GE Service Performance


VCAT often designates some decisions as ‘Red Dot’ – that is, ‘cases of interest’ and which then form part of its ‘practice notes’. Glen Eira is the latest ‘Red Dot’ case. (See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/1422.html)

The reason why this case is highlighted is simply that Council FAILED TO INFORM ALL OBJECTORS of an amendment. This isn’t the first time that residents have complained that they did not receive any notification of either applications, or appeals by developers, or later, amended plans submitted by applicants. One has to wonder at the efficiency of this planning department – how good is its record keeping? How up to date are its records? Or is the failure to notify and inform possibly more than a ‘clerical error’. It would appear that ‘clerical errors’ are suddenly coming thick and fast!

Below are some highlights of the member’s judgement:

“At the start of the hearing, it emerged that persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of the amendment request had not been notified of the application, namely two persons who objected to the permit application.

This case highlights the important role of Responsible Authorities in providing the correct information to the Tribunal under Practice Note PNPE2 (Information from decision makers) and the role of Applicants in assisting the Tribunal to determine persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of requests under s.87A of the Act.

As it transpired, it appears that there were three objectors to permit application GE/PP-21828/2009, namely:

  • (name/address omitted), Caulfield East
  • (name/address omitted),  Caulfield East
  • Vic Track, GPO Box 1681P, Melbourne.

Only one of these objectors (Vic Track) was given notice.

…it is unclear whether the list of persons previously notified is based on up-to-date records held by the Council to reflect current ownership and occupancy details.

The adjournment of hearings involving s.87A applications as a result of incomplete notice being given has arisen on a number of occasions in recent times. It would appear that the obligations of Responsible Authorities in proceedings of
this kind, is not well understood. 
 

Given that a considerable amount of time may have elapsed since the grant of the permit and a request to amend it, sometimes several years, it is also important that information provided by Responsible Authorities is up to date – that is based on current rate records. It is not sufficient, for example, to provide the Tribunal or Applicant with a photocopy of the original list of persons notified without it first being checked for currency against up-to-date rate records held by the Council.  

From the VAGO website:

Business Planning for Major Capital Works and Recurrent Services in Local Government

 

Under Section 136 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act), all councils are required to implement principles of sound financial management; including managing financial risks prudently having regard to economic circumstances; ensuring that decisions and actions have regard to financial effects on future generations; and to ensuring full, accurate and timely disclosure of financial information relating to the council.

The 2006 Inter-governmental Agreement Establishing Principles Guiding Inter-Governmental Relations on Local Government Matters further commits councils to demonstrating sound public governance through good fiscal management; to consider available resources and competing priorities when making service-delivery decisions; and to improve their strategic planning and development of appropriate pricing regimes.

It has been six years since the Act was amended to shift away from annual planning to longer-term four year Council Plans and Strategic Resource Plans. It is timely therefore to determine whether this has strengthened business planning and budgeting.

The audit will review the business planning and budgeting practices for selected capital works and recurrent services in a sample of metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils.

The report is expected to be tabled by end of September 2011.

Today’s Leader carried two huge advertisements calling for submissions under Section 223 of the Local Government Act for the leasing of two facilities at GESAC – one for a cafe, and one for consulting rooms. There are a couple of interesting features in these ads. For example the rental that is listed for each lease DOES NOT indicate whether the amount is PER ANNUM or whether the stated amount is for the full 5 year lease period. We strongly suspect that this is again nothing more than spin and placing an amount of $66,000 for one lease (as the total sum) certainly sounds a lot better than publicising the fact that this space has been leased for a paltry $12 or $13,000 per annum!

There are also several other questions we would like answered. For example:

  • Are tenants paying for all utilities such as water, electricity,etc. or will ratepayers bear this burden?
  • Are these final rentals in line with original prognostications or are they well below what the planners of GESAC promised?
  • Does any councillor even know the answers to the above questions? If so, please let the community know too!

From the minutes of Port Phillip’s last council meeting on the Community Representative sitting on the Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee. Note the contrast with GESAC’s Pool Committee!

 CITY OF PORT PHILLIP

2011
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR MELBOURNE SPORTS AND AQUATIC CENTRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

  1. Purpose 

The purpose of the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre Advisory Committee is to assist Council to get the best result by ensuring that the views of relevant community members, government agencies and others are expressed and taken into account in the ongoing operation of the Centre. The Committee will:

Provide advice to Council on matters associated with Council’s interest and involvement in the development of the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre at Albert Park Reserve, and, in particular, the development of the Community Aquatic Centre component of the overall complex.

Represent the interest of Council and the community and, in particular, in respect to those matters associated with the Community Aquatic Centre’s design, management and pricing structures.

Pursue a pro-active role in gathering information relating to the operation of aquatic facilities elsewhere, with the view to presenting issues and information to the Aquatic Centre which might be of benefit in improving the design, management and/or operation of the Community Aquatic Facility component of the overall complex.

Pursue on behalf of Council and the community the following objectives in relation to the development of the Community Aquatic Centre component of the overall complex.

………..

The council will appoint members of the Committee. The membership of the Committee will be:
City of Port Phillip (Councillors) x2

City of Port Phillip (staff)

Joint Councils Access for All Abilities

Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre (MSAC)

Swim School

Regular community MSAC aquatic centre user X2

Inner South Community Health Service

(Allied health professional qualified in hydrotherapy)

Regular MSAC Hydrotherapy user

The Chairperson will be one of the Councillors.

Community members of the Aquatic Advisory Committee will be appointed by Council for a period of up to 2 years. Every 2 years positions will be advertised through the local paper, on notices at MSAC information boards, on the MSAC website and in the Divercity publication.

We’ve commented frequently on the difference between Glen Eira Council and its neighbours. We’ve also remarked on the Caulfield Leader’s possible editorial policy when it comes to reporting on council matters. The most recent example is the recant by the Caulfield Leader on the State run Community Satisfaction Survey. In contrast, we publish below the Bayside Leader’s appraisal of that municipality’s results, as well as citing from the Agenda items Bayside Council’s response to the survey. Readers should note that this year Glen Eira has not issued one single word (either as a press release, or any comment) on the results. As for including an officer’s report in the agenda items for council meetings, this has never been done as far as we know. Whereas Bayside appears quite willing to admit that there is room for improvement, Glen Eira remains silent and possibly hoping that the issue quickly fades away. 

Bayside Leader

Jon Andrews

Poll slams planning department: Bayside residents far from impressed

BAYSIDE Council’s planning department is one of the poorest performers in the state, according to a survey. In a damning local government poll, far more people were unhappy with the municipality’s planning sector than were happy.

Fifty-three per cent said the department ‘‘needs some improvement’’ or ‘‘needs a lot of improvement’’. Just 3 per cent thought it ‘‘excellent’’. Nineteen per cent said it was ‘‘good’’, while the remaining 26 per cent believed it ‘‘adequate’’.

Bayside Ratepayers’ Association president George Reynolds said the council’s town planning performance was ‘‘dismal’’, and the council did not seem to take into account residents’ needs. Other sectors that didn’t fare well include parking, local roads, footpaths and community engagement, while the council excelled at waste management, recreation, health services and local law enforcement.

Cr Michael Norris defended the council’s performance, saying Bayside residents had ‘‘higher expectations’’ than many other Victorians.

 ************

Council Agenda – 12th July 2011

“…the survey is valuable in measuring changes in perceptions of a Council’s performance over time. This can be used to influence the allocation of budgets and service levels, to introduce new services or adjust priorities between Council services and projects.”

“In comparison to all Councils in the Inner Metropolitan Melbourne local government grouping Bayside records higher results for waste management, and lower results in areas of advocacy, community engagement, customer contact, and town planning policy and approvals.

One area that continues to record low perception scores in this survey is town planning policy and approvals. In this instance 47 per cent of respondents rated town planning policy and approvals as Excellent, Good or Adequate and although this is consistent with the trend overtime, satisfaction results have reduced by five percent from 2010.

The Customer Window: Key areas for Improvement chart (p9) shows that while perceived performance has remained unchanged in the area of Community Engagement, it remains a key areas for Bayside to continue improving. Community Engagement also has the highest relative importance to residents. In the 2011-12 Annual Action Plan, Council has committed to reviewing Council’s Community Engagement Framework of 2009 and develop of a suite of products that outline appropriate tools for engagement opportunities with the community.

Another key area for improvement is Local Roads and Footpaths, with 36% of residents seeking improvement in this area. Council has recently endorsed Bayside’s Road Asset Management Plan designed to provide guiding principles for the long term  management of Council’s road and pavement assets. The plan will ensure that there is a defined methodology and management
and process improvement for Council’s road and pavement asset well into the future.

It is reasonable to expect that the measures in place will contribute to the improvement of satisfaction outcomes in coming years. Bayside uses the DPCD survey results to help guide its service planning with the indicated priority areas reflected in the Annual Service Plans”

“Council has committed in its Council Plan to seek engagement with the Bayside community and to making decisions based on evidence. The Annual Community Satisfaction Survey results make a significant contribution to Council meeting this commitment.”

Council worker sacked over  Facebook ‘slack’ slam

Brendan Gullifer

The Age: July 22, 2011

A young council roads worker has been sacked after commenting on Facebook  that the council had too many office staff and not enough workers.

Alec Armstrong, 21, posted the remarks on a Hepburn Shireresidents’  page last month and had his employment terminated five weeks later for what the  Victorian council called “intimidating or offensive” behaviour.

In postings made after hours on June 2, Mr Armstrong said council had 140  staff, but only 30 who worked outdoors. “Shows you how top heavy they are,” he posted. He said outdoor employees never had enough money to do the job properly.

“I work on the roads for the shire. There would be four office staff to one  of us. Their (sic) slack, and we need less office staff who aren’t slack and do  the job a bit more. We never have enough money to do a job the way it should be  done. That’s why rates are going up. Keep blaming it on the useless staff above  us.”

And in a post later that night, Mr Armstrong wrote: “Most of the staff don’t  live in the shire. It’s like they give a s…t about nothing but their pay  packet.”

When confronted by office managers about the postings, Mr Armstrong said he  immediately removed them and apologised. In a letter to council chief executive officer Kaylene Conrick July 7, Mr  Armstrong expressed his “deep regrets” over the incident.

He admitted it was “inappropriate, disrespectful and lacked the  professionalism” required by Hepburn Shire Council employees.

In the letter, Mr Armstrong pleaded to keep his job. “As a younger employee I would like the chance to learn from my mistake and  in future be more mature and respectful about what is said,” he wrote.

“I understand that I have done the wrong thing and that I will have to deal  with the consequences of my actions.”

Mr Armstrong said yesterday he recognised that unauthorised media commentary  was prohibited under the shire’s employee code of conduct but at the time didn’t  understand that included social media, such as Facebook.

But in a letter to Mr Armstrong, a senior council officer called the comments  “seriously wilful conduct” that “may have damaged the reputation of the  council”.

Mr Armstrong was one of two new employees featured in a council bulletin in  2008. Under the headline “Council commits to youth – trainee and apprentice  appointed”, the council said Mr Armstrong and another employee were two  successful job candidates from more than 60 applications.

Hepburn Shire Acting CEO Evan King said the decision to sack Mr Armstrong was  made following due process. In a written statement he said: “The employee breached the code of conduct,  and based on an assessment of the seriousness of the breach, it was deemed the  employment of the employee should be terminated.”

Dave Beckley from the Australian Services Union said yesterday a case for  unfair dismissal of Mr Armstrong was being prepared for Fair Work  Australia.

GESAC car park

Lipshutz moved a motion that the $450,000 extension to the existing car park be approved. Seconded by Magee. In favour of the motion were: Lipshutz, Magee, Hyams, Esakoff, Forge. Against: Pilling and Tang. Lobo and Penhalluriack were absent. The ‘arguments’ were:

LIPSHUTZ: ‘GESAC has been a success’ beyond our dreams….’at this stage there are 1,200 members, GESAC website has 80,000 hits per week,….given that one can say there is going to be a huge demand for GESAC….One of the things we didn’t envisage (at the start) was the carparking’. Originally there was planned 43 spaces ‘it’s clear that is not going to be sufficient….it is clear that GESAC will be very heavily used and there is the need for extra car parking….(I asked for a report from officers and whether underground parking would be feasible) ‘and it is clearly not the way to go ….would only add 60 (spaces and cost a lot) whereas the proposal that I have proposed would add 75 car spaces. (The drawback is that) it does take away sections of the park at the rear but (need to look at the big picture of the park as well as GESAC) ….what we don’t want to have is the car parking all over the streets ….and we want to ensure that GESAC is a success….so it’s important to have car parking …..(this proposal brings) carparking to 118 spaces.’

MAGEE: ‘It’s never easy to give up open space especially in a really nice park like Bailey Reserve…..(there’s a rotunda, playground) …..one thing that offsets that is …the northern end of GESAC …used to be a big car park which has now been turned into open space….so we’re not actually losing ….we have pciked up a large area of car park that has been converted back into grassland or open space…..GESAC….is going to be so successful….and we do have to cater for parking….the last thing we need is people driving into GESAC ….driving around and not being able to park ….we want everyone, not just in Glen Eira but outside of Glen Eira to come and enjoy GESAC with the rest of us….we do have to make sacrifices along the way….(not happy about losing parks) but we have actually taken back …….in the long term we will see if for instance the car park isn’t used (we can turn it back into parkland)….

PILLING: Has ‘problems with this item…..(everyone wants GESAC to succeed especially when you spend so much money but there are problems with the process) ….’it hasn’t even opened yet and we’re already taking open space away on a hunch….several years ago (car parking) was worked out by the architect and that was deemed to be appropriate….what we face now is an 11th hour ad hoc, knee jerk reaction….a couple of statistics. The proposed car park extension is 1400 square metres, two houseblocks, (land prices make this worth 1.5 million) …in Packer Park we bought two houses to convert back to public open space and now we want to take it away….(listed statistics about amount of public open space in Glen Eira compared to other councils)…we haven’t got that much and to be actually giving it away in such an ad hoc manner …..I’ve a few other issues with it….this to me defines why we do need a new open space strategy…..if this was a football field or a designated sports ground, I doubt we would be doing this….it’s a playground, it’s a passive area it seems to be up for grabs …..this is not valued….(that’s why we need a strategy in place….I don’t see (this) as a win….Maybe one of the reasons why Glen Eira does have such a low amount of open space is because of ad hoc decisions like this…..(APPLAUSE FROM GALLERY)

TANG: Wholeheartedly agreed with Pilling….’I don’t think councillors are going out of their way to take public open space away….we’ve got an item on the agenda tonight (naming a new reserve – Nina reserve)….I think council should think about naming a new reserve, the one to the north of the carpark because you’ll have two separate parks (as a result of this carpark)….we’ve taken sensible approach (looked at Duncan McKinnon and others) whether it would add to the park and the overall utility of the park and we’ve come to the conclusion that (there) it would…..but in this instance I just don’t see how we as a council could (see this) as adding to the park in any way….and breaking up two separate (areas)…..I don’t think you’re (going to enjoy the park) unless you play organised sport and I don’t think that that’s all that Bailey Reserve is there for….We’re proposing  to spend $450,000 at a time when (at the budget discussions people were worried) rate rises weren’t as much as they would have liked, concerned that council needed to tighten its belt ……and now we’re proposing to spend another $450,000 just to get a few more car parks…after the budget’s passed, after the SRPs passed…. proposing to spend another $450,000 to break up a really good park….do we really want to do this?…..Magee (talked about turning the carpark back into parkland if it didn’t work out)…maybe council can look at turning the park into car park later on if it really feels it still needs to later on….(Asked an officer a question about construction time. Answer 6 to 8 weeks)

FORGE asked a question about the plans and the provision for buses and disabled car parks. Was answered that buses would be accommodated at the main car park and disabled car parking was also there.

HYAMS: ‘ I am in favour of this’….’important to emphasise (that this is going to cater for all users of the park and there are lots of users apart from GESAC visitors)….’who will find themselves displaced from the park’ ( because their car parking spots will be taken up)…’We don’t want GESAC to displace these people in their parks….this is far less disruptive to the park (than to wait for GESAC to be built and in operation)…’this could be said to be enhancing public open space….what we’re doing here is actually helping people enjoy the public open space….you may feel it’s not worth it….if we were putting in a tennis court or something like that there might be less objections….this is to help the use of the park…..there is no doubt that we will need more parking than we originally held. I think that was always a concern….it’s better that we get it right later rather than later later….

ESAKOFF: ‘I’m going to support this….I’m not a supporter of loss of open space by any means….but we are spending a lot of money….we are going to be providing facilities in GESAC for every sector of our community….I do not want to see those people having to park as far away as North Rd or Centre Rd or way down East Boudnary Rd because there’s nowhere to park close to the facility…..(families, babies and aged) would not manage under those circumstances….we need to provide places for them to park within a fairly reasonable proximity….

LIPSHUTZ: Stated that in any major development there are always ‘variations’ ….that happens because as you build it you find things that need to be done or you haven’t anticipated or whatever….this is one 9variatiion)….we anticipated there would be x number of car spaces….now we believe (we need more car spaces)….we’re not taking away the playground we’re relocating the playground….the bigger picture here is that we’re building a development that is (the biggest this council has ever done…(it’s costing a lot and if we wait until it’s finished we’ll find) ‘that you do need more space’….far better to do it now….and be opened properly….If it’s popular people will come to it and GESAC will be popular….and now even before it’s finished we’ve got 1000 members….place (will be chocka block once it’s finished and in summer)….let’s do it right.’

TANG CALLED FOR A DIVISION

This blog site has been inundated with comments on the GESAC basketball “allocations”. The moderators have decided not to put up some of these comments as a result of their inflammatory and personal nature. However, the issue itself we believe is crucial to the good governance of this council. It should focus the community’s attention on two crucial questions:

  • Is it councillors who run this council, or is it Newton and Burke?
  • Exactly what were councillors told about the ‘expression of interest’ or tender processes? Exactly what did they know? Is there any official “policy’ that has been ratified by council?
  • Were councillors derelict in their overseeing duties on this process?
  • Has Burke acted unilaterally in making the offer? Is this acceptable to the community?

The formal letter of ‘rejection’ signed by Burke to the McKinnon Basketball Association has already been put up as a comment. We reprint it here TOGETHER WITH THE ASSOCIATION’S RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER. We further believe that it behoves all residents to carefully consider the Association’s letter and compare this with the statements signed by Burke. We also maintain that it is in the public interest that such information is out in the public domain.

BURKE’S LETTER

“Thank you for your response to Council’s public Expression of Interest (EOI) process for the use of the facilities at the soon to be completed Glen Eira Sports  and Aquatic Centre (GESAC). The facility is on target to open in late 2011.

We regret to inform you that your application for use has been unsuccessful. This decision has been based on an evaluation process based on three criteria in order of importance and weighting:
1. Community Benefit
2. Price
3. Capacity

In terms of feedback on your application, the following should be noted:
– GESAC is a major community facility and Council wishes to see maximum community use.  The McKinnon Basketball Association (MBA) proposed 2,160 hours of community basketball per annum and Council has accepted a proposal which will see 3,675 hours per annum of community basketball.  This use will be available to any person and any Club which plays with the GESAC-based Association.
– The allocated group offered a wider range of programs for the community.
– The allocated group offered a much more comprehensive marketing program to ensure its success.
– The allocated group offered payment at the level already in place in many similar centres around Melbourne and which will contribute to the Council providing and maintaining the facility without cost to ratepayers.  The McKinnon Basketball Association indicated that it gave a relatively lower financial priority to court hire and a higher weighting to other organisational priorities.

The evaluation process included Council contacting your Association on a number of occasions to encourage the MBA to submit a more competitive EOI.  I acknowledge the time and effort which your Committee put into that process to ensure that your bid represented the considered position of the MBA, taking all factors into account.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Burke
Director Community Relations”

McKINNON BASKETBALL RESPONSE

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your letter of May 24, 2011 (attached) informing me that the McKinnon Basketball Association (MBA) has been unsuccessful in its bid to utilise basketball stadium space in the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC), currently under construction.

Whilst the several thousand MBA members, many of whom are Glen Eira rate payers, will be extremely disappointed by Council’s decision, ultimately we respect that decision.

However, I feel it is necessary to point out some inaccuracies in your letter.

We understand that Council have accepted a proposal from an Association known as the Oakleigh Warriors.

Your letter states that Council’s “decision has been based on an evaluation process based on three criteria in order of importance and weighting:

1. Community Benefit

2. Price

3. Capacity”

Taking each point in turn:

1. Community Benefit. There are a number of problems with this position as follows:

a. The MBA is the largest community based sporting association in the Glen Eira City Council’s catchment area, so it is hard to comprehend how the selection of a much smaller group from outside the area represents a superior community benefit for the residents of Glen Eira;

b. The MBA offers the broadest range of community based programs of any Association locally, and indeed was recently recognised by Basketball Victoria with their inaugural Inclusiveness Award in recognition of our All Abilities program;

c. The fact that you list “Community Benefit” as the number one selection criteria is particularly interesting in light of the fact that you specifically told us in our meeting that Council was not interested in our community credentials, in fact you went so far as to suggest that we should run our All Abilities program in one of our existing cheaper facilities as a means to help find the funds to pay the rental you required.

2. Price. I accept that price was always a sticking point; in fact it was made clear to us on numerous occasions that obtaining the best price was in fact the principle objective of Council. There are a number of facts which are worth reiterating for the record:

a. The MBA is a not for profit organisation, which prides itself on being professionally operated and administered; this professionalism would prevent us from making a financial commitment which we could not afford. This can be borne out by references which we offered to make available, indeed our application was endorsed by Basketball Victoria and Bendigo Bank. It would be in Council’s best interest to ensure that appropriate due diligence is undertaken on the successful applicant’s ability to pay;

b. The price we offered was $32.50/hour; this represents a substantial increase on our current rental costs which would need to be met through increased fees to our members. Our desire to ensure maximum benefit to our community of members makes it tremendously difficult for us to reconcile paying more for GESAC than is charged by the Melbourne Sport and Aquatic Centre, arguably the best comparable facility in the state and possibly the country. Of course it is possible to pay more than the price we have offered for court hire elsewhere but this is typically on a casual basis whereas we made numerous offers for considerable time allocations;

c. Knowing the funding which was provided for construction of GESAC, particularly the last minute state government funding for completion of the multi-purpose stadium, it is clear that at the hourly rental proposed by the MBA, a reasonable payback of the construction costs is achievable. Therefore your comment in relation to the rival offer enabling Council to “provide and maintain the facility without cost to ratepayers” appears to us to be misleading, particularly given that it was made clear to us that the dry areas of the facility will subsidise the pools.

3. Capacity. You have stated that the allocated group offered increased occupancy to the MBA’s offer. It is frustrating to hear this as a reason for Council’s decision considering that the MBA made numerous proposals, ranging from 2 to 7 days per week. We were told in no uncertain terms initially, that Council were keen to see as many groups as possible use the facility and that there was no prospect of extended periods of use for one group; consequently we scaled back our initial offer to address this.

Your letter goes on to make two further points as follows:

“The allocated group offered a much more comprehensive marketing program to ensure its success”. We have a ready-made association of several thousand members, we do not need a more comprehensive marketing campaign to ensure our success. We are already of a size which would enable us to fill GESAC on each weekday evening and all weekend but were discouraged from submitting a proposal along such lines. In fact the other honour recently presented to the MBA by Basketball Victoria was that of fastest growing Association, consequently this point is simply not relevant.

Given the emphasis you place on community benefits in your letter, it seems incongruous that you would take steps to promote an Association from outside the Glen Eira community, which will presumably be seeking to compete with and undermine Glen Eira’s existing, well established and much loved McKinnon Basketball Association.

We wish you well with your endeavours and should things not work out with the allocated group, we would be happy to discuss alternate options.

Our curiosity has been aroused in regards to ‘expressions of interest’, ‘tenders’, ‘contracts’ and how little residents are actually told of what is going on with GESAC. The following information is taken directly from The Age and from council minutes.

“Saturday March 26, 2011, The Age 

Glen Eira City Council invites expressions of interest for:
Reference No.: 2011.034
Provision of Gymnasium Equipment to Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre

Requirement: Provision of a suite of gymnasium fitness equipment including installation, ongoing maintenance and centre staff training.
EOI’s Closing date:15 April 2011 by 4.00 pm.
EOI documents will be available by email request to tenders@gleneira.vic.gov.au  or from Council’s Service Centre, Glen Eira Town Hall, 246-258 Hawthorn Rd,  Caulfield, by contacting (03) 9524 3203 or b from 9.30am, Tuesday 29 March  2011.

Paper copies of documents will be available to respondents upon the payment of  a non-refundable fee of $50 for each EOI document. EOI’s will only be accepted in the form and manner and at the time specified in  the EOI documents.”

In- camera items from last Council Meeting read:

12.3 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to  supply of Gymnasium Equipment to Glen Eira Sports & Aquatic Centre  

Crs Pilling/Lipshutz

1. That Council enters into a Hire Purchase  agreement with Westpac Banking Corporation Limited for the supply of specified  strength equipment with an estimated cost to Council over 4 years of $760,000.00.

2. That Council enters into an Operating Lease with  Westpac Banking Corporation Limited and Alleasing Pty Limited for the supply of  specified cardio equipment with an estimated cost to Council over 4 years of  $277,000.00.

3. That contracts be prepared in accordance with the  documents submitted by Westpac Banking Corporation Limited and examined by Corporate  Counsel.

4. That the contracts be executed in an appropriate  manner including by affixing of the Council Seal.

5. That this resolution be incorporated in the  public minutes of this Meeting.

The  MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

QUESTIONS:

  • Why would a Hire Purchase agreement be  entered into, especially since interest rates are so much higher?
  • Does  this mean that despite all the spin there is a ‘cash flow’ problem?
  • Were  there any genuine ‘expressions of interest’ forthcoming?
  • Is this  figure of $760,000 (or $190,000 for one year) included in the budget expenditure on GESAC for this year, or is this another ‘hidden cost’ to  ratepayers?
  • If the  latter, then how many other ‘hidden costs’ could suddenly materialise?

Since residents are paying for  most of these costs, we believe it is incumbent on council to ‘come clean’ and provide residents with full information as to the current state of affairs with GESAC.

Club goes to referee

Basketballers lodge complaint with Ombudsman over tender process…..

Jenny Ling

THE Oakleigh Warriors basketball club has lodged a complaint with the Victorian Ombudsman over Glen Eira Council’s tender process for its new sports and aquatic centre.

In May the council awarded the Warriors use of the $41.2 million Glen Eira sports and aquatic centre basketball courts for competitions and programs on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.

A month later councillors voted to seek legal advice about the agreement after protests from rival players the Mckinnnon Basketball Association.

Warriors president Geoff Charnley said a letter was lodged last week asking George Brouwer to ‘‘uphold the original decision to award the playing rights to our club and investigate the reason as to why there was an attempt to overturn it’’. ‘‘We think there has been some inappropriate intervention on an open process — that’s disappointing,’’ Mr Charnley said.

‘‘We went through an open, transparent process. ‘‘They made us an offer and we were delighted to receive it.’’ At the June 28 council meeting, McKinnon club members presented a 713-signature petition asking councillors to reconsider the decision.

In a statement, Mayor Margaret Esakoff said: ‘‘Up till now this matter has been handled by officers as it has been regarded as an allocation and all seasonal allocations for sports facilities are operational matters and as such handled by recreation officers…however, councillors are now considering this matter.’’

************

Warriors welcome players at club’s new home

NO basketball players will be excluded from competitions at the Glen Eira sports and aquatic centre, the Oakleigh Warriors team has promised.

Warriors secretary John Wilson said while he understood the McKinnon Basketball Association was disappointed their expression of interest was turned down by Glen Eira Council, ‘‘we’re quite happy to accept teams from McKinnon’’.

Mr Wilson said the Warriors, whose name changed to Glen Eira Warriors Basketball Club last month, had received a letter of offer from the council that had been accepted. ‘‘It was a fair and transparent process,’’ Mr Wilson said.

« Previous Page — Next Page »