GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

July 19, 2011

Council Meeting: Oh, To Be In The Bitumen/Concrete Business!

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

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

 

July 15, 2011

GESAC: Who Really Runs Council?

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

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.

 

July 13, 2011

GESAC: What Is Really Going On?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

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.

 

July 12, 2011

GESAC: What A Mess!

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

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.

 

July 11, 2011

Playing Ducks & Drakes & Drains

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

BY REBECCA THISTLETON
rebecca.thistleton@fairfaxmedia.com.au

Flood risk for 80,000

A REPORT shows Melbourne Water and Glen Eira Council have failed to take a lead role in preventing future floods.

The report, by Glen Eira Council stated Melbourne Water has identified about 80,000 properties at risk of overland flooding and 40,000 properties with buildings at risk of flooding above floor level, as Glen Eira lies on a flood plain.

The council tabled the report into the severe February 2011 floods at a recent council meeting and has called on Melbourne Water to increase drainage capacity.

Melbourne Water has blamed Glen Eira’s flooding on previous planning decisions in flood plain areas. Areas flooded in February closely matched locations marked as trouble spots by Melbourne Water 11 years ago on a map of flood-prone areas. At the time, the council made changes to planning controls and wrote to Melbourne Water expressing concern and requesting capacity improvements to prevent flooding.

Council papers showed February’s floods were ‘‘extremely severe’’ and caused the underground system to overflow.

After the floods, the council received more than 700 inquiries and requests for drainage improvements. More than 150 homes and businesses were inundated and more than 90 were storm damaged.

Council spokesman Paul Burke said the council’s drains were dependent on Melbourne Water’s drains because the water flowed into them. ‘‘The council continues to advocate for the state government to improve the capacity of Melbourne Water drains to reduce the risk of flooding in areas covered by Melbourne Water drains,’’ he said.

Melbourne Water’s manager of floodplain services, Phillip Neville, said it was unfortunate Glen Eira was developed without a defined path for excess water to run off. ‘‘In older suburbs where no consideration was given to reserving areas for overland flows, existing properties can be in the flow path and are susceptible to overflow in severe storms,’’ he said.

A letter to the council from Melbourne Water stated there was a 25 to 30 year plan to reduce flood risk for drainage systems with an ‘‘extreme’’ or ‘‘intolerable’’ flood risk and flood mitigation works were underway.

In 2005, the state government released the Storm Water Management Audit. Glen Eira was hit with a scathing report and suggested improvements. Mr Burke said the council has since worked to improve drainage and had allocated $3 million
towards a drainage improvement program last year.

He said revised flood mapping was being used by Melbourne Water to update planning controls, which would take flood plains into account for future housing developments.

 

Ducking the issue

Don Dunstan has been trying to replace a storage bungalow in his Ormond backyard for 10 months. But Mr Dunstan, president of the Glen Eira Residents’ Association, has been unable to secure the planning permit he needs for a new building due to confusion over storm water drains on his property.

The permit has stalled because neither the council nor Melbourne Water can identify where underground stormwater drains lie between his and his neighbour’s home. Mr Dunstan has paid a surveyor to try to locate the drain to no avail. Melbourne Water has told him records showing the exact location are unreliable.

Mr Dunstan described the handling of storm water management responsibilities by council and Melbourne Water as ‘‘duck shoving’’. His issue is representative of storm water problems that could affect 80,000 homes in the area during heavy rain, such as that experienced earlier this year.

Mr Dunstan said there were properties and parkland across Glen Eira which faced storm water problems every time heavy rain fell as the suburbs were on a flood plain and lacked appropriate drainage.

He said Glen Eira Council denied the storm water drainage was their problem, and had approved development in the past on areas without appropriate drainage.

Rebecca Thistleton

 

 

July 5, 2011

The Budget ‘Debate’!!!!!

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

A little belatedly, we now report on last week’s ‘debate’ on the Strategic Resource Plan and the Budget

Strategic Resource Plan (SRP)

MAGEE: Regurgitated the 2008 ‘consultation’ processes  and insisted on calling this the ‘community plan’ which incorporates the SRP. ‘The plan is fully integrated with the strategic resource plan….SRP expresses the community plan objectives ‘in financial terms’….Changes to the community plan since the SRP was advertised are 6.5% rate increase instead of 6.95% ‘to ensure consistency with the 2011/12 budget(!!!!!); over $500,000 ‘saved’ by decreasing expenditure on warm season grasses; $200,000 on pavilion design funding; and in 2016/7 more spent on infrastructure; community grants increase by $50,000….

PILLING: ‘very important for council’s future….street lighting which is $2 million over the next two years…..biggest building program ever (GESAC)….looking through (the plan) all are funded and ….I certainly commend (the SRP).

HYAMS: Aim is to keep ‘things steady’…’no changes to overall plan….what we changed are the strategic activities at the back of the plan….strategy towards closing the infrastructure gap and maintaining services….(highigihts include GESAC, Duncan McKinnon and others)….’one off charge for green waste to get more people using green waste….these are all things that will make a big difference to people’s lives and improve glen Eira….other things that might seem more mundane on first reading…..like inspecting 6000 drainage pits…..park patrols, …..a whole lot of things…..(target) so we can monitor whether we’re actually meeting the target…and if we’re falling short find out why we’re falling short…..people may note that we went to the public with one strategic resource plan, we’ve changed that in reasonably significant ways….because after we went to the public….we also put the budget to the public….and that budget was amended so it no longer (melded with the SRP) …so of course we had no choice but to amend the strategic resource plan….it still remains financially sustainable…..the change actually cost us $2.3 million  in five years…..I wasn’t in favour of that….but on the whole I still think it’s a good strategic resource plan so despite that concern I won’t be voting against it…..

TANG: ‘As the mover of that amendment (to reduce rates) I have to take some of the stick…this SRP has taken into account the budgetary position ….which would be consistent (if passed tonight) ……Hyams has failed to acknowledge some of the other changes….(warm season grasses reduction; another $50,000) but ultimately the changes in my mind are great but the SRP as a whole doesn’t address all of my concerns…..(because of changes) council is considering pushing back its pavilion program…not necessarily all of the scale of caulfield park….but closer to the scale of the multi purpose pavilion at Princes Park….allowing council to do pavilions at Victory park …there are countless pavilions out there that council could do …..prudent process would be to do one a year…..not to address all of them…to try and get through in a timely manner…..alongside other major programs such as (childcare Bentleigh library)….why I don’t support this SRP is primarily because councillors said that in order to (have lower rates) it will push back that pavilion program. I have no objection to a number of other programs….

MOTION CARRIED

Item 9.11 – BUDGET

MAGEE: Regurgitated again public’consultation’ process. ‘We have a set of pressures to allocate funds to fix up our ageing facilities….keep day to day costs as low as we can….4.95 million on roads….3.29 million on drains…..7.85 to complete GESAC….cash flow for GESAC indicate …..25 million borrowings…..Elsternwick childcare centre….environmental initiatives’. Magee went on to read out overall capital expenditure, assessment on property costs. ‘It’s a good budget, a responsible budget, but most of all….it is keeping our rates to 6.5%….

TANG: ‘I want to speak to the budget information session….no one turned up this year which was quite disappointing. In the past we’ve had small attendances…..it would be good to see that information session used to generate a bit of feed back before the budget submission process….we did have one speaker (in budget submissions)….we acknowledged the Friends of Caulfield Park submission…a number of suggestions that we had previously considered such as the depot, conservatory (and trees in the West of the park) …some I think council will certainly consider as part of its management practices….others such as the conservatory are …..I really do like the idea of hav ing a conservatory that is alive once again….there was some support for council initiatives this year….street light conversion…..a good step forward……I’d call it a compromise budget….council is transparent in its previous SRPs….in communicating to our residents that it was intending to raise by 6.5% in this financial years…..(because embarking on) massive renewal….in that regard I’m happy to see council follow through with that strategic resource plan….a prudent and responsible rate rise……allows us to do a number of things….

HYAMS: ‘third lowest’ rate rise in metro councils……low fees and charges, yet high capital expenditure….it lets us do what’s in the community plan basically…..(thank those who made submissions, especially Glen Eira Environment Group who were worried that council was putting synthetic grass, especially in road barriers)….’road separation only goes between service lanes and main roads…..save on maintenance because if you have grass there you have to cut it….and I certainly wouldn’t like to be the guy mowing ……I think it’s quite a worthwhile thing to do….

MAGEE: Stated that asking councillors to put up their pet projects means that you have ‘projects far outweighing the capabilities of the budget…..day care in East Bentleigh would be something that I would support …..pavilions in Victory and Centenary are something that I would have liked to ….at the end of the day it’s a matter of prioritising….I think this budget has prioritised….we would like to see more….I commend the budget to the council….’

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT

  • Deliberate obfuscation in calling anything a ‘community plan’! Glen Eira does not have a Community Plan (unlike other councils). It has a Council Plan.
  • One would have hoped for more than a ‘reading’ of the budget papers/SRP papers, outlining expenditure. Please note that there was barely any mention of increased charges (especially for 3 year old kinda), nor burden of huge interest repayments, etc.
  • The lack of real and open debate is once again a damning indictment on the decision making processes of this Council.

 

 

 

 

July 5, 2011

Glen Eira Does Not Rate

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

From today’s Caulfield Leader.  Stories by Jenny Ling –

GLEN Eira Council has ranked lower than its fellow city councils in the latest Local Government Victoria survey. The 2011 community satisfaction survey asked 28,000 residents across 77 councils to rate their council’s performance. The data showed that though Glen Eira rated higher or similar to all Victorian councils in overall performance, advocacy, community engagement and customer contact, it didn’t fare so well compared with its fellow metropolitan councils.

Glen Eira achieved a score of 69 per cent for overall performance. The average for metropolitan councils — Baysid e ,Yarra, Stonnington, Kingston, Melbourne, Monash, Port Phillip, Moreland, Boorondara, Darebin, Hobsons Bay, Maroondah, Moonee Valley, Banyule, Whitehorse and Glen Eira – was 85 per cent. For advocacy, which covers the representation of the community’s interests, Glen Eira rated 64 per cent compared with the Melbourne average of 77 per cent. Glen Eira rated 62 per cent for community engagement compared to t he metropolitan councils’ 71 per cent average, while local customer contact was 77 per cent compared with 80 per cent.

Glen Eira Residents Association president Don Dunstan said there needed to be more transparency and open governance in Glen Eira. ‘‘The core problem is the way council meetings are run,’’ Mr Dunstan said. Glen Eira Mayor Margaret Esakoff said ‘‘given the survey was taken at the same time as severe flooding (February) and the bin downsizing, it is a good outcome for Glen Eira’’.  

Victorian Local Government Minister Jeanette Powell urged councils to analyse the ratings to see where improvements were needed.

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

Libs on back foot

THE Liberal Party has backflipped on the contentious $1 billion Caulfield Village development faster than a Bart Cummings champion. Planning Minister Matthew Guy and Caulfield MP David Southwick applauded the project which will attract 2000 residents and create 35,000sq m of office and retail space on 5ha around the racecourse when they announced its approval on Tuesday.

In October, Mr Southwick said it would cause traffic congestion, anti-social behaviour and parking problems, and pledged to stop the ‘‘ monstrosity’’ that would ‘‘ destroy Caulfield’s amenities and identity’’ with a postcard petition to households in the electorate. Mr Guy, then Opposition planning spokesman, echoed Mr Southwick’s pledge. Mr Southwick said there were several concerns which he ‘‘made very clear’’. ‘‘It was important for me to be on the front foot and be involved in negotiations with Glen Eira (council) and residents,’’ he said. ‘‘The main issue I had was open space . . . being able to get a win for the city.’’

Glen Eira Council approved the plans with height restrictions in April, capping buildings in the Smith St precinct at 20 storeys. Mayor Margaret Esakoff said Caulfield Village would provide the community with a range of housing options close to transport and facilities. ‘‘The wider community will also be able to enjoy the improved open space and recreational areas in the centre of the racecourse,’’ she said.

Glen Eira Residents’ Association president Don Dunstan said there was no provision for carparking and no amenities being provided for the thousands of people who will live there. ‘‘And this is the right thing for a suburb? I don’t think so,’’ he said.

COMMENT: This is now the second time that The Leader  has taken a pot shot at Southwick. Whilst his backflip is undeniable, and the criticism is justified, good balanced reporting might also have commented on the role played by this council and its ‘gang of four’. We suggest that if all the facts are being presented then Lipshutz, Esakoff, Hyams and Pilling should also come in for their equal share of criticism!

 

July 1, 2011

GESAC: The Mess We Didn’t Have To Have

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

From Council Minutes (28th June)

Crs Lipshutz/Magee  

That Council;

 1. Reiterates Council’s desire to maximise community use of GESAC.

2. Recognises the expressions of interest of both Warriors Basketball Association and McKinnon Basketball Association in supporting Council’s objectives at GESAC.

3. That Council seek independent legal advice as to whether the communication between Council and Warriors Basketball Association;

(a) constitutes a legally binding agreement; and

(b) stops Council from cancelling the allocation awarded to Warriors Basketball Association at GESAC.

4. That pending receipt of the legal advice Council not execute any agreement or contract with respect to the allocation of the basketball courts at GESAC.

5. That this resolution be incorporated within the public Minutes of this meeting.  

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

QUESTIONS

 What a mess this whole issue is. Councillors have finally exerted some authority and appear to be attempting to ensure that local groups are catered for at GESAC. The real questions are:  

  1. Where were councillors right at the start in setting performance criteria, overseeing the tendering process and establishing clear protocols and expectations?
  2. How much will this ‘legal advice’ now cost ratepayers? Will it be added to the overall escalating costs of GESAC?
  3. What of other local groups who have been refused allocation? Will we be going through the same process with them? Or are contracts already signed? Or does it take a public backlash to get any action?
  4. What role will the administration and the lawyers play in all this? Will the ensuing advice simply be ‘sorry folks – nothing can be changed’? This at least saves face!
  5. If the Warriors contract is null and void, then by how much will this affect the figures for GESAC? Does this mean that costs will go up elsewhere in the next budget and in the renewal of leases throughout the municipality?

These are not idle questions. They go to the heart of councillors’ duty to set policy and administrator’s duty to deliver services according to Best Value principles – ie. a real cost benefit deliverable. It would appear that neither of these mandates have been achieved thus far and in the process occasioned much needless angst for many in the community.

 

June 30, 2011

GESAC: Parks, Open Space, or Concrete?

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

It appears that Lipshutz and Magee (and some councillors) are at it again with the request for a report on the ‘feasibility’ of extending the car park at GESAC – that is, converting open park land into more concrete. We find it exceedingly strange that after spending over $2million dollars on ‘design’, and one presumes some understanding of projected needs, that at the last moment council decides that it simply does not have enough car parking space to accommodate its anticipated 600,000 visitors to the complex. We must therefore question once again the competence of planning in this council. Caulfield Park pavilion also resulted in the ‘relocation’ of two ovals when the project was nearly complete. Why can’t they get it right first off? Why do such issues always seem to crop up at the eleventh hour? Is it intended to put pressure on councillors through the ruse of ‘if we don’t have this, the project will fail’? Below are the details of the ‘debate’ –

LIPSHUTZ: The request for a report was for officers to report on the feasibility of constructing a ‘multi level carpark’; and extension of existing carpark – but watching out for trees! ‘One of the concerns with Gesac’ is car parking and ‘need to increase that car parking to meet demand’…..at previous council meeting it ‘was discussed about having a multi level car park’ and he ‘seeks a report as to feasibility’….

MAGEE: ‘GESAC is going to be so successful ….there will almost never be enough car parking’ around GESAC ‘. ‘With the influx of…somewhere around 600,000 visitors per year parking is certainly going to be a premium…parking is something that should be increased….multi storey car park….interesting to see how that would look…..something I believe is needed….will fit nicely with the success of GESAC….

TANG: ‘some realisation that you’re never going to be able to accommodate enough people….regardless of how many extra car parks you put in…..(Lipshutz spoke about the concerns of car parking, it) ‘was a concern at the outset ….when council (supported GESAC) it knew that car parking was one of the key factors that would affect the attendances …..(visited other aquatic centres)…’planners determined that car parking was one of those big factors’…came to a balance – the site that GESAC is at ….is in a park, got to remember that…next to soccer grounds, cricket grounds, ….particularly playgrounds….and council has to minimise the impact as much as possible…as against those other uses there….think what we’ve got is an appropriate balance ….(shouldn’t use officers’ time and their workload to focus on this. There’s other important things that they should be working on such as the childcare in Elsternwick)…’I’d be seeing that as a waste of their time’….

HYAMS: although he ‘couldn’t agree more with Cr. Tang’ it’s important to remember that ‘when cricketers or soccer players….roll up to play their sport on Bailey Reserve….they won’t have anywhere to park….(and bad especially if they are carrying heavy cricket equipment)….

PILLING: ‘two bites at the cherry….I don’t agree…we seem to be trying at the 11th hour to get something up….

LIPSHUTZ: surprised that the two councillors are so ‘aggressive’…’the fact is that things change….(Tang is right in that) when we planned GESAC parking was a problem….we have now found that …demand will be greater…..and we can’t sit there and say’ (there won’t be change)…’we won’t pull down trees’…’I’m not suggesting that we build a car park….I’m suggesting we get a report to determine whether it is feasible….(I’m sure they can do the report very quickly)…we may look at other alternatives….(car parking is a problem) we need to look at it and not ignore it’.

MOTION CARRIED – TANG AND PILLING VOTED AGAINST

Gazing into our crystal ball we predict: (1) next council meeting will see the Officers’ Report ( as usual bereft of facts, details) recommending the construction of an additional car park. (2) Councillors will then be required to vote on this  and hey presto, GESAC will have its car park. BUT: where will the money come from? Is it budgeted for? how much extra will this cost?

 

June 29, 2011

Debate & Accountability Down The Drain!!!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

Below is a report on the two items concerning developers’ levy and the flood report.

Item 9.7 – C84 amendment – Hyams/Lipshutz

HYAMS: Started by saying that he didn’t think that there was anyone on council who would give up the opportunity to collect money from developers. ‘However…..this particular issue there was no …’cost to do the research and initiate the developments….what it was worth….so basically there was not any point in doing it…..the money we were getting wasn’t going to actually pay for the scheme itself…..as the report says there are other ways of making developers pay more attention to the (effect they have on flooding) by putting this very low levy on them’. …..it was appropriate to fast track and that’s what’s been done here…….

Lipshutz declined to speak. There were no other speakers. Motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Duration of debate – approximately 3 minutes!!!!

ITEM 9.13 – Flood Report – Hyams/Lipshutz

HYAMS: ‘An interesting read…..hopeful that we won’t be seeing it (flooding) again….report explains…what council does…to prevent flooding and after flooding….and also what Melbourne Water does….Council …cleans about 6000 drain pits per year ….also cleans 30km of drains each year…..respond to 800 – 1000 requests…..I don’t think any infrastructure system would have dealt (with the floods)….we have to minimise. This sets out the ways this can be done…..consultation between ourselves and Melbourne Water…..Melbourne Water now better understands the problems in this area and hopefully …..we will be able to cope with it (another event) better and so will they.’

LIPSHUTZ: Told residents that ‘they should make sure’ to obtain a drainage plan’ before they buy or move house. ‘Melbourne Water has a plan of areas which are affected and it’s important that people understand  when one buys in an area of a flood zone…..

ESKAKOFF: ‘This does respond’ to the original request for a report. ‘It oulines many areas of council’s maintenance, of responses, of Melbourne Water’s drains and council’s drains, …..and the differentiation between those….plans to review the emergency response….there is a map as attachment one …it does show the MAIN areas….where businesses and homes were inundated……it by no means covers all areas of flooding…..these are the main areas and I just wanted to point that out…..

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY –DURATION OF DEBATE: 4 Minutes

COMMENTS: Two items which will have a major impact on the community, on amenity and livelihoods lasted exactly 7 minutes. This is plainly disgraceful and a complete whitewash of councillors’ responsibility to critically assess and evaluate the advice that is provided to them. All present last night did not undertake this duty. There was no questioning, no demand for statistics, no accountability to ratepayers.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »