GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 19, 2013

Agenda & Audit Committee

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

Below are some extracts from the minutes of the February Audit Committee Meeting. We think they speak for themselves!

“Mr McLean requested that the Audit Committee be kept updated with respect to the dispute resolution process between Council and Hansen and Yuncken”.

“Financial Sustainability Risk matrix

The meeting was advised that on the basis of the Council’s existing accounting policies for Aged Care Bonds, Council’s liquidity ratio is projected to exceed 100%. If accounting policies were changed, ratios could be impacted. The Chairman asked that management review Council’s options around the liquidity ratio, including deferral of payments of the Defined Benefits Superannuation Fund liability shortfall.

Mr McLean raised the question for follow up as to whether any liquidity covenants existed around the borrowings for GESAC”.

March 18, 2013

The Leader’s View!

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

Decision on use of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve likely to rule out racehorse training

Andrea Kellett
March 18, 2013 2:17PM

Cr Jim Magee is hoping there will be support for the statement on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Picture: Jason Sammon Leader

GLEN Eira councillors will tomorrow night be asked to adopt an explosive position statement on Crown land at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

The nine-point statement will push for massive change, including phasing out all racehorse training.

It comes just a week before the reserve’s governing body the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust is due to meet.

The State Government has appointed three new Glen Eira councillors to the trust. Mayor Jamie Hyams, Cr Michael Lipshutz and Cr Margaret Esakoff’s appointments were gazetted last Wednesday. Former trustee chairman Cr Jim Magee was not reappointed.

Cr Magee will call on all councillors to support the statement.

“It’s one of the most significant statements council has ever made regarding the racecourse,” he said.

If the statement is adopted, the council will be committed to advocate for:

Equal land for community sport and racetracks
Leases or licences put in place for each of the reserve’s three main uses
Horse training to be phased out
Public use to take precedence over car parking
Commercial rent charged for all commercial activities
Governance by committee of management

View the full statement at gleneira.vic.gov.au.

Read next week’s Caulfield Glen Eira Leader for the council’s decision and the community’s reaction or email andrea.kellett@news.com.au with your thoughts.

March 17, 2013

Agenda & Racecourse

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

Two items of interest feature in the upcoming council meeting –

The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee
Council’s belated ‘position statement’ on the centre of the racecourse

The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee comes as no surprise given that it has already performed its ‘dirty deeds’ and we now have Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz as MRC Trustees. The committee has served its purpose!

The second item, whilst most welcome, is also very belated and ironic in that it reiterates many of the points that Penhalluriack was insisting upon years ago. The tragedy is, that this position is AFTER THE FACT and should have been ‘non-negotiable’ right from the start. Writing to a bunch of Ministers and parliamentarians after the horse has literally bolted rings hollow indeed.

A few points are worth pointing out in this Newton drafted pitch for posterity –

‘recreation’ has morphed into ‘sporting grounds’ whereas the original ‘agreement’ forbade ‘ball games’
It’s also quite amusing to read ‘The area allocated for community sports grounds should be no less than the area allocated for race tracks’. Given that it was Council which passed the Centre of the Racecourse permit and allowed leggo land fencing to encroach more and more on OUR land, then these words are nothing more than another public relations exercise.
Lipservice is also paid to the major bone of contention –‘training should be phased out’ – but with no set time line, etc.
One positive note that echoes Penhalluriack and Magee is the notation that commercial rates should be paid for this Crown Land.
Access is of course mentioned, but not a word about why fences are still up, nor hours of access.

We reiterate. This statement is welcomed but far, far too late. The failure of the Special Committee and Newton to insist on these right from the start should never be forgotten. As for ‘outcomes’ from this? Well, we’re not holding our breath given history and certain letters from the DSE, plus Premier Napthine’s love of racing.

March 16, 2013

Mushrooms, Mushrooms, Mushrooms……

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

A public question was asked at the 5^th February Council Meeting. It read:

“Glen Eira Council is reported as having made a submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee investigating Development Contributions under the Planning and Environment Act. Will Council make this submission public and accessible to all? When was this issue discussed with councillors?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “In September 2012 Councils were asked a standard list of specific technical questions relating to the DPCD position paper entitled Standard Development Contributions Paper – A Preferred Way Forward.

Council officers provided answers to these technical questions in October 2012.

Councillors were informed of this during that time.

It is understood that Councils and members of the public will be given opportunities in the future to make further submissions.”

Since then there has been no public disclosure, and no further mention of this important issue. Even worse, the fact that councillors were ‘informed’ does not feature anywhere in the Records of Assembly for this period. Conclusion? Either the Records of Assembly are a total (censored) joke, the ‘informing’ was a brief verbal aside, or perhaps did not even take place?

We’re getting mightily sick of revealing how often this council is out of step with the majority of its neighbours. This is not the first time that submissions to various committees or government have not been ratified by council resolution first off (as done in other municipalities) much less made public. Residents have no idea as to how this council votes at MAV conferences; what positions will be taken, or much about anything. We even wonder if councillors get a look in, or have a say on anything. Yet they do nothing! They allow residents to be treated like mushrooms and the disease of inaccurate reporting and secrecy continues unabated.

The development contributions is a vital issue for any municipality that is experiencing the unprecedented growth that Glen Eira is. Given that this council has REMOVED the contributions from its planning scheme it becomes even more important that residents know what council’s position is. Will Newton and his cohorts meekly accept the pro-development agenda, or will there be some insistence that ratepayers stop subsidising greed?

Below are the views of our neighbours – all made public and above board – not like Glen Eira City Council!

1. PORT PHILLIP EXTRACTS

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_3_-_Submission_to_Standard_Development_Contributions_Advisory_Committee.pdf

There remains a bias in the design of the proposed development contributions framework towards the establishment of development contributions in growth areas. This translates into some gaps in the frameworks application in established areas where project delivery can be much more complex and expensive that broad acre green field development. These gaps include:

• Assumptions about spare capacity in existing infrastructure to cope with development.

• The suggestion that a “25% discount” be applied to standard leviesin established areas compared to growth areas.

• Failure to recognise the complexities and additional costs associated with development in established urban areas.

• The significant land cost component in the provision of new infrastructure in established areas.

Project contingencies cost allowance set at 10% of project cost. A contingency set at a standard 10 % is very low for projects, particularly in inner urban areas. This should be scaled across a range in accordance with industry best practice and be project specific.

There is no recognition in the proposed framework that additional growth in established urban areas can create “tipping points”, exceeding infrastructure capacity and rendering some types of existing infrastructure redundant. This in turn will necessitate complete replacement in order to upgrade the capacity.

The framework proposes that historical capital works expenditure and population growth over time be used as a basis to set the contribution for new development. This approach is not supported as it:

• has no direct relationship to actual need for infrastructure generated by additional growth relies on historical spending that may not be an accurate indication of either infrastructure cost or infrastructure need

• takes no account of the nature of the population increases and subsequent infrastructure needs

• does not allow for consideration of current standards and costs of infrastructure provision

• is contrary to the basic tests of need and nexus that have long been established in setting development contributions.

2. BAYSIDE

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/5_March_2013_Councillor_Briefing.pdf

in the councillor briefing notes under – ‘proposed submission’

3. STONNINGTON (uploaded in full here)

The application of the Development Levy Scheme (DLS) to only large scale Strategic Redevelopment Areas lacks the flexibility needed to respond to the various levels of development occurring and infrastructure needs across metropolitan Melbourne. The needs in the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre are not considered.

That the DLS decision making process should include a Social Impact Assessment

March 13, 2013

Ineptitude or More Hoodwinking?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

We’ve reported ad nauseum on the failure of this administration to provide accurate, comprehensive, and timely information to both residents and councillors. This post focuses on the regular ‘VCAT Watch’ that appears in every council meeting agenda. We’ve already commented on the fact that there is no complete record of DPC decision making in contrast to what other councils provide their communities. The Glen Eira version of reporting on VCAT cases is equally deficient and misleading.

Every agenda item is entitled ‘VCAT WATCH – (monthly) Decisions’ – where the current month’s name is inserted. Any reasonable person would then expect that what is contained in this watch does in fact represent the decisions made by VCAT for that particular month. As we will show, nothing could be further from the truth! But first, here’s how some other councils do it –

Boroondara provides regular tables outlining results according to ward. These are comprehensive, so that residents know the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of each appearance at VCAT plus whether the decision to grant or deny the permit was made by council or under delegation. (Click to enlarge).

Bayside also includes a list, and then a full report on each decision where residents can again see the tabulated form of success or failure.

Glen Eira in contrast relies on its ‘VCAT WATCH’ where often very selective editing accompanies the ‘summary’ of the VCAT decision. We’ve taken the trouble to go through all ‘VCAT WATCHES’ FROM February 2012 to February 2013. The results are fascinating in that:

Not one single judgement has occurred when it is stated it did occur. Once a decision has been made the applicant, council, and objectors are notified that day by email. There is absolutely no excuse that a judgement which was handed down in say November 2012, does not feature until February 2013 – even though the tag line for the February agenda item states ‘February Decisions’. Let’s have a little honesty shall we, and simply label this as ‘past VCAT decisions’!
Not all VCAT decisions are reported. Why not, if this is meant to be genuine and honest feedback to councillors and residents? For example: in August 2012 there are 9 VCAT decisions listed on the VCAT website. Council only reported on 4 of these decisions. What happened to the other five? Why weren’t these included and reported upon? This trend is also evident for the following months – April 2012 – Glen Eira reported on 3 out of 7; November 2012 – 4 out of 5; October – 6 out of 7.
Nowhere does Glen Eira report on its ‘success rate’ at VCAT. Residents do not know the total figures, as they do with other councils, nor how many decisions are upheld, set aside, varied.

Below is our table of the VCAT WATCH from council minutes. The first column lists the applicant (or objector); the second column the date the decision was handed down and the last column lists the date that Council reported the decision. In practically every case there was at least one council meeting in the intervening period when the result could have been reported upon. It shouldn’t take 3 months to get something onto the agenda and then pretend it is current!

Highland properties	15^th November 2011	7^th February 2012
Long plan printing	4^th November 2011	7^th February 2012
B Central	1^st December 2011	7^th February 2012
Gold investments	25^th November 2011	7^th February 2012
Bilic homes	Not listed on vcat	7^th February 2012
Healy & Gold	20^th January 2012	28^th February 2012
Arch	28^th December 2011	28^th February 2012
Blue Wolf	22^nd December 2011	28^th February 2012
Sharp	8^th February 2012	20^th March 2012
Malina	22^nd February	20^th March 2012
Bayside building	Not on vcat website	20^th March 2012
Gillon	Not on vcat website	10 April 2012
Blint	Not on vcat website	10 April 2012
Malina	Not on vcat website	10 April 2012
Malina & business solutions	Not on vcat website	1^st May 2012
Imperium design	23^rd March 2012	1^st May 2012
Furman	22 March	1^st May 2012
Pascoe	12 april	22^nd May 2012
SilverArc	Not on vcat website	1^st May 2012
Anderson	30^th April 2012	12 June 2012
Bail	15^th May 2012	3^rd July 2012
Perkins	7^th May	3^rd July 2012
Poath rd	8^th May	3^rd July 2012
Architecture works	17^th May	3^rd July 2012
Tefillah	23^rd May	24^th July 2012
crb	4thJune	24^th July 2012
pbbs	6^th june	24^th July 2012
Booran rd	19^th june	24^th July 2012
Thermal	21^st June	14^th August 2012
IKONOMIDIS REID	26^th June	14^th August 2012
St wise	9^th August	4^th September 2012
Hta property	2^nd August	4^th September 2012
Brent Williams	8^th August	24^th September 2012
Smith	13^th August	24^th September 2012
Upside dental	4^th September	16^th October 2012
Vision 3	5^th September	16^th October 2012
284 Neerim Rd	18^th September	13^th November 2012
Trubuilt	24^th September	13^th November 2012
Hamilton	1^st October	13^th November 2012
Victoria Developments	8^th October	13^th November 2012
Malina	12 October 2012	27^th November 2012
Menory	18^th October 2012	27^th November 2012
Supreme Property Group	18^th October 2012	27^th November 2012
Visionary designs	25^th October 2012	18^th December 2012
campbell	26^th November 2012	5^th Feb 2013
sharp	27^th November 2012	5^th Feb 2013
pegasus	30^th November 2012	5^th Feb 2013
Carnegie apartments	10^th December 2012	5^th Feb 2013
Worotnicki	11^th December 2012	5^th Feb 2013
Linacre	23^rd November 2012	26^th Feb 2013
Mirmilstein	Not listed in vcat	26^th Feb 2013
Boston celtics	Not listed in vcat	26^th Feb 2013

What all this leads to are two possible conclusions – either there is vast incompetence or the failure to provide complete information is deliberate. Readers can make up their own minds. What is certain is that the processes and practices within Glen Eira’s reporting framework is well and truly below par and cannot be relied upon by anyone.

March 12, 2013

From A Resident

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

“How many years does it take for a building to be constructed? How many times can a planning permit be issued or revised. Why can’t the planning permit for this property be found on councils planning register? How long does a public footpath have to be unsafe before council does anything?

The multi-storey building in Koornang road which includes 26 units and shops has been under construction for years and years and years. How can this be? Surely building permits and planning permits must expire. There has been so little movement with this development over so many years.

Who owns this property and why are they not forced to finish it and tidy up the site and repair the damage to the footpath? Has anyone from council ever looked at this site? Does it comply with public safety requirements?

Should we be suspicious about this never ending construction process? Does the owner have some special privileges that put the site outside public safety compliance? Questions I can’t answer but maybe someone else knows what is going on and can explain why Carnegie has been blighted by an unfinished construction site for so many years and residents have had to put up with the unsightly mess and the very unsafe footpath.”

March 11, 2013

We Are Biased!

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

Several comments on the GESAC issue have prompted this response. We freely and proudly admit that we are biased. Our bias is always towards open, accountable and transparent government. These features are sadly lacking in Glen Eira Council and nowhere moreso than in the dealings over the development of GESAC and the sporting allocations for the basketball courts. It is certainly time that this Council ‘comes clean’ in disclosing exactly how ratepayer funds are being spent. It is certainly time that fact replaced spin, and that secrecy was put to bed.

Here are the ‘facts’ and questions –

Council continually talks about the $41.2 million CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Figures on total costs (including oufittings, higher purchase agreements, road restructuring, electricity substations, and countless other items) have never been fully itemised, nor added up into one single figure and made public in a manner that clearly shows the precise amount that this has cost.
How many staff are currently employed by Council? 50 or 250 and how much is this costing?
Did council pay any GESAC hired staff throughout the duration of the 5 month delayed opening? How much did this cost?
How on earth can council sign itself up to a 15 year fixed loan on 8.04% and which would now cost $4 million to convert to a fixed and variable rate? The argument of course is that council had the ‘best consultants’ – was there no contrary official legal/financial advice proffered?
How good are these ‘consultants’ when well over $1 million unbudgeted funds have been spent on car park extensions and relocation of playgrounds?
Why has there been no ‘consultation’ with local residents and why oh why were there no traffic studies undertaken prior to the Gardener’s Rd debacle? How safe is this latest encroachment into public space?
Why, if it exists, is the sport allocation policy, and its criteria not in the public domain?
Why were the Pools Steering Committee Meeting minutes a total joke in terms of actually informing the public as to what was going on?
How many GESAC members have not renewed their memberships? How many complaints and/or negative comments has council received regarding entrance prices and general high costs?
How much does daily, weekly and monthly maintenance cost – ie insurance, cleaning, chemicals, heating/cooling etc?
How detailed and frequent were/are reports back to councillors on operations?
Why have councillors not honoured their public statements that an EOI process would be undertaken in 2012 – that is a year following the Warriors allocation?
Why have councillors allowed employees to consistently run the show?
Why are teams for individual sporting grounds no longer on the website?
How many NON-LOCAL teams does Glen Eira house on its sporting fields?
How many locals are members of both the Warriors and McKinnon Basketball Association?
How much has already been spent on lawyers on the ‘liquidated damages’ issue and is Council facing the prospect of a huge pay-out if they lose the case?

There are probably countless other questions that need to be asked. We do not hold out much hope that this lot of councillors will have the nous, or courage to ask them – especially not in public! Again, this stands in stark contrast to what is happening with the Pool in the Mornington Shire. For those interested we ask them to peruse this Notice of Motion (verboten in Glen Eira!) from one of their councillors. It makes for fascinating reading. See: http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/Governance_Agendas/131203ca_add_41_NOM127.pdf

March 10, 2013

Would Our Lot Ask These Questions?

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

Councillors have been away for their ‘budget retreat’ recently. No doubt they have been ‘nursed’ along in the process of determining their ‘priorities’ for the budget. They’ve undoubtedly also wrestled with how to pay off GESAC at the fixed rate of 8.04% for the next 15 years. On top of this there’s the $7.1 million superannuation liability that also has to be paid off. Whilst other councils are contemplating paying this in one lump sum to avoid the high interest repayment, we suspect that Glen Eira does not have this option. Imagine borrowing another $4 million or so – that’s if anyone would even lend them this amount! We’re also pretty confident that the question of a top heavy and extremely well paid administration, plus consultants galore, and an unprecedented and constant staff increase with the advent of Newton, would not have figured prominently in these deliberations! It’s therefore really refreshing to read the following from a Monash City Councillor and makes us contemplate the question – would our councillors dare ask these questions? More importantly, would they ever get the answers?

Source: http://www.monash.vic.gov.au/news/bulletin2013/february/councillor.htm

March 7, 2013

Residents Are Expendable

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[21] Comments

We’ve featured the Gardener’s Rd conversion into a GESAC car park previously. A comment from a resident’s relative has prompted us to revisit the issue. What is clear is that when it comes to fixing up council’s howlers residents do not matter. They are expendable, irrelevant, and not even worthy of “consulting” with, despite the chaos that is about to descend on their doorsteps. There has been no traffic investigation before the decision was made; no real accounting for why the original design got it so horribly wrong and no problems in suddenly finding $600,000 that is not budgeted for from a council that is cash strapped!

Here’s the comment and some updated photos.

“My parents live on Gardeners Rd, and I grew up there. My grandfather had the house built in 1952, and my Mum has lived there since then, since she was 9 years old. She was given the house by her parents, after she and Dad got married. I and my 4 siblings lived there till we grew up and moved out. I now live in East Bentleigh not far away with my family. We had the best environment as kids. Beautiful Bailey reserve across the road, and “the pools” in summer. I used to take my kids to the pools and the park too, until recently. We were all devastated when we finally lost the 15 year fight to save the pools and GESAC was built. I hate it. I will never go there, and neither will my kids. We call it BALLSAC. We watched in horror as it was built, half the reserve was turned into a carpark, and the playground was removed and replaced with the junk that’s there now. It’s been devastating to see this happen. And now…NOW… they’re carving up the whole street and turning it into a carpark!!! Right in our street, right outside our house. Mum and Dad, and all of us, and all the neighbours, are devastated. Mum and Dad say they are going to sell up and move, out of sadness and disgust. They were never consulted, no-one in Gardeners Rd was. I’d like to ask the councillors, “How would you like this done to YOUR street? Outside YOUR house?”. What a bunch of (MODERATORS: word deleted). I’m so upset but feel powerless to do anything. Is there ANYTHING that can be done? Can we stop it, get an injunction? Does anybody know? We need legal help. I really can’t believe it and I’m so so sad. This is breaking the hearts of so many people and the Council doesn’t give a shit. What has the world come to? If anyone has any ideas or some legal skill please reply.”

March 6, 2013

Planning: ‘Reformed’ Zones

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments

The committee appointed to ‘investigate’ the proposed new zones has had its report finally made public – together with the government’s response. A quick perusal of the documents indicates that nothing major has changed. What is unique about this ‘consultation’ is that there were 2,083 SUBMISSIONS – surely a record! It’s also worth noting that at the last parliamentary sitting the government promised to table ALL submissions by February 5th. Yesterday’s Hansard records a letter from Matthew Guy which states in part: “Regrettably, the Government is not able to respond to the Council’s resolution within the time period requested by the Council. The Government will endeavour to respond as soon as possible.”!!!

We urge all residents to read the documents contained in the Media Release below since it is a foregone conclusion that Glen Eira Council’s mandatory ‘consultation’ process will be the typical rubber stamping process that has occurred time and time again.

Reformed residential zones bringing new certainty to Melbourne’s neighbourhoods

Tuesday, 05 March 2013

From the Minister for Planning

Sweeping reforms of residential planning zones are one step closer as Planning Minister Matthew Guy announced the Victorian Coalition Government’s final details on the reform of Victoria’s residential planning zones.

After a detailed consultation process with over 2,000 submissions from individuals, businesses, councils and community groups, the Coalition Government will now establish the three reformed residential zones on 1 July this year.

A key feature will be the new Neighbourhood Residential Zone which will be the strictest planning zone in Australia, aimed at protecting existing suburbs’ neighbourhood character.

“The Coalition Government’s reforms to residential zones reflect what communities have been calling for, for many years – certainty for neighbourhoods and protection from inappropriate development,” Mr Guy said.

“These reforms will protect what Melburnians love about Melbourne. Our streetscapes, our amenity and our liveability which are too valuable to ignore.

“At the same time the new zones will clearly define the appropriate locations where growth and density should occur,” Mr Guy said.

The Coalition Government’s Ministerial Advisory Council (MAC) on zone reform has suggested a number of improvements to the residential zones as initially proposed last year, to ensure the protection of community amenity and provide clearer rules and greater certainty for the community.

“The improvements recommended by the MAC further protect residential amenity and neighbourhood character and are supported by the Coalition Government,” Mr Guy said.

“Today’s announcement is about the right development in the right locations and the package of residential zones will deliver this for local communities.”

The new Neighbourhood Residential Zone will provide the strongest protections for local neighbourhood character for the first time in Victoria’s planning history. Key features of the zone include:

implementing local neighbourhood character policy to provide increased weight to local planning policy;
limiting increased residential development through lot size restrictions; and
providing an eight metre mandatory height limit.

In contrast, the Residential Growth Zone will be applied in areas determined appropriate for increased growth and density and provide for medium density developments.

Minor commercial uses will be permitted in the Residential Growth Zone to provide additional local services to the population, subject to strict conditions.

“Local communities will now know and clearly understand where growth can and will occur, unlike the previous haphazard approach that was allowed to foster under the previous Labor Government,” Mr Guy said.

“Importantly, these zones will be at the discretion of local council and it will predominately be the view of the local community that informs which zone should be applied where.”

The Coalition Government will work with local councils between March and May to further develop the implementation procedures and criteria. The Department of Planning and Community Development will also provide technical assistance to local council’s in implementing the residential zones.

Implementation of the residential zones will commence on 1 July 2013 and will be completed over a 12 month period.

A copy of the MAC report and the Coalition Government’s response can be found at: www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/reszones

PS: An email from a reader –

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates