The following two stories appear in today’s Caulfield Glen Eira Leader. Both are by Jenny Ling –

An unusual exercise: Gym joiners jumping mad at price mystery  

GLEN Eira Council has been accused of ‘‘cloak and dagger’’ tactics after refusing to publicly reveal gym and swim membership prices for the $41.2 million Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre. Residents got their lycra in a twist over specials advertised before the membership launch on Wednesday.

The centre’s Facebook page and website exclaimed that discounted memberships were on sale at ‘‘never-to-be-repeated prices’’ for the first 500 people, with a saving of more than $350. But those trying to sign up had to phone to secure an appointment with a
consultant to find out what they could expect to pay.

Paul Wilson wrote: ‘‘Not good enough GESAC folks. You’ve been building this one up for months and . . . drumroll . . . I now have the wonderful opportunity to call up and make an appointment to see a salesguy. If you have a product you wish to sell, get back to me. But enough of this cloak and dagger rubbish.’’

The council received 500 inquiries in the 24 hours before 3pm on June 1 about the modern aquatic, fitness, sports and rehabilitation facility in Bentleigh East, expected to open in time for summer. And 20 people have joined.

Centre manager Mark Collins said there were 12 different membership types, depending on age, type of facility and times of use. He would not reveal the price range. Everyone who inquired was phoned back and told what prices would be for them, he said.

‘‘We want to speak to people individually because one rate doesn’t suit all,’’ Mr Collins said.

‘‘People see a price and go ‘OK, it’s too expensive’ or some people say ‘it’s too cheap’, but they’ve got no idea of what that price entitles them to.’’ He said the prices were ‘‘ more than competitive’’ and would be publicised by the time it opened.

Clubs crying foul: Aquatic centre court fees too expensive for local hoops 

LOCAL basketball clubs are disappointed they can’t afford l ofty Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre costs.

McKinnon Basketball Association, which represents six clubs with 1400 members, applied to Glen Eira Council to use the courts at GESAC, expected to open later this year. But the association’s expression of interest was rejected.

Vice-president John Humble said he was disappointed. ‘ ‘ The initial expression of interest requested by council stressed the importance of the community aspects of the applications but when all was said and done . . . it all boiled down to money first, second and third,’’ Mr Humble said.

Ormond Jets Basketball Club vice-president Robyn Whitelaw said at $50 an hour, the club could not afford it. The club pays Brighton, Bentleigh and McKinnon secondary colleges between $ 25-$ 30 an hour on weekends to use their courts.

‘‘We started to appeal (to the council) to the fact we were a local community group and they said others are willing to pay, so back luck essentially,’’ Mrs Whitelaw said. ‘‘We thought it was a little unfair.’’

Council spokesman Paul Burke s ai d e ach s ubmission was assessed on community benefit, price and capacity.

The s uccessful applicant, Oakleigh Warriors, offered more hours of community basketball and a greater range of programs as well as ‘‘payment at the level already in place in many similar centres around Melbourne’’.

‘‘GESAC is a major community facility and council wishes to see maximum community use,’’ Mr Burke said.

Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski said yesterday that the council had enlisted two Melbourne consultants to carry out the review. He wants their recommendations on his desk by early next month so that there is time to use their findings  in the preparation of the council budget for next financial year.

“My objective is to put a model to aldermen before the budget that will  markedly turn around the financial operation of the pool,” Mr Dobrzynski said.

The move comes after the council’s last quarterly financial review revealed that the aquatic centre was the most  excessive of the council’s three big spenders – outstripping Aurora Stadium and the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery. The  aquatic centre was over budget by more than $416,000 for the last quarter alone, with fears that the annual loss will rise above $1.2 million.

There has also been strong community criticism that much of the infrastructure of the $26 million, two-year-old centre is not used even though it was purpose-built to generate revenue. A creche is used as a staff meeting room, and space for a gymnasium,
physiotherapy rooms and other wellbeing facilities is empty.

Local, not-for-profit swim clubs have either restricted their use of the centre to winter or not at all because they say that they can’t afford the excessive lane hire charges.

Mr Dobrzynski inherited the financial burden of the centre.

It was completed in his predecessor Frank Dixon’s time when Chris Zidak  was the city architect and aquatic centre project manager. Mr Zidak is now major projects and development manager at the Victorian  Maroondah Council, where Mr Dixon is the chief executive, and the two are planning the council’s $48 million Ringwood regional aquatic and leisure centre.

Mr Dobrzynski said that the cost of the  Launceston facility was “very significant” but he was optimistic that the the review was an opportunity to reduce costs.
Alderman Jeremy Ball, who ran a strong anti-aquatic centre campaign before he was elected to the council, said yesterday that his fears of excessive recurrent costs had been realised. “My argument always was that it was a far too large a capital cost for the city and ratepayers,” he said.

Mr Dobrzynski said that the review would look at reasons for the under-utilisation of infrastructure and the high energy consumption, which was “very significant”.

QUESTIONS:

• How many local sporting/social groups have been priced out of GESAC?
• How many ‘expressions of interest’ have been received? How many have been awarded to groups/organisations outside of Glen Eira?
• How much will it cost to heat a 50m outdoor pool throughout the year? How much will this contribute to carbon pollution?
• How much will the 50 odd extra staff cost ratepayers?
• Will GESAC ever pay for itself?

The following is taken directly from an Audit Committee Report on Asset Management (August 14th, 2006). It has great bearing on the present parlous state of council drains and their maintenance. We quote:

Good asset management provides the desired level of service (functionality and presentation) in the most cost effective manner for the present and future. It involves all activities associated with managing of our community assets including planning, creating, operating, maintaining, replacing, renewing, disposing and financial planning.

Good asset management at Glen Eira demonstrates to the community that Council is a responsible steward of their assets.

We have not yet assessed the number of additional properties that will experience flooding because of the lack of Council drainage but it is likely to be substantial (Council has received over 8,000 requests for action relating to drainage since 1996). 

Renewal, Upgrade and New

Our preliminary assessment is that we require about an average of $1.2 million per annum to renew Council’s drainage system in a timely manner. This is about the amount we are currently spending. However, with almost all of Council’s drains having a remaining life of less than 50 years, it is likely that we will need $2.4 million a year for the next 50 years. Such an amount is likely to address only the issue of renewal and does not address the need to upgrade or extend Council’s drainage system to meet current design standards.

A comprehensive investigation into the capacity of Council drainage network is currently underway. To date, Council staff have identified over $20 million in works where Council could improve the capacity of its drainage system to meet current design standards.

In addition to the lack of Council drainage to address current flooding issues, Melbourne Water is predicting that climate change will lead to less but more severe rainfall events. This may lead to changes to the way the Council manages flooding and may require Council to replace drains with even larger drains.

As development increases, and land becomes more valuable, there is increasing pressure from the community to allow owners to develop over Council drains in easements. We therefore anticipate that in the long-term it will cost more to maintain, replace and upgrade our drains within property easements.”

These statements should also be read in conjunction with the Victorian Auditor General’s Report Managing Storm Water Flooding Risks in Melbourne (July 2005). On practically every single criterion evaluated by the Auditor General, Glen Eira features near the very bottom of its comparative councils. Residents should be asking what has changed since 2005?

More than 3 months ago, Esakoff requested a report on the February 4th deluge that devastated many homes in McKinnon and Ormond. The report demanded information on (amongst other things): how well council had coped; drainage management programs; council’s plans to reduce flooding. We are still waiting!!!! Sadly, residents are also waiting simply to get back into their homes. Below is today’s Moorabbin Leader  story by Jessica Bennett –

ORMOND and McKinnon residents left homeless after February’s flash floods are a step closer to closure. A meeting was held recently with Bentleigh s t a t e Liberal MP Elizabeth Miller, Glen Eira Council and Melbourne Water to resolve issues from the flooding and develop a flood-management plan.

Resident Tim Harkin, who was due to move into his home the day after more than 100m of rain hit the area, said the meeting was ‘‘constructive’’. ‘‘They’ve come up with a plan to help things in the short term as well as to fix things long-term,’’ he said. ‘‘The residents who attended the meeting were happy with the outcome and we hope to see it followed through.’’ Mr Harkin said the area was still recovering, with many residents still unable to move back into their damaged homes. ‘‘It’s about four months down the track and we’re still three months from moving in,’’ he said. ‘‘A lot are still out of their homes and as of two weeks ago, a few were still waiting to be assessed by insurance companies.’’

Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke said Melbourne Water confirmed the intensity of the rainfall had been ‘‘extremely severe’’ and that no urban drainage system could have coped. He said Melbourne Water planned to replace the grated pit over the drain at the corner of Cadby Ave and Murray St that blocked during the flooding.

He said the council and Melbourne Water would work to develop a flood-management plan and identify flooding hotspots in Glen Eira.

Ms Miller said she had called the meeting as residents were still feeling the effects of the floods. ‘‘These floods exposed the need to improve the maintenance and clearing of stormwater drains and the need for Melbourne Water and Glen Eira Council, two of the  relevant authorities, to work on this issue,’’ she said.

PS: We’ve just received the following email and photo – “Maybe the attached photo would be of interest. It shows water rapidly filling up the basement carpark of a property in the Carnegie Urban Village, an area where Council has granted permits for 100% site coverage, despite what its Planning Scheme says about drainage and permeability.”

It is now four weeks in a row that the Caulfield Glen Eira Leader has run stories on the infamous ‘mulch heap’ – 3 on the front page. No other story in recent times, including the sacking of Council and Newton’s threatened legal actions have achieved such prominence. One has to seriously wonder why? One also has to seriously consider Penhalluriack’s view, stated at Council meeting, that there is an orchestrated campaign going on here. If so, then who is behind it? What undue influence is being brought to bear? Why has the Leader largely ignored the Occupational Health and Safety issues that this whole saga centres on? Why is Penhalluriack being singled out when 6 other councillors voted to close the facility? Why hasn’t the Leader questioned anything about the role of the Audit Committee and its failure to act in a timely manner? Why hasn’t the Leader basically asked the fundamental question, which is:

If safety precautions such as clear, unambiguous warning signs, sprinklers, masks, gloves, etc. are now seen to be essential in mitigating any risk to workers and the public, then why weren’t these precautions taken years ago? Does this mean that for years and years Newton and council have been negligent in their Occupational Health and Safety obligations? And why, oh why, was this facility ever placed near a playground and school? Who is responsible for such an appalling decision?

We’ve also learnt that instead of publishing a letter by Cr. Penhalluriack in response to the Leader’s coverage, all they did was pinch his headline for their own (negative) story!

Surely good journalism involves checking one’s facts, investigation of sources, rather than simply relying on Newton’s reports and the spin of media releases by Council. We have no doubt that residents were baffled and even upset by the decision to close the facility. It is therefore even more incumbent on any newspaper to ensure that the facts are available and that the story is written without bias and without the hint of undue influence. This has not happened.

Today’s ‘story’ by Jenny Ling is below. 

Mulch service rethink: Cultivating support has paid off for gardeners

GLEN Eira Council has bowed to public pressure and is looking at relocating their much loved mulch service.

Nearly two months after councillors voted to remove the free service from Glen Huntly Reserve, officers have been told to prepare a report detailing the costs and feasibility of reinstating it.

In a statement, Mayor Margaret Esakoff said that ‘‘in response to community sentiment on the closure of the mulch facility, council wants to determine if there is a different location for it within Glen Eira’’ . ‘ ‘ All necessary measures would be taken if a suitable location is found to ensure associated risks are fully addressed,’’ Cr Esakoff said.

Gardening enthusiasts were outraged when the council closed the facility after two decades due to health fears — fears that were rebuffed by health authorities and gardening experts.

At the May 17 meeting, councillors voted six to one to investigate other sites. Cr Frank Penhalluriack — who raised concerns of legionnaires’ disease after reading reports on the internet — voted against it.

Deputy Mayor Jamie Hyams said he expected the report to be finished within two months.

If reinstated, the mulch service would be away from a school or children’s playground, he said.

There would be a ‘‘greater emphasis on safe handling’’ and an automatic sprinkler system to keep dust down, because dust could harbour airborne bacteria, he said.

‘‘It was obviously a service that some members of the community valued, but we have to weigh that up against any health risks,’’ Cr Hyams said.

Glen Eira always pats itself on the back as being a ‘low cost council’. Repeated rates and charges increases would, we suspect, make many ratepayers doubt this assertion. It’s also questionable whether all those neat little graphs presented in the budget papers actually reveal the full story. It would be far more telling if rate increases were to go back a decade and actually include the highest rate increase in the state instituted by Newton in the early 2000s. But of course, the only comparisons made, are from 2004 onwards! Yet, even here, a different picture emerges. Below is a table of announcements from various benchmarking councils as to their proposed rate increase. Kingston has not as yet announced its intended charges.

The budget also tells us that the objective is to “Maintain essential services at not less than current levels and charges” and that “Existing fees and charges to be increased in line with CPI or market levels”. We wonder whether ‘market levels’ consider a 20+% increase as justifiable in the case of waste disposal for instance and over 30% for child care fees?

Here are the proposed hikes:

Waste Management

“the percentage change in unit charge for each type of charge to be levied compared to that of the previous financial year;

Residential 240 litre bin – 19.23% Increase

Residential 120 litre bin –  20.83% Increase

Flats sharing 240 litre bin –  20.83% Increase

Family 240 litre bin –  8.10% Increase

Commercial/Industrial Properties –  8.70% Increase

Green Waste Residential  -100% Decrease (A Decrease?!!!! Surely not, when residents will now be slugged a once off fee of $55)

Green Waste Commercial – 17.78% Increase

Commercial Recycling  – 12.50% Increase

Additional Recycling  – 12.50% Increase”

Child Care

“Child Care fees are proposed to increase as follows:

• • For 0–3 year olds from $85 to $91 per day (from 1 July to 31 December 2011)
• • For 0–3 year olds from $91 to $116 per day (from 1 January to 30 June 2012)
• • For 3–5 year olds from $79 to $85 per day. 

This equates to a $31 increase PER DAY in the space of 6 months. So much for the promise to keep to CPIs and ‘market value’!!!!! Ratepayers need to question these increases, analyse proposed staff increases, and to voice their concerns as to the inequality of funds distribution across all areas outside of sport. Readers should also keep in mind that Glen Eira has more senior executives earning at last count over $230,000 pa, than any of its surrounding/benchmarking councils. The ‘fat cat’ syndrome is alive and well in Glen Eira!

The following quotes and figures relating to GESAC are taken directly from the budget and in chronological order. We admit that we are not accountants nor financial gurus. We are simply residents trying to make sense of a document that we believe to a large extent, is all ‘smoke and mirrors’. This is especially apparent in regards to GESAC. What we request is that readers assess
the following information and ask themselves these questions:

• Do these figures really add up?
• What evidence or explanation is provided so that accuracy may be ascertained?
• Why is the language so obtuse? Shouldn’t budgets be self explanatory, clear and comprehensible to the lay ratepayer?
• On what basis is it claimed that the ‘income’ from GESAC next year will total $2,991 million? Is interest repayment included, or excluded from the above figure? Why isn’t this made clear?
• How many ‘expressions of interest’ have been received? If GESAC has been inundated with ‘offers’, then why is Council advertising tenders for various sections?
• Was there ever a comprehensive business plan and analyses in place? Where is this, if it exists?
• Does talk of a ‘surplus’ mean after interest and costs are deducted?
• ‘Operating costs’ are stated as $3.79 million. Does this include the 50 full-time staff or are they an extra financial burden which hasn’t been added in to this figure? Does this figure also include the ‘liabilities’ such as interest and paying off the principal which alone equates to over $2.5 million?

We have countless other questions. But we’ll leave this to readers to ask. We welcome all responses. The budget quotes follow:

“An operating surplus of $4.78m, of which $870k includes non-recurrent grants for ‘Better Pools’ Funding $625k, Duncan Mackinnon $200k and $45k for Storm Water Harvesting (any operating surplus is used to increase Capital works). This operating surplus includes a first year loss of $1.05m from GESAC.”  

Capitol Investment: Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC) $7.58m

GESAC Furniture and Fittings $1.65m

The Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre is projected to run at a surplus in 2012-2013. In 2011-2012, GESAC will experience a part-year of revenue, more than a part-year of operating costs as well as one-off establishment costs.

Operating Costs: Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC) expenses $3.79m  

Debt servicing costs relating to the interest component of Council‘s borrowing costs for GESAC $1.82m

The 2011-2012 budget reflects user fees for GESAC for 9 months of the year totaling $2.89m. During the course of 2011-2012, GESAC will open. It will provide a range of facilities and services including some never offered before and some which are subject to market forces. Some experience will be required in order to set charges for some of these facilities and services and adjust them from time to time. Separate arrangements will be established under which the Centre Manager will be able to manage charges within the Budget determined by Council.

Offsetting the first year GESAC revenue is an unfavourable variance for the State Revenue Office revaluation reimbursement (received every second year) $400k. 

Increases in specific user fees reflect expected increased demand for these services. In addition, Council plans to increase user charges and other fees in line with expected market trends over the budget period, to maintain parity of user charges with the costs of service delivery. 

Employee benefits – increase of $5.14m – Increases in staff numbers resulting largely from Council‘s decision to build the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC). Council has budgeted for a staff compliment of approximately 50 EFT‘s for GESAC  

Materials and consumables increase GESAC materials $319k including – promotional materials $100k, retail costs $66k, chemical costs $60k, printing and stationery $47k, minor furniture and equipment $21k and computer software $15k. 

Contractors – referee payments for GESAC $72k –  

4(q) Debt Servicing Costs ($1.82m increase)

These costs relate to the interest component of Council‘s borrowing costs for GESAC and $30k for the equipment leasing for the strength and cardio equipment for the facility. 

4(m) Insurances ($47k increase) Insurance costs include public liability insurance, insurance excess and industrial special risk. It is expected that insurance levies will increase overall by $47k due to an anticipated increase in insurance premiums in 2011-2012 as a result of GESAC. 

6.1(h) Intangibles (Systems Software) ($391k) Intangibles (Systems Software) include renewing and upgrading Council‘s software systems. For the 2011-2012 year, $296k will be expended on upgrading the software and $95k for GESAC Software. 

6.2(c) Borrowings ($25m) An estimated $25m of borrowings has been included in the 2011-2012 budget to fund the construction of the aquatic centre.

Principal repayments are estimated to be $787k and interest payments $1.82m.

7.1(i) Interest-bearing Liabilities – Current and Non Current – ($24.85m increase)

Interest-bearing liabilities represent loans and borrowings to fund the construction of the aquatic centre. Estimated borrowings of $25m have been included in the 2011-2012 budget. Principal repayments are estimated to be $787k and interest payments $1.82m

GESAC – Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre – Software (Membership management system; Personal Training Software) $95,000

GESAC – Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre – Furniture & Fittings (Self Service Kiosk; Lockers; Service Area Fitouts; Furniture and Equipment and Advertising Signage) $1,653,800

GESAC – Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre – Plant & Equipment (Pool Vacuum; Two Way Radios) $49,000

We’ve started going through the proposed budget and singled out for this first analysis council’s intended expenditure on sport and associated facilities. Please note that the following figures do not include monies intended for GESAC. Further, we’ve also included the original intent to ‘redevelop’ 4 sports grounds, since the new resolution is only DELAYING this for one year. The money will be spent – just a little later.  We also freely admit that we might have missed some items that relate directly to ‘sport’ since the explanations/identification for all venues are basically absent. The figures are:

Please note that Council’s total income is $106,664,000. This means that just over 7.2% of income is spent on sport and assorted facilities for this coming year alone! It doesn’t take into account the millions that have already been spent and
which we’ve commented on in previous posts. We ask:

•  Is this what the community sees as a top priority – especially in these difficult financial times.
• What cost cuttings should be applied to the above list?
• Drains only gets $3 million – is this adequate given recent events?