Glen Eira Debates

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.

The black hole of GESAC is clearly getting bigger and bigger – despite all the assurances from Lipshutz and the other financial whiz kids on council. After enduring a quite nauseating performance by Lipshutz on the audit committee minutes and how much the Auditor General had praised council for its performance and how it is an example to other councils, some of the truth finally emerged about the Hansen and Yuncken call for their money through another report by the auditor general which highlighted the call for ‘adjudication’ by Hansen & Yuncken.

The past few financial reports have consistently stated that Council is withholding over $4 million dollars as part of the ‘liquidated damages’. The building contract was $41.2 million and up til last month council had only handed over approximately $37 million. We now learn that the adjudication has in fact forced council to cough up $3 million of the money it was holding back. But, there’s much, much more to this as we report below.

LIPSHUTZ: on the Audit Committee minutes –  ‘we were praised for the transparent way we went about GESAC’….(Auditor General gave council) ‘profusive praise’ in how ‘we managed our finances’…’I was particularly chuffed and enthused’ as he said ‘we were an example to other councils’. …’leader in the field’…..

PILLING: reported on community grants and claimed that over $300,000 was given out (OUR COMMENT: note that this amount also includes government grants!!!!!)

PENHALLURIACK: said that he went to the Audit Committee meeting and that the Auditor General did praise Glen Eira but ‘it was in a non specific way’. Referred to a ‘report that the Auditor General has commissioned’ about GESAC and that there’s ‘an adjudication of almost $5 million dollars to be heard against Council…and that was in a separate report to the meeting’.

MAGEE: said he attended the meeting. Stated that council oversees a budget of over $100 million and over 130,000 residents. Council ‘very adequately allocates those funds’. Went on to explain about the external auditors and kept reassuring residents that the finances are being well handled. Stated that those in the gallery should be ‘well assured’ that the rates are ‘being well administered, well spent’. If money was being wasted then auditors would pick that up and ‘that’s not the case’.

HYAMS: asked Penhalluriack whether he said that ‘the Auditor General commissioned a report into GESAC’?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘not into GESAC. He commissioned his own report’.

HYAMS: asked Newton whether the Auditor General ‘commissioned a report as described by Cr Penhalluriack’?

NEWTON: ‘Not into GESAC, no’.

LIPSHUTZ: said he was present and ‘did not hear anything of that nature’. Said that council’s got the money in the bank and that it then becomes ‘an issue between the builder and ourselves’. Claimed that none of this ‘comes as a surprise’ that it was ‘expected’. Went on again about the Auditor General and how council had a good ‘business plan’.

Towards the end of the meeting Hyams requested a report on the state of the basketball allocations at GESAC. Said that since GESAC opened in mid season that by the next meeting this situation should be ‘resolved’ and that the courts should be ‘in full operation’. Pilling seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

There was then one Public Question that asked ‘what proportion’ (of court time allocated to the Warriors from Friday to Sunday are actually) ‘being utilised’? Also wanted to know how interested parties would be advised about next years’ allocations since the Warrior one was for only 12 months.

The response was a wonderful sales job on what GESAC caters for; problems with builders, etc. Claimed that next season would see full use and that the warriors use of the courts was currently 57.5 hours instead of 80+ hours.

PENHALLURICK: SAID THAT ‘WE DIDN’T GET EARLY NOTICE OF THESE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS’ and that he would like to say something in ‘response to some of them’. Asked if the 57.5 hours ‘is being paid for’?

HYAMS: mumbled and fumbled his way through in response saying that the Local Law lets councillors put in individual responses but doesn’t allow ‘supplementary questions’ from councillors.

PENHALLURIACK: said that he would have provided his own answer ‘if I had notice of the question’. Went on to say that he was asking a question about the answer given.

HYAMS: ‘The Local Law doesn’t allow that’. Said that it could be a question on notice for next meeting.

PENHALLURIACK: claimed it was a silly local law. Hyams came back with you ‘probably voted for it’. Penhalluriack agreed.

Next public question asked about the liquidated damages and why council was withholding 10% of the money it owes to the builder. Hyams then read out the answer quoting the financial report which says that council has paid 36.99 million. Contractor had gone to adjudication for 4.2 million and that ‘it has been completed’. Said that council has now paid 39.99 million. Went on to say that the contract allows for these matters in dispute to be settled and that there are processes which could end up with council receiving money or facing ‘additional payments’….these processes are underway’. 

COMMENT: These exchanges certainly make a mockery of Lipshutz’s claim that council has been ‘transparent’ in its dealings over GESAC. Further, we wonder if:

• Glen Eira Debates hadn’t publicised the Hansen & Yuncken adjudication whether anything at all would have been stated
• If Glen Eira Debates hadn’t publicised the issue would the public question have been asked and some form of answer supplied.
• As far as the answer goes we still have major concerns. The door is still open for further penalties paid by council. Will Hansen and Yuncken claim interest on their money owed? Will they claim legal expenses? Will they sue for more money as Hyams indicated is a real possibility? Penhalluriack spoke about $5 million we remind readers.
• What has this handover of $3 million done to the budget/cash flow especially when there’s another 3.1 million due for super top ups?
• Have the Warriors actually paid a cent to council or have they been granted free access? What impact has this had on proposed income at GESAC?

There are countless questions that require straight forward answers. No spin, no obfuscation, and no porkies, and certainly no deft sleight of hand as evidenced by Lipshutz’s claim that he does not remember the Auditor General’s commissioned report being ‘discussed’ at the Audit Committee. We point out that perhaps this wasn’t DISCUSSED but presented in a pile of papers and reports that few councillors actually bothered to read?!!!!! We suspect that this is standard practice for this administration!

Finally we can only highlight again the tactics of withholding public questions until too late to respond and the recourse to gagging tactics via the lame excuse that the local law does not carry a provision for councillors to ask questions when they like! So much for open, transparent and accountable governance! Lawyers must be jumping up and down and rubbing their hands with glee over the prospect of unending work!