GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 15, 2012

More Smoke & Mirrors: Booran Rd Reservoir

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

The so called ‘consultation’ announcement went up on council’s website today together with the usual indecipherable ‘design’. What’s remarkable about this announcement is:

  • The 2012/13 budget does not assign any funding to this project until years down the track – ie “$4m in 2017-2018 and $3.5m in 2018-2019”.
  • Why then is public consultation being held now – 5 years at least before anything will be done?

Here is our interpretation of these events. You have a mock consultation and get council to ratify one particular (predetermined?) plan. It is then set in concrete regardless of the fact that a new council will be coming in next year which may have a different vision. The argument of course will be –“oh we’ve already got a master plan and spent so much money on this that we can’t really change things now”. This is typical administration tactics that we observe time and time again. The identical thing happened with the Caulfield Park Pavilion and Princes Park. Master plans sit there for at least a decade before anything happens.

Please note: we do not object to master plans per se. But when funding is not available for another 5 years at least, and this council is facing a major cash crisis, why has at least $60,000 (according to last year’s budget) been spent on a design that simply might be ‘old hat’ in 5 years time? What, after all, is the rush for a decision now when the money is simply not available? Why can’t the new council make such an important decision? Or is this just another means of hog-tying any recalcitrant new councillor?

 

May 15, 2012

Allegation #4

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

ALLEGATION  4

That Councillor Penhalluriack victimised the CEO for making a complaint against him. This conduct has damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermined the CEO and his staff in their employment and has caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.

30 Nov   2010 At an  audio taped Council Meeting, Councillor Penhalluriack criticised the CEO for not accepting mediation. This was in respect of informal complaints made by the CEO to the then Mayor. The CEO referred to the obligations of his employer and that if he wanted to raise the issue he would do so with his employer, the Council.
2 April   2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes a letter to Mayor Esakoff in which he strongly criticises the CEO, Peter Jones, the MRC and the CRRT. With respect to the allegations of inappropriate conduct made against him by the CEO, he refers to the allegations as “something manufactured by the CEO” and “we need to take his concerns seriously, but this is the third time he has cried wolf, and I’m pleased we decided to leave him alone in the forest”.
 

May 12, 2012

Newton & O’Neill

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

Our previous post concerned the Racecourse and Council. It is therefore opportune to publish the following allegation made by Newton against Penhalluriack. We remind readers that:

  • Newton never put these allegations in writing
  • They were compiled/constructed by O’Neill based on the ‘discussions’ and documents provided to her by Newton
  • The following is a verbatim copy of the O’Neill compiled ‘evidence’ pertaining to Allegation 2 and presumably what Penhalluriack was expected to respond to.

ALLEGATION 2

That Councillor Penhalluriack has humiliated the CEO on numerous occasions (detailed below) by making derogatory and offensive remarks about him in public at Council Meetings and to the CEO directly and to other Councillors in correspondence concerning the CEO’s dealings with the Melbourne Racing Club (“MRC”), the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees (“CRRT”) and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (“DSE”) and Minister’s Office. These statements have been made without supporting evidence or other factual basis for making the statements.  These statements have damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermine the CEO in his employment and have caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.

Early Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack distributes letter (later dated 12 October 2009) to Councillors and lobbies for support   against the CEO with respect to meetings held with MRC and the CRRT
12 Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack attends the CEO’s office to hand him the letter referred to below. The letter does not   disclose that copies were provided to a number of recipients and not just the CEO.  The CEO reads the letter from Councillor Penhalluriack and tells him that the letter is inaccurate and he will respond in writing. The CEO declines to discuss the matter until after he has responded in writing.
12 Oct 2009 Councillor Penhalluriack (as Chairman of the Racecourse Committee) writes a letter to the CEO. The letter   suggests that the CEO has acted inappropriately with respect to the MRC and CRRT and makes the following allegations:

  • that the CEO met with the CRRT without telling Council first and that the CEO should have sought specific direction from his Council since “obviously more was to be discussed than a simple report on Council’s current racecourse policy”;
  • that he and other Councillors do not know why he was invited or what happened at the meeting and a full and frank report of the meeting and any other meetings with the CRRT, MPs or members of the MRC should be provided to Council.
12 Oct 2009 The CEO responds by email to Councillor Penhalluriack explaining that there was nothing inappropriate.  The letter refers to the invitation and provides a copy, the invitation request that the CEO attend the meeting to “explain your deliberations regarding the amendment to the Joint Communiqué’ and “A report on the amended plans for the Centre of the course would also be appreciated”.   The CEO confirms that he informed the Mayor and the two councillors who were also Trustees (Councillor Whiteside, and Councillor Tang) and that these   Councillors were present during the time that the CEO spoke and for the remainder of the meeting.  The CEO   explains that the Communiqué had been the subject of Council resolutions on 1 July 2008 and 21 July 2009 and was a formal decision of Council, which under section 94A of the Local Government Act 1989 he was required to implement without delay. The CEO confirms that he has only attended meetings with MPs in support of the Mayor and/or Councillors.  The only discussions with the MRC have been to get the Council approved   Communiqué implemented.
12 Oct 2009 Email exchange between Councillor Penhalluriack and the CEO alleging that the CEO had acted in a   threatening manner and lost his temper in their meeting on 12 October 2010.  Councillor Penhalluriack accuses the CEO of being over sensitive to matters that only require a “civil and respectful response. Good and   regular communication keeps working relationships much more pleasant.”   The CEO denies the allegation in his email. Councillor Penhalluriack alleges that the CEO is not comfortable with his election.  The CEO states that he has no difficulty with Councillor Penhalluriack’s election, but that Councillor Penhalluriack should not commit himself to “written accusations before finding out the facts.”
12 Oct 2010 Councillor Penhalluriack moved a motion (that was passed) that the CEO report on each meeting between   Council Officers and the MRC in the preceding 12 months. This was done in the context of an accusation that the Council was not being kept informed by the CEO about his meetings with the CRRT and the MRC.
3 Nov 2010 The CEO provides the report required by the motion proposed by Councillor Penhalluriack on 12 October   2010.  The report sets out each meeting and its content.  The report shows that the CEO met with the MRC on three matters (the upgrade of the centre, C60 and ANZAC Day) and that the CEO has declined all offers of hospitality.  The report was unanimously approved.  Councillor Penhalluriack was at the meeting.
23 Feb 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack sends an email to Councillor Magee, Councillor Pilling, Councillor Lobo and Councillor Forge. In that email he makes the following statements:

  • “…after years of mumbling and bumbling we now have Council’s policy unanimously formalized”
  • “What a fight in the pre-meeting though, as predicted. It was a bitter pill for Andrew to swallow.”
  • “Now we have to ask Andrew to give us a detailed report on all meeting which he has concerning the Caulfield   Racecourse Reserve…but they must be reported.”

At the pre-meeting, Councillors strongly disagreed between themselves, but the CEO did not speak.  Council had previously persuaded the Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Land Development to tackle the Caulfield Racecourse Crown Land – this was based on submissions drafted by the CEO.
28 March 2011 Email from Kerry Henningsen of DSE to the CEO requesting that Council provide a list of nominations rather   than one nomination so that the Minister can select the person to replace Helen Whiteside.  This was the first   contact that the CEO had with the Minister’s Office and he had no contact with Mr Thomas or with the Minister for Crown Lands concerning this or other matters. The CEO was also unaware that Councillors Forge and Penhalluriack were meeting with Mr Thomas.
28 Mar 2011 CEO tries to call Councillor  Forge on her mobile to inform her of the email referred to above.  He leaves a message for her to call him.  Councillor Forge does not return the call. When he cannot speak to her he sends an email detailing the request made by DSE.
2 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes a letter to Mayor Esakoff in which he strongly criticises, the CEO, Peter Jones, DSE, MRC and the CRRT.  With respect to the CEO and his interactions with the MRC, CRRT and the DSE. He   states:

  • “The grossest example of behind our backs wheeling and dealing are the so called negotiations with the MRC.  The CEO has admitted many regular meetings between Council and the MRC, but we never receive details of what was discussed. When I asked for details I was given superficial gobbledegook” (our emphases)
  • He alleges that the CRRT is sexist “females are acceptable as typist-secretaries …”notwithstanding the fact that Councillor Forge would be replacing Councillor Helen Whiteside and there  are/have been other females on the CCRT from time to time;
  • He alleges that the CEO interfered with Councillor Forge’s appointment as a Trustee of the CRRT “… Openness and transparency is urged upon us, but as soon as Cheryl informs Council of our meeting with Hugh Thomas, senior advisor to Minister Ryan Smith, Andrew phones to interfere. Likely Hugh phoned Andrew before the meeting.”
7 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack writes to the CEO to raise the following matters. The letter alleges unnecessary haste in bringing forward meeting concerning Caulfield Racecourse and alleges that this is poor governance as this was done “without any discussion with Councillors”. (our emphases) He further alleges that “your Communiqué failed” as the Council had been lead to believe that training would be gone in the medium term and MRC are saying 10 years. He states that “we had better accept that we are dealing with devious fibbers”. Councillor Penhalluriack alleges that the public consultation is incomplete and written submissions are required with one-on one dialogue with those who actively support or reject the proposal. (our emphases)
8 April 2011 Councillor Penhalluriack raises two matters with the CEO in a memo received on 8 April 2011.  In this memo, Councillor Penhalluriack queries why the documents were marked confidential.  He also requests a copy of all associated documents between the CRRT and/or the MRC and or other parties. He asserts that the previous requests had been “denied  on the grounds that in your opinion they were not relevant to my role as a Councillor” he goes on to assert that this is incorrect.
8 April 2011 The CEO responds to the email  received from Councillor Penhalluriack on 8 April 2011. The CEO first explains the terminology used, the reasons for it and the need for Confidentiality.  The CEO informs Councillor Penhalluriack that the second half of Councillor Penhalluriack’s email will be responded to separately.
11 April 2011 Donna Graham, Legal Counsel, replies to the second half of Councillor Penhalluriack.  Ms Graham’s refers to the fact that she has previously provided this advice to Councillor Penhalluriack.  Ms Graham also advises that in her legal opinion the documents are not subject to any councillor entitlement to inspect and for the same reason would not be subject to a Freedom of Information application. Ms Graham also states that as Councillor Penhalluriack cannot participate in any debate on these matters on the basis of the Winky Popdecision, Officers cannot accede to his request.If Council disagrees it could seek an independent legal advice on the issue, Councillor Penhalluriack does not seek this resolution from Council. (our emphases)
11 April 2011 The CEO responds to the letter sent by Councillor Penhalluriack on 7 April 2011. The CEO refers to the   meeting on the 13 December 2010 of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee where it resolved that public consultation (or oral submissions) would take place on a date to be fixed.  The date was fixed and it was carried out on 4 April 2011.  The CEO reminds Councillor Penhalluriack that the Communiqué was authorised by Council Resolution on 21 July 2009 not by the CEO. Finally, the CEO states that the Amendment C60 is before the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee not any Officers, it originated in 2007, was exhibited in 2009 and was the subject of an independent panel in 2010 with 6 days of hearing and a 147 page report.  That Committee will decide whether to adopt  the recommendations, modify them, abandon it or take some other action.
27 April 2011 Council Meeting –Councillor Penhalluriack moved for a report on each meeting that Andrew Newton had with   the MRC or CRRT.  He referred publicly to the CEO acting inappropriately.  He states:

  • that the CEO has said that he has reported to Council on all meetings that he has had with the MRC and that he does not believe that this is the case;
  • that in the last report they got dates only;
  • that he wants the report so that “we also know what discussions and negotiations have actually been held behind Councillors backs”;
  • Councillor Hyams makes a point of order that this allegation should only be made if Councillor Penhalluriack has proof.  This point of order was not ruled on by the Mayor, instead she asked   Councillor Penhalluriack to withdraw part of the statement to the extent that “negotiations” was replaced with “meetings” and “behind our backs” was replaced with “without our knowledge”
  • Councillor Forge states that she can bear witness to the fact that the President of the MRC told her that he had met with Jeff Akehurst and the CEO and Council did not know about it. (our emphases)
28 April 2011 Local blog reports on the  request (inaccurately) with respect to the Councillor Penhalluriack’s allegation that the CEO was meeting with the MRC behind the Council’s backs. The CEO is referred to in an unflattering manner by the Blog

 

 

May 10, 2012

Service Levels

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

Are ratepayers really getting ‘value for money’ – especially when rates have more than doubled in the past 8 years? Is resource spending ‘maintaining’ current service levels as spruiked by the Strategic Resource Plan and accompanying Budget?

When residents have been screaming about the continued flooding in Glen Eira; the traffic congestion and need for calming treatments on local roads (ie LATM – Local Area Traffic Management) it is worthwhile reflecting on what has been happening for the past half dozen years. We feature a table taken directly from the respective budgets that outline the forecast spending on road reconstruction, footpaths, drains, and residential traffic management. We believe that this table reveals a sad story of FALLING service levels – especially with drains and the continued and regular incidents of flooding. The figures (apart from Traffic) are all in millions.

YEAR

ROADS

FOOTPATHS

DRAINS

TRAFFIC (LATM)
2007

4.0

2.13

3.3

 $100,000
2008

4.0

2.0

3.3

 $50,000
2009

4.0

2.0

3.5

 $100,000
2010

3.7

2.53

3.0

 $100,000
2011

3.8

1.73

3.29

 $360,000
2012

3.8

1.72

3.9*

 $200,000

*“included in the Drainage Improvement Program is an allocation of $968,000 for the Flood Mitigation Program (Storm Water Harvesting – Boyd Park Murrumbeena). This project includes funding of $484k.”

 

May 9, 2012

GESAC Basketball: More ‘Cover-Ups’?

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

GESAC has finally opened and the basketball courts are now in use. What still needs to be determined is:

  • Are ratepayers subsidising the Warriors for any courts that they are unable to fill?
  • Are courts standing empty and therefore representing a revenue loss to Council?
  • The Warriors’ EOI presumably ‘won’ because they ‘guaranteed’ a higher revenue base than the McKinnon Basketball Association – in fact, “$95,000 per annum more”. (See minutes of 13th December, 2011). If this amount is now NOT forthcoming, what does this say about the entire EOI/Tender process and the ultimate decision of certain councillors to allocate the courts to the Warriors? Was the decision merely ‘pie in the sky’, based on a wish and a prayer? How well was the EOI investigated and corroborated?
  • Are residents now literally paying the price for poor decision making? 

The last two Council Meetings have featured public questions on this issue. With typical Council evasiveness, no adequate response has been provided, except for the carefully phrased ‘answer’ below:

The question asked in part –

1. Will any courts stand empty when Gesac opens?

2. If so, how many and for how long and what is the estimated loss of revenue to council?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “I refer you to the response provided to you at the 20 March 2012 Council Meeting. Whilst the proposed court costs and hours were disclosed in the 13 December Council Minutes, other aspects of the EOI remain Confidential. I can however add that revenue will be at the normal rate for Council courts as opposed to the alternative EOI at 30 percent lower and will amount to $95,000 per annum more.”  

All very nice and good, except that the question isn’t answered. It is clear that the Warriors do not have enough teams to cover all the Friday to Sunday time slots they’ve been allotted. If they did then there would be no need for this paragraph taken from their Facebook page –

“It is expected that all Warriors members both Rep and domestic will participate in domestic competitions at GESAC from this Winter season onwards. This can be as a member of a Warriors domestic team or in a team they organize themselves.”

The scene gets even murkier now. If there is ‘sub-letting’ then who is responsible for this sub-letting? Is it the Warriors or Council? And the $64 dollar question remains. Are all the courts being used? If they are not, then are the Warriors paying for these courts or are ratepayers subsidising the Warriors and in the meantime allowing the continued loss of revenue?

Are we looking at another ‘cover-up’? Why can’t this Council provide straight-forward answers to public questions that impact on ratepayer funds, council competence and ultimately, transparent and accountable governance?

 

May 8, 2012

Less Spin & More Truth Please

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

Spin is out in full force with the advertised Budget and Council Plan. For the past ten years residents have been continually fed the line that Glen Eira imposes one of the lowest rate hikes in the state on its community. The facts reveal a different story. Our recent post highlighted how rates in the past 8-9 years have more than doubled in this municipality. We do not believe that any of the other councils listed below fall into this category. Glen Eira is really out on its own when it comes to slugging residents.

These are the rate increases as published in draft budgets from neighbouring councils. Both Bayside and Kingston figures are still to be released.

Stonnington – 4.5% increase

Port Phillip – 5.9%

Monash – 6%

Yarra city – 5.9%

Boroondara – 5%

Manningham – 6%

PS: The main entrance under the clock tower was AGAIN LOCKED for tonight’s Special Council Meeting!!!!! This makes it at least 4 times that the door has been locked. Once is unfortunate; twice is regrettable; three times is unforgivable and four times is plain old incompetence – or, a total disregard for the community.

 

 

May 6, 2012

Council Plan: Planning & Development

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Below is the section on Planning & Development from the Council Action Plan for 2012/3. We’ve numbered each ‘activity’ for ease of following.

Strategic Activity

Action

Measure
  1. Plan for a   mixture of housing types that allows residents to meet their housing needs in   different stages of their life-cycle within the City.
 Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal   Change/Housing Diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom  dwellings in larger medium density proposals. Report the   number of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity  areas quarterly
   2.  Enforce the   provisions of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and building control requirements   across the City as well as compliance with any planning permits. Conduct proactive site inspections for compliance with planning permit   conditions and Local Law requirements, and investigate building enforcement matters.

 

Enforce building control requirements.

 300   proactive site inspections completed

 

 

 

200   building enforcement matters investigated
3.   Ensure new   multi-dwelling residential development is sympathetic to the existing   neighbourhood character in Glen Eira’s minimal change areas. Make decisions in accordance with Council’s Minimal Change area policy   with an emphasis on Neighbourhood Character. Report the   number of neighbourhood character assessments carried out on residential   developments within Minimal Change areas quarterly.
4.   Strengthen town   planning protection of residential areas identified as having significant   character. Prepare a planning scheme amendment which uses the Neighbourhood   Character overlay to better protect areas displaying significant character. Following   a report of independent Panel, Neighbourhood Character Overlay actioned in  accordance with Council resolution
5.    Reduce the   intensity of residential development within Housing Diversity areas which   interface with minimal change areas. Prepare a planning scheme amendment which moderates the intensity of   residential development at the interface of the Housing diversity/ Minimal Change   policy areas. Once   authorisation for the planning scheme amendment is obtained from State   Government place the Transitions Policy on public exhibition
6.    Encourage and   support community involvement in the planning permit application   process. Promote Council’s suite of fast track permit   application processes. Publish a Glen Eira News  article
7.    Provide an   opportunity for all residents to be informed and to participate in town   planning applications where they (and others) object. Maintain both the non-statutory planning Conference (Council decision by resolution) and Delegated Planning Committee as forums for resident involvement in the   town planning process. Report on   a quarterly basis the number of planning conferences and Delegated Planning   Committee meetings held
8.    Provide a fair,   transparent and inclusive town planning decision making process. Review the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) process and introduce process improvement which   benefits all parties. Trial a   mediation process and report to Council on the results. Prove an information   video which explains the DPC process for the benefit of residents involved
9.    Ensure residents   and ratepayers have access to simple and easy to use information about the Council town planning process, the   responsibilities of developers and how to participate in the process. Develop a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) factsheet on town planning   processes and controls FAQ fact   sheet developed and posted on the Council website.
10.  Undertake   community consultation and engagement to ensure the Glen Eira Municipal   Strategic Statement, Glen Eira Planning Scheme and town planning process   meets the needs of local residents and ratepayers Survey participants in the Delegated Planning Committee process and   identify areas for improvement Report   survey results back to Council
11. Encourage   environmentally sustainable design (ESD) for new buildings. Produce a standard information kit for planning applications to define   ESD and Water Sensitive Urban Design in developments Information   kit distributed and placed on council website

 

QUESTION #1: Do the listed Measures really ‘measure’ what the ‘action’ proposes?

  • We are bemused by the notion that merely listing the ‘number’ of applications can in any shape or form influence the nature of 1, 2, or 3 bedroom unit developments in our neighbourhoods.
  • Measures 1 and 3 are practically identical, and further, simple ‘reporting’ on the ‘number’ of assessments does not influence the outcome of those assessments.
  • When there are over 1200 applications per year ,and consistently growing, do 200 and even 300 ‘proactive’ inspections ensure sufficient supervision? Also, what if any action follows such inspections? For example: does Council pursue developers for infringements? How many? How often?
  • Measures 1, 2 and 3 are identical to those listed in the 2011/12 Action Plan – despite the increase in applications. Hence nothing has changed. The budget and Council Plan promise the maintaining of existing services. Keeping the same target does not meet this objective.  More importantly, Council has failed to act in accordance with its own promises. THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IN BOTH MINIMAL CHANGE AND HOUSING DIVERSITY HAS NEVER BEEN REPORTED. What has been provided in the Quarterly Reports are PERCENTAGES and even these do not provide any guidance on the NUMBERS for Housing Diversity versus Minimal Change.
  • Encouraging ‘community involvement’ in the planning process is admirable. However the Action relates to the Fast Track program and can hardly be said to apply to the vast majority of residents. The program is primarily geared to developers. Further an article in the Glen Eira News is hardly a convincing ‘measure’ of ‘support’.
  • Item 10 speaks of broad issues such as the MSS, and the Planning Scheme. The objective is to ensure that ‘it meets the needs’ of the community. But once again, the actions and measures employed to achieve this are meaningless – ie. a ‘survey’ of participants in the DPC and the ‘reporting’ of results. Readers may remember that this is really a blast from the past in that years ago, such surveys were conducted and were actually published in Council minutes.

QUESTION #2: Do any of these ‘actions’ and ‘measures’ solve the planning issues as repeatedly stated by residents?

  • Nothing new, or effective, has been done in relation to the Planning Scheme itself. The current situation remains. References to ‘transition policy’ refer to last year’s resolution where all ‘transition’ means is a greater setback for multiple storeys, rather than an actual ‘transition zone’ that takes in a specific area. Residents can therefore still find themselves living next to 3, 4 or even 5 stories if they happen to abut Housing Diversity Areas. The same may be said for the recent C87 decision to go to a Panel. The Amendment covers less than 3% of the municipality and both residents and councillors were never provided with the opportunity to submit their own recommendations or suggestions for inclusion in this overlay.
  • Information sheets are fine as far as they go. There already are plenty of ‘information sheets’ available on Council’s website. Will this just be more of the same?

CONCLUSIONS

There’s plenty more that we could say – but the post would be far too long. What’s particularly disappointing is that after all the hullaballoo about ‘consulting’ with the community and acknowledging the angst that inappropriate development is causing, this Action Plan does not deviate one iota in any meaningful sense from the set in concrete agenda of this council. The Planning scheme will only be tinkered with, and the essential questions as to the 80/20 divide, structure plans, height limits, public realm policies, etc. remain untouched. Perhaps in the end Council could have saved themselves mega-bucks rather than going through the charade of ‘intensive community consultation’ – especially when there was never any intention to actually do anything to remedy what residents see as intolerable.

 

May 5, 2012

How (Not) Green Is My Valley!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[19] Comments 

There can be no doubt about it – green grass is taboo in Glen Eira – unless it’s a sporting oval! Otherwise it is becoming the concrete and mulch capital of the world! The latest atrocity concerns the Elster Creek Trail that we have commented upon previously. Readers will remember the Keystone incompetence such as:

  • Building concrete pathways on private land
  • Creating flood plains
  • Spending tens of thousands in ripping up hundreds of metres of grass and replacing it with ‘instant’ turf

Now we have the following:

  • Removal of perfectly sound wooden logs that function as barriers to entrances (and provide seating) and replacing these with low, environmentally unfriendly, (and ugly) concrete plinthing
  • The complete spreading of mulch everywhere so that not a blade of grass (including the thousands spent on the recent instant grass) is allowed to survive
  • Mulch that literally stinks to high heaven
  • Mulch that rests along private entrances as well as fence lines
  • Mulch that is up against tree trunks
  • Planting of countless gums less than 1.5m apart
  • Planting of gums where roots will undoubtedly be water logged
  • Ripping out flame trees planted less than 2 years ago to ensure a ‘straight line’ of 8 gums

We can only conjecture at the sheer waste, not to mention inconvenience to residents,  that all this has cost. Given that this council is classified as ‘high risk’; that we are facing a ‘cash crisis’; that GESAC will continue to be a burden for at least the next decade, and that other major projects have been delayed and delayed (Duncan McKinnon; Booran Rd Reservoir) we cannot fathom the sheer profligacy of this administration. Yes, it’s great that new trees are planted. But how many will be nurtured, pruned regularly and actually survive? Yes, it’s great that trees are mulched – but does that mean that all grass has to be sacrificed instead of simply mulching near the base and circumference? Elster Creek Trail, from a pleasant, green and unobtrusive landscape has been turned into a stinking, concrete and mulch swamp! We invite councillors to come along and take a whiff – but please bring your face masks!

In time of course, the mulch will settle creating 3 to 4 inch drops off the path edges and thus creating a real risk to pedestrians and cyclists. Solution? More mulch! And when it rains, how much mulch will be swept into the drains as has already happened on a regular bases?

The photos below do not capture the current status. Most of the mulch has now been spread – so it is ‘goodbye grass’ and ‘hello stinking mulchville’!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

May 4, 2012

Budget: What We’ll Be Slugged!

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

Rate increase of 6.5% for 2012/13 and again NEXT YEAR

  • Rate increases for the past 8 years are: 

2004/5 – 4%

2005/6 – 4.1%

2006/7 – 4%

2007/8 – 6.5%

2008/9 – 6.5%

2009/10 – 6.5%

2010/11 – 6.5%

2011/12 – 6.00%

2012/13 – 6.5%

TOTAL – 50.6% INCREASE IN 8 YEARS!

INCREASED CHARGES 

  • 240 litre bin charge up $50
  • 120 litre bin charge up $20
  • 240 litre family bin up $32
  • Childcare for 3-5 year olds, up $10 per day 

We will comment in greater detail once we’ve had time to fully digest these documents.

 

May 3, 2012

At Long, Long, Long, Last!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

From Council’s website

GESAC Open Monday 7 May 2012  
GESAC will open to the community from 6am Monday 7 May 2012.
The whole facility will be open. Details of programs and services are set out on the GESAC website www.gesac.com.au
“The certificate of occupancy was issued on Monday 30 April and the builder handed over the facility to Council on Wednesday 2 May. Council’s GESAC staff are to be congratulated on opening the facility within a few days of taking control of the site,” Chairman of the Pools Steering Committee Cr Michael Lipshutz said.
“For the first time, Glen Eira City Council will be offering all-year-round health and fitness facilities for the whole Community. GESAC will bring benefits to thousands of people for many years to come. Council would like to thank the Commonwealth and State Governments for their financial support for the project. Both Governments will be invited to take part in an official opening shortly,” Glen Eira Mayor Cr Jamie Hyams said.
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »