who voted for what rather than waiting for a division. Also wanted ‘conversations’ with residents.

LOBO: agreed in part with Lipshutz that sometimes questions ‘can be a nuisance’ but ‘we need to think why would the person come back again?’ ‘Just because we don’t like letters after letters doesn’t mean that all letters are rubbish’. In a democratic society we ‘need to give the public the authority to work in the chambers’. Said state and federal governments have to explain why the public ‘isn’t given a chance to talk’. Stated that ‘it is important that we should not be seen in any way as gagging’. ‘That’s not our job’. Residents are paying councillors and ‘we need to look at the relationship as masters and servants’. Said he would be a ‘hypocrite if I can’t give my residents the chance to talk’.

DELAHUNTY: wanted to ask Magee and Ho on ‘their thoughts about mismatch’ between questions in chamber and questions via letter or email. Wanted ‘for example’ 15 minutes at the start of council meetings for residents to stand up and ask questions in the chamber and ‘would that be an acceptable change’?

MAGEE: said he would ‘encourage that’.

HYAMS: said that Delahunty’s view wasn’t what was advertised, so this would mean that if they were going to change things the proposed amendment would have to be readvertised. He also ‘disagrees’ with the ‘principle as well’. They have rules about questions being out of order ..

DELAHUNTY: raised a point of order. Said she asked for ‘clarification’ only and is ‘not seeking’ anything, just asking a question.

HYAMS: said that ‘leads’ onto the submissions where there are a few good ideas and ‘to adopt them now we would need to put them out to public consultation and start the whole process again’. As for having recordings of council, that ‘would require a change of the local law’. On public questions ‘you don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water but when something has been abused solidly for ten years’ then ‘you do perhaps want to limit it a little’. People send in public questions and ‘you’ve got no idea who they are because they never show themselves’ and they ‘barrage’ you with questions or ‘ask a majority of questions’ with ‘allegations’. And people ask public questions ‘if they want to get something on the agenda’ and ‘there is a place for that’ like with skyrail and people wanting that on the agenda to have council’s position made clear. But when ‘abuse’ happens ‘more often than not, then we need to act’. So if people want to ask public questions and ‘get it on the record, come and show yourself’. ‘Let us see who you are’. Thought that ‘this strikes the right balance’.

DELAHUNTY: said she wasn’t suggesting that we ‘now alter’ what was advertised. Asked Pilling that according to the current local law it was up to his ‘discretion whether or not you allow questions to come from the public’. Given this, she thought there was room to ‘move an amended motion that we strongly encourage you to use your discretion’ to allow public questions at the start. Didn’t think that this would ‘require any sort of re-advertising’.

PILLING: said he was aware of this clause but was ‘happy to take advice’. Delahunty then read out the section of the Local Law which covered this.

LIPSHUTZ: interrupted with a point of order saying that her question was ‘not pertinent to the motion at hand’.

Extended discussion between Pilling and the CEO.

PILLING: said he wasn’t ‘going to break long standing protocols’. ‘We haven’t done this in the past’ and they’ve considered this in a ‘measured way’ at assemblies and ‘I’m not prepared to make a judgement on the run here’.

DELAHUNTY: then moved an amendment that ‘the chair use the discretion afforded him’ to ‘open the meeting to public questions’. Sounness seconded.

HYAMS: point of order, asking whether it is ‘proper for council to direct’ the mayor to use his discretion.

DELAHUNTY: point of order saying she didn’t ‘direct’ she sought to ‘encourage’.

PILLING: again wanted advice from the CEO.

CEO: said it would not ‘be proper for council to direct the Mayor’ but as Delahunty says she is merely ‘requesting that the council encourage’ the mayor.

HYAMS: point of order saying that this isn’t an amendment ‘but a new motion’.

DELAHUNTY: said that this wasn’t grounds for a ‘point of order’ according to the Local Law

PILLING: ‘I will determine that’. Another long delay and discussion with the CEO. Finally said that he will ‘uphold the point of order’ quoting clause 236

DELAHUNTY: wanted ‘clarification’, saying that the proposed motion is about public questions and that her motion is about public questions, how can it be deemed as ‘irrelevant’.

PILLING: ‘that’s my ruling’

DELAHUNTY: said ‘she knows’ but ‘I am seeking clarification on how you come to that ruling’.

PILLING: said it was irrelevant because it didn’t ‘go to the spirit of the motion’ and ‘that’s my ruling’.

SOUNNESS: asked whether the chair would ‘consider’ another discussion at assembly and then ‘bringing it back to a future council meeting’.

PILLING: ‘no, my ruling still stands’. Claimed ‘we’ve discussed this many times in assemblies’.

LOBO: said that ‘we would like to know clearly from the residents if they really want to do this’.

PILLING: raised a point of order that Lobo hadn’t asked his question

LOBO: ‘we need to ask them, and how can we ask them that?’

PILLING: said it wasn’t a question.

DELAHUNTY: point of order – ‘that was quite clearly posed as a question’.

Hyams then wanted the motion put.

DELAHUNTY: said that ‘I raised a point of order and you were about to rule on that point of order’ and that ‘I am interested in the answer to it’.

PILLING: he didn’t think that Lobo’s question was ‘relevant to the motion at hand’.

LOBO: said he didn’t agree.

PILLING: that’s ‘your prerogative’.

LIPSHUTZ: quoted Delahunty as wanting process to be like ‘real life’

DELAHUNTY: point of order that she didn’t say that, she said that process should ‘mirror real life’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that councillors are ‘available many hours a day’ and ‘many of us are out there’ consulting with residents. We ‘respect our residents’. ‘Public questions is not real life’. They don’t ‘distance themselves’ because people ‘ring up’ and they ‘talk to people’. ‘we are as close to the public as we can be and public questions have nothing to do with that’.

MOTION PUT. VOTING IN FAVOUR – LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, PILLING, MAGEE, HO

VOTING AGAINST: SOUNNESS, DELAHUNTY, LOBO

July 14, 2016

Are Some More Equal Than Others?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[15] Comments

If these residents are correct and this proposal is all about traffic management, then it is a pretty expensive way to resolve the issue. Of course, no one knows exactly how much this ‘park’ will cost! Nor are we privy to its size or how much of this area will be covered by concrete. No traffic analysis is provided (and we doubt it’s even been done!) in order to gauge the potential impact of closing off streets.

Other issues also need to be considered –

Pocket parks are, according to the research literature designed to alleviate the lack of open space in a HIGH DENSITY area. This proposal is smack in the middle of a Neighbourhood Residential Zone – ie LOW DENSITY. When other areas such as Carnegie are literally crying out for more and more open space and have less than North Caulfield, why doesn’t this area get priority?

According to the Open Space Strategy (OSS), Carnegie has 21.07 hectares of public open space. Of the ‘recommendations’ contained in the OSS for ‘additional open space’ all of the 5 recommendations carry the priority rating of ‘Very High’. In contrast, Caulfield North has 26.28 hectares of public open space; of the 6 recommendations made for ‘additional open space’ only one carries the ‘very high’ classification and this is for ‘gap area C1’. The proposal for Fosbery/St Aubins is not C1! Another 4 recommendations are rated as ‘high’ priority and one other as ‘medium’.

Thus, on every single criterion, Council’s proposal fails to meet the recommendations of its own OSS, plus residents are being asked to comment without being provided with the necessary full information. Residents in Carnegie have every right to ask if they are viewed as second class citizens when it comes to open space and the necessary funding.

July 12, 2016

Far From ‘Satisfied’ & Getting Worse!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[11] Comments

The most significant aspect of this survey which the Leader article does not focus on, is the discrepancy between resident evaluation of the importance of a service and the perceived ‘results’. Differentials of well over 20 signal a new low point in Glen Eira. For example: residents believe that ‘consultation’ is vital, giving it a ‘rating’ of 75 for ‘importance’. Their judgement on performance is 51! What should also be highlighted is that the differential between importance and performance has been growing steadily over the past few years – yet council has failed to address this decline. No amount of spin can disguise this fact!

Here is one page from the survey –

PS – BY WAY OF COMPARISON, HERE ARE THE RESULTS FROM THE 2014 SURVEY. PLEASE NOTE THE INCREASE IN THE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN IMPORTANCE AND PERFORMANCE

Pages from Community_Satisfaction_Survey_Report_2014

PPS – Not all councils have thus far published the results of their surveys. However, we’ve taken the opportunity to highlight some of these results as a further comparison with Glen Eira. For starters, Stonnington and Greater Dandenong DID NOT HAVE ANY SERVICES WITH A GREATER DIFFERENTIAL OF 10 POINTS. The screen dumps (below) from Whitehorse and Boroondara reveal that their residents’ angst is nowhere near those from Glen Eira’s population and the number of services with a discrepancy of 10 or more points is also well below the number to be found in Glen Eira.

July 8, 2016

Open Space & Another Clayton’s ‘Consultation’?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[5] Comments

No denying that more open space is desperately needed in Glen Eira. That has been the perennial call from residents since time immemorial. Council’s ‘solution’ is to turn streets into so called ‘parks’.

Currently there is another ‘consultation’ ongoing in regards to closing off the corner of Fosbery and St Aubins Avenue in North Caulfield. Replete with pretty pictures, the consultation provides no information on:

The impact on traffic
The size of this new ‘park’
The cost of creating this ‘park’
The ‘value’ of such endeavours? – ie what assessment has been made of the Eskdale Road and Riddell Parade ventures? How well are they used? Does this represent ‘value for money’?

Nor have residents been provided with any justification for the selection of these streets – particularly when the Eskdale Road closure is a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park, and the proposed Fosbery Street one is within 400 metres of Greenmeadows park. Why were these streets chosen and not ten others?

Confounding the choice even further, we highlight the following tender which was approved in August 2014 –

That Council appoints Fercon Pty Ltd, ACN 116 527 363 as the contractor under Tender number 2014.046 St Aubins Avenue and Fosbery Avenue Reconstruction for an amount of $908,176.00 exclusive of GST in accordance with the schedule of rates submitted

This clearly leads to a series of important questions:

Have ratepayers spent a million dollars on ‘reconstruction’ only to have this now ripped up with new ‘reconstruction’ for the ‘park’?
If so, where is corporate memory? Does the right hand ever know what the left hand is doing?

Conclusions? If council is prepared to spend millions on landscape design, consultation, and the short sighted option of closing off streets instead of real investment in new, multi-purpose open space, then they need to be upfront with residents and provide solid reasons based on facts, evidence, rationale, and evaluation as to the efficacy of their decisions. Presenting residents with a series of cute little pictures and calling this ‘consultation’ is insulting. Decision making must always be based on the full facts. This is not happening.

July 3, 2016

Our Money – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

We urge all readers to consider the following:

Burke’s parting shot at Lipshutz & Hyams?
The animosity between councillors?
How our money is spent and the rationale for any cogent decision making?
The overall governance within Glen Eira

+++++++++

Item 9.16 – The Budget

Pilling moved to accept as printed. Lipshutz seconded.

PILLING: claimed that council had ‘taken note’ of the submissions to the budget. Summarised some of the other ‘capital works expenditure’. Said the budget was ‘challenging’ given ratecapping and for council to ‘continue our environmental initiatives’ and other projects. Thought that the budget was ‘steady as usual’ in this ‘environment’ but council would ‘continue to build our community facilities’. Stated that some changes had been made as a result of submissions.

LIPSHUTZ: said that many residents might think that all council does is about roads, rates and rubbish. Went on to outline the things that ‘I have noted’ like day care. The Federal government cut funding and council is now ‘making up that shortfall’. Council’s parks and gardens are rated highest and that’s because ‘we spend money on that’. Since 2005 environmental issues have improved even thought ‘some of us have been dragged kicking and screaming’ to this position. Said it was a great ‘credit to this administration that we have such great parks and gardens’. Unlike other councils they don’t spend money on ‘weird and wonderful things’. Glen Eira doesn’t do this and the Auditor General tells them that the Chief Financial Officer is ‘one of the best’ in local government. Council got submissions and they could have ignored these but they didn’t like the dancing group who only wanted air conditioning. So ‘we listened to them and we thought it was appropriate’.

MAGEE: budget time is difficult because they have expenses and x amount of funds. Said that there are ‘smaller things in the budget’ that make the difference – like run ups for a cricket club so kids won’t fall over when they run up to bowl. For him the most pleasing was about the skatepark which will replace a ‘dilapidated’ facility and ‘how many of our youth’ use this. Council is now ‘putting in $550,000 for a new facility’. This will ‘transform’ the park, ‘as GESAC has done’ into a ‘large activity centre’. Stated that the perception of these kids is that they are ‘second class society’ but that’s not true. These kids are ‘very polite’ and ‘take care of other kids’. This has been ‘something that has been very, very dear to me for many years’ so he is very pleased with the budget allocation. Admitted that ‘at one stage we were looking at moving it’ but with the $550,000 the skateboarders will be delighted.

DELAHUNTY: said that ‘there’s a lot to like’ but a ‘couple of things’ she’s not too ‘pleased about’. Thought that ‘some projects’ need ‘clarification on’ like the Booran Reserve costs. Asked Swabey to ‘address’ the total costs and how they are ‘going to spend the money’.

SWABEY: said that the reservoir is $600,000 over budget and that the ‘timing between 2015/16 and 2016/17 has changed’. They ‘anticipated spending a lot more money in 2015/16’ but this ‘didn’t eventuate’ so the budget of May 2015/16 was readjusted to become ‘$4m in 2016/17 rather than $930’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she thought the over budget was ‘marginal’ and that in ‘5 years time’ we ‘won’t remember the hurt on our hip-pocket’ and it will be a ‘boost’ to open space. Strongly endorsed this aspect and ‘sustainability’ of the budget. Not happy though with increasing child care fees and shouldn’t ‘be looked at from the premise of how much do we want to subsidise’. Thought that the role of local government is to provide the best staff and facilities and should be ‘affordable’ to people. They don’t ‘hear about subsidisation in libraries’ or roads, so it shouldn’t apply here. Thought the increase was based on an incorrect ‘premise’. Went on to say that what really ‘sticks under my fingernails, excuse the pun’ is the funding for the Wellness Centre at GESAC. This was ‘part of the original concept’ and was ‘to provide nail services’ and seen as ‘ancillary services’. Nothing ‘wrong with that as a concept’ but the budget proposes to spend ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ to ‘finish off a Wellness Centre’ that ‘basically operates as a commercial entity’ and with ‘no social benefit’. ‘I’m quite angry about it’. ‘It’s so far beyond what we should be doing here’. Said it would be more acceptable if it ‘had some sort of social purpose to it’ like ‘apprenticeships’ or ‘giving out low rent schemes to people’. Said that ‘what we are doing is setting up competition to traders’ in the area and ‘using ratepayers’ money’.

Delahunty then proposed the following amendment – that the funding for the Wellness Centre be removed. Sounness seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said she ‘understands that it was part of the original concept’ but it’s not fair on local traders and doesn’t think that this is ‘in any way necessary’. There’s no ‘community space’, ‘social’ benefit and ‘is completely at odds with our role’ as a local government. ‘At the very least’ if this goes ahead then it ‘should have a social purpose’. Claimed that the money ‘could be better spent’ such as on the ‘pensioner rebate’ plus a ‘myriad of things we could do’ with the money.

SOUNNESS: asked Swabey if this is voted in whether the budget has to be changed?

SWABEY: the budget has to go to the Minister by 30^th June and they would have to ‘reconfigure the whole budget’.

SOUNNESS: ‘assumed’ that this wouldn’t have a ‘major impact’ on the budget in that it was a ‘minor item’.

SWABEY: ‘$250,000’ is a ‘relatively small amount’.

SOUNNESS: asked whether ‘this would have any impact on the operation of GESAC?’

BURKE: stated that it would ‘make it more economically sound’.

LIPSHUTZ: as chairman of the Pools Committee they ‘looked’ at a ‘whole host of things’ like having a gym. There are other gyms in the area but they thought that ‘having a gym would make it viable’. ‘It was not simply the swimming pool’. People ‘need to change’. The Wellness Centre will provide ‘pampering’ like ‘massages’ and ‘those things are important’. They were told that putting in a gym will mean that ‘they will grow’ and ‘people’s thinking has changed’ and they want other things too like the Wellness Centre. ‘We want’ GESAC to be ‘a movable thing’, ‘we want it to be dynamic’. Shouldn’t think that officers and councillors said ‘hey bingo. Let’s have a Wellness Centre’ – ‘we had meetings on that’. Down the track ‘we will change again’. Said it’s ‘a bit late to come along now and say let’s change it’ after the ‘whole budget has been discussed for many months’.

DELAHUNTY – interrupted with her objection to Pilling that Lipshutz is ‘misrepresenting’ her in that ‘I’ve kept this consistent line of argument the entire time’.

PILLING: ‘I think there’s reason to slightly correct that’.

LIPSHUTZ: Delahunty has been consistent but at this ‘late hour’ when ‘we’ve gone uphill and downdale’ it is ‘important that GESAC is successful’.

HYAMS: said that one of Delahunty’s points was that the money from removing this from the budget could be spent on other things but ‘the point of this, is to ultimately make money’. So they should be ‘talking about the money we will be getting in years to come’. So the ‘financial argument’ is in ‘favour of doing this’. Said that in providing this facility they are providing ‘what the users of GESAC want us to provide there’ and it ‘adds to the whole GESAC experience’. Said that he would be ‘disappointed’ after ‘having this as a plan for so long’ it was rejected.

MAGEE: has ‘sympathy and support’ for Delahunty but ‘she lost me’ when she spoke about ‘having to be consistent’. At the time of planning GESAC there was ‘a company called AquaSwim’ and council put ‘in a pool which directly affected’ this company. The gym that went into GESAC was also ‘directly opposite the biggest gymnasium in East Bentleigh’. They did this because they were putting together a plan that ‘would not be draining money from council’ with the old pools. They had the philosophy of ‘what do we do to make it profitable?’ They’ve also got a café there which is in competition with other cafes. ‘For GESAC to continue to be the success it is, it is well worth’ this project because if ‘that’s what the GESAC community want and we need to fund that’ and ‘it’s not costing the ratepayers any money’ since ‘GESAC is paying its own way’.

DELAHUNTY: wanted clarification on Magee’s point that ‘GESAC is paying its own way’ and it’s ‘got a project cost of $450,000’ and for the next budget an ‘estimated income of $155,000’ so ‘in your opinion (to Burke) is this paying its own way?’

BURKE: replied that the figures show a ‘payback’.

DELAHUNTY: Lipshutz is saying that ‘this is a long conceived’ program under ‘the advice of the officers’ and wanted to know whether ‘that advice has changed’.

BURKE: admitted that council is under ‘financial pressure’ and ‘as officers’ they looked at the budget and ‘the pressures we were facing’ and officers were of the mind to ‘defer expenditure’ and ‘the councillor group took a different view – they asked us to actually proceed’.

DELAHUNTY: wanted to make the point and that ‘Lipshutz understands’ that ‘we are now acting in contrary to the advice of officers and not in concert with that’.

PILLING – asked who the question was directed at and Delahunty said Lipshutz.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘Council officers don’t make decisions. Councillors make decisons’.

DELAHUNTY: raised a point of order as to whether Lipshutz ‘understands’ that ‘we are now acting in contradiction..

PILLING: started saying that ‘to be fair’. Delahunty responded that she wanted Lipshutz ‘to be relevant to the question’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that ‘councillors seek advice but ultimately decision making is ours’. So even though officers have ‘given advice’ it is ‘we who make the decision’. ‘Sometimes we even make decisions that are opposed to officer’ advice. ‘That is appropriate’. Said that ‘our role is to make decisions and to seek advice and to determine whether that advice is appropriate’.

AMENDMENT PUT: VOTING IN FAVOUR OF AMENDMENT –DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

VOTING AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ, PILLING, HYAMS, MAGEE, HO

AMENDMENT LOST

June 24, 2016

Creative Accounting?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[18] Comments

PS: The World According To Ho – https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/06/24/councillor-in-same-sex-marriage-controversy/

We are not accountants, but we do regard ourselves as reasonably intelligent people who should be able to make sense of most things in a budget. Not in Glen Eira it would seem! Readers will remember that the restructuring of the GESAC loan (and the payment of a $4.9 million penalty) has forced Council back to the drawing board and the requirement to publish a new Strategic Resource Statement and Budget. It is this latest version of the accounts that raises a multitude of questions. Are we in fact dealing with ‘creative accounting’? If not, then every single item should be beyond doubt and self-evident. They are not! There simply is no correlation between the figures presented on May 3^rd and the figures that now appear in the new budget. Why not? Have any councillors bothered to ask any decent questions? And why aren’t the changes highlighted and fully explained to residents?

Here are some of our concerns:

COMMENT

Thus in May, just 6 or 7 weeks ago, residents were lead to believe that all that was necessary for the completion of the Booran Road Reservoir was the expenditure of another $903K – as further evidenced by the screen dump below, where no further expenditure is forecast.. So now we suddenly learn that another $3 million plus is to go into this project? Why? Where’s the money coming from? And what is the total cost of this originally mooted $5m redevelopment?

GESAC

BUDGET ESTIMATES

One of the most bewildering announcements from the two budgets are the figures for the income derived from ‘general rates’. Both budgets claim that the numbers were compiled from the ‘financial statements as at the end of January 2016’. Thus they should be identical – especially since they are ‘forecasts for 2015/16’ and not for 2016/17. Yet the discrepancy is staggering – a $5 million difference for figures that are supposedly based on the identical financial statements. In short, ‘forecasts’ for the past year should not change – but in Glen Eira they do!

Finally, here are some other comparisons from the May and the June documents. The onus is firmly on this council to explain these ‘discrepancies’ in plain English and to account for every single dollar that is to be spent. We also remind readers that the new ‘negotiated’ interest rate for GESAC has not been revealed when the previous interest rate was NOT deemed top secret! Why the difference? And why aren’t residents privy to what is happening to their hard earned cash? We also note that the claim that GESAC is paying for itself is no longer included!

May 3^rd – The expected operating result for the 2016-2017 year is a surplus of $16.61m which is a $124k increase from the 2015-2016 annual forecast. (The forecast operating result for the 2015-2016 year is a surplus of $16.48m).”

June 28^th – The expected operating result for the 2016-2017 year is a surplus of $17.22m which is an increase of $5.74m from the 2015-2016 annual forecast. The forecast operating result for the 2015-2016 year is a surplus of $11.47m. Included in the 2015-2016 forecast is the economic cost of $4.93m associated with Council restructuring its loan facility.

May 3^rd – Total cash and investments are expected to increase by $6.23m during the year to $45.24m as at 30 June 2017. This is due to a higher than anticipated closing cash balance as at 30 June 2016. (Cash and investments are forecast to be $39.02m as at 30 June 2016).

June 28^th – Total cash and investments are expected to increase by $1.72m during the year to $45.58m as at 30 June 2017. This is due to a higher than anticipated closing cash balance as at 30 June 2016. (Cash and investments are forecast to be $43.86m as at 30 June 2016).

3^rd May – Borrowing repayments of principal and interest costs of $2.88m will be made during the 2016-2017 financial year. Borrowings outstanding as at 30 June 2017 are projected to be $18.71m. The repayment of all borrowings is fully funded by GESAC.

28^th June – On 17 May 2016, Council approved to restructure the existing loan facilities with a revised term of 7 years and a fixed interest rate. Loan repayments of approximately $4m per annum have been included in the SRP. Borrowings outstanding as at 30 June 2017 are projected to be $21.46m.

May 3^rd – Interest-bearing loans and borrowings are borrowings of Council. Council is budgeting to repay loan principal payments of $1.31m over the year.

June 28^th – Interest-bearing loans and borrowings are borrowings of Council. Council is budgeting to repay loan principal payments of $3.24m over the 2016-2017 year.

If any readers can shed light on the above comparisons, we welcome their thoughts!

June 21, 2016

Are We About To Be Screwed Again?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[15] Comments

The latest Development Plan for the Mixed Use Precinct of the Caulfield Village reveals once again the failure of this council to keep its residents informed as to what is really going on. Worse still, the proposed plans are another example of MRC profit making and to hell with the local community.

Council Secrecy

The plans reveal the following (and we quote) –

On 27 May 2014 Glen Eira City Council (GECC) approved the initial Development Plan for Caulfield Village (DP 16060/2013) relating to that part of the Residential Precinct west of Bond Street. That Development Plan approval was subsequently amended on a number of occasions, most recently on 05 May 2015 (page 6 –Town Planning Assessment Report)

Condition 24 of Development Plan approval DP 16060/2013 required that the proposed design of the Normanby Road / Boulevard / PHE / Sir John Monash Drive intersection be resolved and approved by SJB Planning Council before further work on the future stages of Caulfield Village can advance. Following extensive engagement with State and local government stakeholders, an updated Integrated Transport Plan was submitted to Council for endorsement on 01 October 2015. (Page 13/14)

Thus, the MRC keeps putting in amended plans and residents know nothing about the amendments and what concessions have undoubtedly been granted to the MRC and by whom! There has not been any formal council resolution on the 5^th May 2015, nor any notice that amendments were sought. Why not? And who made the decisions and under whose authority? And as we stated in our previous post, who made the current decision to ‘refuse’ the new Development Plan and what were the grounds of refusal? Why aren’t residents informed as to what is going on until after the fact?

The Development Plan

There is much that could be said about this current proposal. We will only highlight the most obvious things –

Another 397 apartments proposed in 4 buildings
Building A – 9 storeys of 56 one bedroom and 56 two bedroom
Building B – 9 storeys of 44 one bedroom, 56 two bedroom and 9 three bedrooms
Building C – 5 storeys of 36 one bedroom and 12 two bedroom
Building D – 7 storeys of 92 one bedroom and 36 two bedroom

Thus the percentage of family oriented three bedroom apartments is the wonderful number of 2.26% – whereas the documents claim 5%!

The proposed configurations of these apartments are also nothing to write home about. For example:

No of apartments under 50 square metres – 51

No of units between 50 and 60 square metres – 60

No of balconies under 8 square metres – 71

We remind readers that council caved in on the requirement for 8 square metres of balcony on a previous amendment. Also the State Government’s Better Apartments is looking at legislating for a minimum size and 50 square metres is one suggestion.

Traffic Management & Parking

Thanks to the incompetence of the Incorporated Plan, there is NO VISITOR CAR PARKING
397 units plus retail only warrants 441 spots
The ‘statistics’ used date from 2010 and ‘updated’ in 2013! No mention of course of impacts on Eskdale Road, Newington, and other local streets all round the precinct!

Affordable Housing

We are so dumbfounded by this proposal that we cite it in full. Please remember that some councillors wrung their hands in dismay when there was no provision for ‘affordable housing’ in Precinct One. The argument put forward by the Lipshutzs and Hyams and Pillings of this world, was that the other precincts would fulfill this requirement. Well here is the ‘master plan’ for affordable housing, courtesy of the MRC. We are sure that readers will get a good laugh out of the following:

Aspirations for the provision of affordable housing within the Caulfield Village development are expressed in the Incorporated Plan. In the current absence of a Federal or State Government scheme to support the development of affordable rental housing, BPG has given detailed consideration to how it might self implement an opportunity for affordable housing within its development that is suitable to Caulfield Village and the broader Caulfield context.

The Caulfield Village & Affordable Housing Report at Appendix Q explores a variety of models that might be adopted to facilitate affordable housing opportunities within the development. It identifies the “Pathway to Ownership” model as the most appropriate having regard to the particular circumstances of the proposal and its context. Broadly, the model would offer assistance to low-to-moderate income renter households to purchase an affordable home in the Caulfield Village development by providing people in affordable or private rental with a savings record an opportunity for assistance to meet the necessary start up funds to facilitate ownership. Deposit subsidies from BPG to eligible participants also form part of the assistance package. The scheme would be administered by a community housing provider. It is anticipated that eligible purchasers would currently be living in community housing or private rental accommodation, with limited opportunities to otherwise enter the housing market.

The added benefits of the scheme include the direct expertise of a community housing provider to assist appropriate and eligible candidates on the pathway to ownership, and the freeing up of low rental accommodation previously occupied by participants in the Pathway to Ownership scheme.

The preferred affordable housing model, which will be known as Caulfield Apartment Start Program (CASP) could potentially be applied to any of the proposed accommodation within the development, rather than limited to certain apartments or apartment types. Likewise there would be no limit to the number of apartments able to be purchased under the affordability scheme. The model applies a subsidy to eligible purchasers, rather than dwellings. It is uncertain, until the scheme is up and running, what the uptake of accommodation through the Pathway to Ownership model will look like, but BPG is committed to implementing the program for accommodation within the Mixed Use Precinct, and potentially future development stages

Our final word of caution

Whilst the variously dated Incorporated Plan (ie some of the documents refer to the Incorporated Plan as being 2011 and other documents cite 2014!) stated that the maximum preferred heights for Precinct 1 was 5 storeys, we now have 6 storeys looming over Station St. This is because of the neat little trick perpetrated by the MRC and permitted by council of using the formula of AHD. This refers to sea level heights. Thus if the land is sloping, then instead of the preferred height of say 5 storeys, the MRC can build 6 storeys. Council of course, and all their expert planners, did not pick this up – or if they did, did not care! Thus we warn residents that the mooted heights of these building are just that – mooted and nothing is set in concrete!

PS: stuck between the four building of 9/10 storeys, and 5/6 and 7/8 storeys, the MRC proposes to create a ‘pocket park’. The accompanying visuals are astounding: vast expanses of ‘open space’ that make the area look like a major park and not a ‘pocket park’. No real high rise to dominate the site; no overshadowing whatsoever, and nowhere in the landscape plan could we find any data which states the size and dimensions of this proposed ‘park’. What we do know at this stage is that 25 onsite trees will be removed and 14 street trees at least!

June 21, 2016

Caulfield Village: Stage 2

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments

CLICK TO ENLARGE

COMMENT

Residents should be outraged at the processes involved with the development of this project. At last council meeting a public question was asked in relation to a Practice Day hearing held at VCAT on this application. The response was far from satisfactory. Be that as it may, plenty of questions need answering, and all have to do with due process and sound governance.

When did council first receive this second stage Development Plan?
Who made the decision to ‘refuse’ and why wasn’t this done via a formal council resolution given the magnitude of the plans and the contentious nature of the entire project?
What was the purpose of the Practice Day hearing and what were the grounds for someone’s (not Council’s) refusal? What is the outcome of this hearing?
If decisions by VCAT are already pending as potentially indicated by the response to the public question, what is the use of calling for submissions after the fact?
Time for submissions is 16 days. Whilst this does meet the conditions set by the relevant Schedule it is far from satisfactory, given that council also had the option of 28 days – ie “Display the development plan for public comment for at least 14 days, but no longer than 28 days”
And how does the VCAT involvement meet this stated requirement from the Schedule – “The responsible authority must decide whether to approve a development plan or amendment to a development plan within 60 days after the display of the development plan is completed.”

In short, we maintain that every single aspect of planning for this site, has been abysmal with council and especially Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling, falling over backwards to accommodate the MRC!

PS: the link to view the plans is – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Planning-and-business/Planning/Large-scale-developments/Caulfield-Village-Development-Plans/Development-Plan-2

June 20, 2016

Q & A: #2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[11] Comments

Not on this topic, but worth a read – http://www.danielbowen.com/2016/06/20/use-other-footpath/

RESIDENT #5 – stated that he ‘lived directly behind the town hall’ and that council talks about ‘community planning’ but they got a letter ‘yesterday’ telling them that their 2 hour parking on their street would now become all day parking. Believed that this change was to ‘facilitate council employee’ parking and not residents. Facilitator again interrupted and said that the resident is basically asking about the amount of information and ‘why’ this is happening. Resident answered that he is talking about ‘prior consultation’. Facilitator then rephrased again to include ‘consultation’.

TORRES: started saying about a ‘review’ of parking in the municipality, but was interrupted by the resident saying that he isn’t concerned with the entire municipality just why this happened to his street. Torres then continued and said that some ‘underutilised parking areas’ had been identified and having one side of the street as two hours and the opposite as unrestricted is ‘consistent’ with other streets in Glen Eira. Also said that parking is ‘dynamic’ and changes happen ‘over time’ so ‘it’s not a permanent situation’. The letter also said that the new conditions would be ‘reviewed early next year’.

Resident then explained how he already can’t get out of his drive. Facilitator again suggested that the resident speak with Torres and to provide him with details about the ‘process that took place’ and how the resident might ‘make an objection’. Resident claimed that this situation is exactly the same as happened to the other speaker’s question on Phillip’s Street changes. Facilitator summed up by saying ‘parking is a huge issue’ and therefore there needs to be the opportunity for this to be ‘examined’. Resident then went on with issue about trees and breaking branches and that ‘nothing’ ever happens about their concerns.

COMMENT

The resident’s question of ‘consultation’ has again been neatly sidestepped as has justification for the changes. In light of these actions, readers need to consider council’s ‘policy’ on traffic management changes. To the best of our knowledge this policy is still extant and is available online. Only 2002 this time! AND