Tuesday night’s council meeting resolved that the application for the 14 storey development in Glen Huntly Rd. be reduced from 14 storeys and over 100 units to 7 storeys and 69 units. The resolution also included a rider that no residential car parking permits be on offer. The vote was passed on the casting vote of Esakoff.

Two conflicts of interest by Newton (lives close by) and by Magee (put in an offer on a property in the vicinity). Here’s what happened.

Motion moved by Hyams/Tang

ITEM 9.1 – GLEN HUNTLY RD.

HYAMS: started off by saying that there would definitely be development on this site but the question for council was to decide what kind of development -‘how big’….’we make this decision in the shadow of’ the 10 storey development close by. ‘There is a difference between that one and this one’….’this recommendation deals with some of the concerns raised by the objectors’. In terms of car parking ‘no resident will get  a permit’ ….’also concern about cars driving in and out ……one of the conditions is that the laneway will be doubled’ (in width)…’ further increased setback on McCrombie Rd’. The difference between this one and the earlier 10 storey application is ‘it didn’t back straight onto houses….it backed onto the church….this application goes straight onto the neighbours….and I think it’s probably a bit too much to ask those neighbours …..to expect to put up with a ten storey building right on their doorstep….obviously we do have to allow a development here…..for those reasons hope we allow a smaller development ‘.

TANG: said that he ‘needed to declare at the outset that I am grudgingly supporting a 7 storey development’ since ‘there is no grounds for refusal’ on this application….’I don’t support the application for 14 storeys’, nor the officers’ recommendations for 10 storeys and he foreshadowed that ‘if two more councillors indicate support for refusal’ he would move that motion. Tang then declared that ‘it is actually too small a proposal and what some councillors would like to see is a large 10 storey building’ or even 14 storey’. ‘In this instance there is no buffer to the residential area and thus I can’t see a 14 storey proposal or even a 10 storey proposal….fitting in to this urban context’. …’emerging character was going to be of a high density but was never going to be…. 10 or 14 storeys….that’s the way I read the Elsternwick Urban Village….so on those grounds I will grudgingly support the 7 storey proposal at this stage, but if two councillors’ indicate their opposition then he’ll move the motion to refuse.

PILLING: ‘I am supporting the motion as printed……I think this is a sensible, reasonable option…(there’s been a decrease in dwellings)…’it is close to public transport; it ticks all the boxes in that regard’. The VCAT decision is ‘the reality of what we’re dealing with’ and officers have ‘balanced’ all the concerns. He stated he’d vote against this alternative recommendation and praised the officers because ‘they’ve got it right’.

FORGE: ‘This area is ripe for development; it’s the gateway to Glen Eira…this is a special area which can take large development….amply serviced by public transport…..good traffic flow (stated she was ‘down there’ and there were 3 or 4 cars in side streets. Also stated that taking 4 storeys off the middle part is less effective than taking four storeys off the top and ‘I support a ten storey building’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I agree this is the gateway to Elsternwick….a happy mix of some beautiful old Victorian houses, narrow streets’, schools, and this area is zoned Business 1. ‘The developer has made adequate provision for car parking…I would support the original application for 14 storeys’.

COMMENT FROM GALLERY: ‘Would you like to live next to it?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I will reluctantly support 10  storeys’ but agreeing with Forge ‘not if it’s going to be a huge reduction in the number of residents’…..’this is a Business 1 Zone….and unfortunately if you happen to live close …..you have to accept that this is a Business 1 zone….it would be nice if there was a transition introduced in our Planning Scheme. There is not. You go straight …..the narrow line goes from big to little ….I have been speaking for a long time about transition zones because I believe that is essential’. He would vote against the motion.

ESAKOFF: Stated she was concerned about the ‘impact’ on McCrombie St. Referred to the near by development where ‘council supported 8 storeys which went onto VCAT which supported 10’….’that development didn’t have the same interface as this one….the ten storey (of earlier proposal) didn’t immediately abut McCrombie St…..I believe there needs to be some discretion while remembering that Elsternwick is an Urban Village ….where higher density is and will occur…..while Council continues to have input, we can and will (ensure) that impact is kept to a minimum….even though they sit in (urban village or housing diversity area)’. ‘The very usual difficult balancing act that we are dealt’. Doesn’t support 10 stoerys and believes that a more appropriate  solution is 7 storeys.

HYAMS: ‘I saw some disbelief on the faces of the gallery when they were told that McCombie st is a quiet street….the street itself is fairly quiet’ but trying to turn into GlenHuntly Rd. Hayms stated it took him ‘a number of minutes’ ….’I can imagine in peak hour’ what it’s like…..(the 10 storey) ‘was a far larger block’…’our urban villages policy divides the Elsternwick area into precincts…..(this is precinct 2)….’one of the conditions …..(and it’s old and superceded and discretionary), ‘but one of …..development to the west of the railway line should be no higher than the terrace properties on the South side of Glen Huntly Rd’. That’s one of our policies…..’When you add them all together they don’t (sometimes) complement each other…so it’s a matter of adding them up’. ‘Bearing in mind that that’s part of our policy having a 14 storey building …..is too much of a stretch (but 7 storeys is okay).

VOTE WAS DRAWN – ESAKOFF USED HER CASTING VOTE TO PASS THE MOTION

Several comments have made us go back to the original submissions on the Local Law (decided in November, 2009) and to have a closer look at Council’s Official Response (uploaded here). Apparently this ‘letter’ was sent out to all submitters, but it remains unsigned by the Mayor, or anyone. More significantly, we note that the important stuff dealing with Meeting Procedures does not make an appearance until Issue 6. Here we have the response to why Council will not change its then Local Law and introduce a Notice of Motion clause. We quote:

“No changes have been made to the Local Law. Council’s ‘no surprises’ policy is in place to ensure that Councillors have an opportunity to properly respond to issues. It is considered that a notice of motion process does not add anything to councillors’ existing ability to have matters brought before Council. In particular a matter not on the agenda can be dealt with at an ordinary meeting if council resolves to deal with it as urgent business.”

COMMENT: What the above does not indicate, and which Penhalluriack referred to at last night’s meeting, is that according to the Local Law ‘urgent business’ is exactly that – URGENT, and has to have occurred during the time the Agenda was printed and the actual council meeting. Everything else is excluded! We also remind readers that councillors are only given a few days to read and digest the agenda. The public version is only available after 12 on the Friday prior to the council meeting.

Submissions to the Local Law also condemned the fact that Glen Eira was the only council to explicitly hand control of the agenda over to the CEO – in contrast to other councils that stipulate the agenda be set in consultation with the Mayor and/or other councillors. Again, Glen Eira’s official response is woeful. We quote:

“A requirement that items are included either with the specific consent or mutual agreement of the Mayor or Chairperson imposes a fetter on the CEO to discharge his duty….Additionally councillors should not be responsible for the agenda as a consequence of the governance requirements to avoid improper influence.”

COMMENT: Again, the distortion, dissembling, and ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is obvious! In the first place councillors are not ‘responsible’ for the agenda, nor did submitters request this. The point was that items appearing in agenda papers should not be the unilateral decision of one unelected individual. The role of a CEO is to advise, and presumably consult with his Council – in this case through the Mayor as the councillors’ representative. Leaving it all up to the CEO, without any avenue for official councillor input, is as we’ve said time and time again, undemocratic and places barriers in front of residents who may have matters that they wish discussed in open council – last night was a perfect example of this. If only the CEO determines the agenda, then the notion that a councillor is the conduit between the community and council is bankrupt!

Another issue brought up by submitters related to advisory committees – their composition, and reporting standards. The official response stated:

“No change has been made to the Local Law. Council agreed that a process in relation to Advisory Committee reporting should be implemented. This should be done by council determining procedures or policies, not in the Local Law.”

COMMENT: Where is the policy or procedure? In two years nothing has come up for discussion! There was no objection to including the ‘no surprises’ into the Local Law, as opposed to its previously being only a ‘policy’, so why the difference? Further, when you have ‘policy’ such as ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ (and which no one has clapped eyes on!) why change things? The ultimate insult would be if the Local Law actually mandated the form, content, and regularity of advisory committee meeting minutes. That would really have thrown a spanner into Hyams’ recent manoeuvrings with the minutes from the Sport and Rec Committee Meeting!

We certainly urge all residents to consider these fundamental issues and how they restrict the practice of genuine democracy in Glen Eira!

Please forgive this very long report on tonight’s council meeting. We’ve only covered a few of the agenda items, but will report on the rest in the next few days.

ITEM 9.8 – Newton’s ‘Report’

Hyams/Pilling moved motion to note report.

HYAMS: ‘I don’t have much to say on this. The CEO was asked to give a rport on his meetings with the MRC and he has done so’.

PILLING: did not say anything.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m disappointed in this report’….(Penhalluriack then read out the paragraph about the meetings with MPs and ‘others’)….asked whether Newton had actually attended those meetings. Newton replied ‘Madam Mayor, I didn’t’. Penhalluriack then said that since he’s written the paragraph, ‘then presumably somebody did otherwise you wouldn’t have it in the report’….

Paul Burke then intervened with “I may be able to assist your Worship. I understand that you attended those meetings Cr. Penhalluriack’. Penhalluriack asked that Burke claify this which Burke claimed he couldn’t. Penhalluriack then went on to say that he did attend a meeting and Cr. Forge provided the minutes of that meeting back to council. He went on to say that ‘there is an olligation on council to keep detailed records under the Public Records Act’. Quoted Section 13 of the Act….’and I am frankly disappointed that we get in this report a lot of things that we didn’t ask for…..we don’t get who attended, what was on the agenda, and any decisions that were made’….’I’m not happy with this report’.

FORGE: ‘Yes, I have concerns too about the matter of detail and I support Cr. Penhalluriack’s observatiions’.

HYAMS: ‘I didn’t find the paragraph that Cr. Penhalluriack referred to (unclear)…because it said quite clearly that no officer attended (so it could only be councillors)…and I certainly didn’t attend any of these meetings…Cr. Penhalluriack is right that we have to keep detiled records but it doesn’t necessarily mean….detailed records in the agenda….I wouldn’t like to carry them, but some bodies might like to…There was also the comment that there was no record of (meetings attended, but there is) chronological order in paragraph 5….so I’m happy with this report.

MOTION CARRIED: Against Penhalluriack and Forge. For the motion – Hyams, Pilling, Tang, Magee, Esakoff.

REQUEST FOR REPORTS

TANG: ‘council prepare a report detailing the costs and feasibility of reinstalling the mulch facility …..at another site in GlenEeira. The report should consider the recommendations of the Health assessment’ team. Claimed he was only ‘testing the water’ since he understands that councillors made a decision to remove the facility but now there’s been ‘public discord’ emails, phone calls and newspapers. He is ‘interested to see whether all options are exhausted before close the door’. He understands that some councillors have got strong views about all this  such as where the facility was placed and whether it could be operated from a different location.  ‘testing the water to see if councillors will open their minds to other options…..(and if this motion is defeated then it’s clear that council won’t be providing this facility from anywhere in Glen Eira).

HYAMS: ‘My concern….wasn’t the site but the dangers of handling it….so I wouldn’t necessarily want to see it at any other site but (since there are a couple of councillors absent) ‘it’s been a bone of contention so I’m happy to (support the request for a report) and see what comes back’ …’but I don’t think I’ll change my mind’.

PILLING: Stated that he did ask if there was anywhere else for the facility to go

FORGE: reminded councillors that she and Magee raised a number of issues apart from legionnaires and the dangers that the facility contained.

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that people are obviously concerned when they go to the mulch facility but the signs indicate that ‘they’ve been denied a free service’. Said he could understand people’s concern, but he is also concerned that ‘the Leader is running a campaign’ because the mulch bin is still sitting there. ‘The wording of the motion which was passed is very straight forward. Officers are under obligation to listen to (councillors decisions) resolutions and do it expeditiously. The wording says that council removes the facility….AND it no longer provides this free service…..I’m reasonably competent in English …..the building is a prefabricated building ….and they could be stored almost anywhere….It’s simple English….This bin itself was badly designed right from the start…..it’s designed to allow the mulch to be pushed in….a bottle neck at the far end…..(explained how it could be better designed. ‘Standards Association says the mulch should be pasteurised….it is not pasteurised…..(then unless it is pasteurised) you cannot put this facility anywhere in Glen Eira. Spoke about insurance companies and whether they know about the dealing with a dangerous product and the same with Glen Eira college. Job is to protect the community. ‘I’m not prepared to do it’ – ie. take the risk.

TANG: ‘would be shocked’ if they didn’t know about the risk. Council had spoken with principal of college. Insurance would have an appraisal, so they also know. ‘I encouraged Penhalluriack to bring the issue forward….would be good to implement every one of those recommendations…..some councillors as concerned about the mulch service as concerned about where it is located…there is very strong feeling….our duty to investigate whether there are optiions…..If there aren’t I will let the issue lie….

MOTION CARRIED: Against – Penahalluriack: FOR: Esakoff, Tang, Hyams, Pilling, Magee, Forge

COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS

PENHALLURIACK: ‘i’ve given notice of a motion concerning a footpath down the western side of Queen’s Avenue. The matter is not urgent (but he was told the criteria for an ‘urgent’ motion was that it had to have happened after the agenda was published)…’It seems in Glen Eira that whatever does or does not go in the agenda is the sole responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer….There is no other way for me to get discussion on my motion….my question is Why doesn’t Glen Eira have a provision for councillors’ motions on notice, so if a seconder can be found…(important issues can be discussed)?

ESAKOFF: ‘Who are you directing the question to?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘To you madam Mayor’

Esakoff started to reply when Hyams interjected with a point of procedure. That questions to councillors had to be given to that councillor prior to the meeting, and that in the current situation he ‘didn’t want to set a preceent’. Burke then said that ‘the matter was considered in the Local Law Process ….and Council took a view that it was satisfied with the process as (it stood).

PENHALLURIACK: ‘how can I get this matter debated’ if I can’t move a motion of notice?

BURKE: ‘you have 8 other colleagues…seek their support. The Local Law will allow you to do so….

TANG: ‘I’ll take lilberty and put a question to Mr. Burke (trying to help Penhalluriack)….would Cr. Penhalluriack be able to have this discussed if he were to move a request for a report….?

BURKE: ‘Yes’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I take umbrage at that response. he suggests I get all 9 councillors together (even when 9 councillors are together) ‘I can’t get a motion because our CEO controls the agenda ….I can ask for a report and a report will come back to us ….(but how do I get the Local Law changed)

BURKE: Requests for reports are a ‘catalyst’ for all sorts of’ things, including what you’re seeking.

PENAHLLURIACK: Tried to ask for a report on the agenda item

ESAKOFF: ‘It’s too late’

HYAMS: Moved a procedural motion that would allow Penhalluriack to request a report. Pilling seconded.

TANG:’ There’s no such thing as a procedural motion….I’ll just move  that ‘council reopen discussion of 11.2’

ESAKOFF: 11.1. Hyams accepted the amendment

Vote on amendment – carried unanimously

ESAKOFF: ‘We’re back to 11.1. Cr Penhalluriack’

PENAHALLURIACK: ‘How circumlocutous can we possible get! …..Can councillors please provide a report to councillors on why Glen Eira doesn’t have a provision for councillors to have a motion on notice….. Tang seconded.

TANG: ‘just hope that Cr. Penhalluriack remembers that we helped him out on getting these things…’

PILLING asked for a repeat of the request for a report.
Penhalluriack re-read the motion – why glen Eira doesn’t have a provision ….so that a seconder can be found and that matters of importance can be debated.’ Pilling then suggested changes to the request for a report, referring to the Local Law and the necessity to change that. Penahlluriack didn’t want the word ‘suggestion’ in Pilling’s rephrasing. He wanted to change the word ‘suggestions’ to ‘draft’. Burke then again said: ‘that may give officers a deal of angst’ since you’re asking for a report that means that your wording will change , so ‘officers are actually drafting what you want’. Penhalluriack then seconded Tang’s motion! Tang then tried to clarify.’ Cr Penahlluriack has moved a motion, I seconded that motion and Cr. Pilling has moved an amendment. Cr. Penhalluriack has suggested that he is prepared to’ accept the amendment , so he’s withdrawing his motion and moving the motion ‘as read by Pilling’.

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack and Tang whether they supported the amended motion. Both agreed.

MAGEE; ‘I’ve been to a lot of meetings in my life …every time Cr. Penhalluriack tries to do something….road blocking. The last 5 minuytes have been an absolute disgrace. (gallery clapped) …looking after 100 million dollar business should be informed and I think…..should be sacked’.

HYAMS: ‘at lot more of us would be sacked if we tried to ignore our local law rather than stick with it ….(interjection from the gallery about ‘ordinary business’) ‘I understand Mr. dunstan that you were a very ordinary councillor so I understand why you’d want ordinary business’

TANG: a question to Magee. ‘if we didn’t apply the local laws consistently the alternative would be to leave all the power in the hands of the chair and allow the chair to act at their discretion…accept or reject motions…..

MAGEE: ‘we’re all very aware from the first word of Cr. Penhalluriack (what he wanted) ‘and all we did was play tennis with it’

TANG; ‘I don’t think Cr. Magee has answered my question’.

MAGEE: ‘I think we all knew where Cr. Penhalluriack was going ….and all we did was play around with it. …we should have gone straight to the point…..

PILLING: ‘it was confusing….I was trying to get what Cr. Penhalluriack wanted

PENHALLURIACK: I get pissed off as well…..I’m happy for the motion as it stands …”

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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.

COUNCIL

RATE
INCREASE

Glen Eira

6.95%  (NOW 6.5%)

Port  Phillip

6.5%

Bayside

5.9%

Stonnington

4.5%

Yarra City

4.9%

Boroondara

5.25%

Monash

6.00%

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

GESAC

Annual Budget

2010-2011

Forecast 2010/11 Annual Budget

2011=2012

Variance 2010-

2011 Forecast

to 2011-2012

Budget

Income

2,991

2,991

Expenses

433

250

4039

(3788)

Net Result (433) (250) (1048)

(798)

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

Item 9.8 for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting is in response to Cr. Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report on meetings held between the CEO and MRC, and/or trustees, in the past two years. Penhalluriack’s request was for a ‘detailed report’ on any meetings that might have taken place. Most reasonable people would presume that this means: who attended, dates, and topics of discussion.

The tabled report is again ‘anonymous’ with no names attached as to author, or responsible officer. We presume that this report was written, or at least authorised by the CEO. We note the following:

Penhalluriack’s request for ‘detail’ has not been addressed. The report is not only scant on detail, time, and dates (apart from one meeting), but we have such disclaimers as:

“Other meetings have taken place with Ministers, Ministerial staff,  MPs or  others concerning the Racecourse Reserve where Councillors were not notified beforehand and no records of the meetings were provided afterwards. Council officers are not in a position to provide any notes of those meetings as no officer attended”.

What an extraodinary paragraph!!!!! No ‘officer’ may have attended, but we can only presume that the CEO did. As part of his
fiduciary and legal duties we ask:

  • Did he make notes during, or after the meeting(s). If so, where are they? If not, why not?
  • Was the Mayor subsequently informed of these meetings? Were other councillors informed of these meetings? Was anyone informed of the content of these meetings? If so, how was this information transmitted? Where is the record of this sharing of information?
  • Further, are we really meant to believe that when officers are beavering away on the section 173 agreement, and other sundry issues, that Newton would not communicate with his officers regarding the outcomes of any of these
    discussions? Again, if so, where is the evidentiary trail of this feedback, orders, reporting?

It absolutely beggars belief that Newton attended meetings (and we don’t know who ‘others’ refers to, or how many meetings there were) and that councillors did not know that these were about to happen and that no official record exists about anything!

The real test will come on Tuesday night when Councillors vote whether or not to accept this ‘report’!!!

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:

Intended
Works

Projected
Cost

Duncan
Mackinnon Pavilion Redevelopment
$5,500,000
Sports
Ground Drought Tolerant Grass
$1,430,000
Drip Irrigation
Systems
$115,000
Sports
Grounds Upgrade
$70,000
Car
Park Renewal Program
$285,000
Replace
Coaches Boxes (EE Gunn Reserve)
$35,000
Irrigation
Upgrade to Caulfield Park
$20,000
Replacement
of Synthetic Cricket Wicket Surface
$50,000
Car
Park Upgrade Design Program
$74,750
Upgrade of Athletic Track Throwers Cages, Shot Put
Zone & Surrounding Surfaces
$70,000
Kitchen Oven Renewal (King George Pavilion) $5,000
Vulcan
Outdoor Heating Unit
$7,000
Power
Upgrade to the Sub Main to accommodate newly installed external Ground
Lighting
$25,000
TOTAL $7,686,750

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?

Last night’s Special Council meeting was historic in that Councillors actually amended the proposed draft budget. Instead of 6.95% rate increase it is now 6.5% and the number of sports grounds to be ‘redeveloped’ has been halved from 4 to 2. All this sounds terrific. Councillors actually taking charge and assessing what is in front of them. However, does this reading account for the whole story? In an extraordinary statement that fronts the budget papers we have this paragraph –

“Councillors have held a number of meetings on the 2011-12 Budget (including the Strategy Weekend on 26 February, 27 February), the 29 March and 12 April 2011.

The attached Budget has been prepared in accordance with s127 of the Act and the Regulations and represents the views of the Councillors or a majority of Councillors on every matter discussed.”

As far as we know, no such statement has ever appeared before. What is its purpose? To bluff councillors into acquiescence? To silence councillors? More importantly, if there has actually been this level of discussion and ‘consensus’ as claimed, then what happened last night? Is this a sign of ‘independence’ by councillors – a refusal to accept what is put before them? Or is it pure manoeuvring? For example: Tang has already spoken out against the 6.95% interest hike and others are undoubtedly uncomfortable with this apparent broken promise of keeping to 6.5%. Thus, is this merely politics and a means of ‘neutralising’ those who might entertain the impossible idea of actually voting against the budget when it comes to decision time? Readers should note that Pilling for one is quite happy with the 6.95% rate increase!

There are still many areas of this proposed budget which we believe should be unacceptable to residents and which remain untouched. It will be fascinating to now see what further charges are imposed on residents in order to cover the loss of this 0.45%. We will comment on these once the amended version of the budget proposals are published. Questions that remain are:

  1. Why was the draft published when we now find that not everyone, or even the majority were ‘happy’ with its recommendations? Surely the time to nut out problems, seek solutions, and devise workable options are in those ‘workshops’ and discussions that Swabey claims were fully endorsed by at least a majority of councillors?
  2. Does last night’s action give a lie to such claims of ‘consensus’?
  3. Was last night simply ‘opportunism’ since several councillors were absent?
  4. If some councillors simply changed their minds, then again this does not augur well for sound financial management and governance.

Whatever the reasons and the games being played it again shows a council that is divided – councillor against councillor, and between councillors and administrators. Not a good prospect at all! Just watch this space for more fun and games!

For the second consecutive week, The Caulfield Leader features the Mulch Saga on its front page, under the headline “Mulch Ado About? – Anger after free service scrapped”.

TV gardening personality Vasili Kanidaidis has slammed Glen Eira Council’s “ridiculous” decision to scrap its free mulch service. The council says it has no plans to relocate the two-decade-old service which allowed residents to take mulch from Glen Huntly Reserve until councillors voted to remove it because of health fears. That was despite advice from health authorities and independent testing which proved there was no risk of residents contracting legionnaires’ disease.

Mayor Margaret Esakoff confirmed the council was “not aware of any cases of legionnaires’ or other health complaints since the service began”.

Mr Kanidaidis, from the show Vasili’s Garden, said he had never heard of any cases during his career. “It’s as safe as walking down the street,” Mr Kanidaidis said. “The world is full of pollution, you just have to walk down the street to experience some of that, let alone opening a bag of mulch. If you had to worry about that, you’d be walking around with masks on 24/7.”

The Leader was inundated with letters from residents disappointed the service was removed. Caulfield resident Susan Kowadlo said she used it for many years and never became ill. “Adult gardeners are quite capable of using their own judgment in deciding if they choose to use this service,” Ms Kowadlo said.

Cr Esakoff said there was “no current proposal to relocate the facility”. “The shed itself and its future use have not yet been determined, and the shed is currently empty,” Cr Esakoff said.

A number of councils offer residents free mulch, including Port Phillip, Hume and Moreland.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Move it, don’t bury it

I have been using this service for years and never got sick. If there’s demand for the mulch then the turnover will minimise any hazard. Furthermore it is little different to kids playing in mulch around council trees or in their own garden. Put the pile somewhere else if need be, but let this valuable service continue.

Risk to children

As a mum of a baby and a toddler living within 200m of Glen Huntly reserve, I am so pleased with the council’s decision. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for free mulch for the community, but not next to a children’s playground and school!

Since the facility was erected I have mostly taken my kids to other playgrounds, which has been such a shame, given Glen Huntly park is by far the closest, and with great equipment for little ones. Even if there is the most minimal risk of health impacts, why would I expose my children to it?

The rotten, mouldy smell has also often been too much to tolerate. It may be fine for people picking up the mulch for a short time, but certainly not for an hour or so, to give the kids a good play.

Our apologies – but we inadvertently left out a couple of pages from the ‘Frisbee Report’ upload in the previous post. Included in this report was the following email (admitted to) by Lipshutz. It reads:

My son has reported that he and his friends were approached by a council officer on Friday and warned off playing Frisbee in Caulfield Park (the lacrosse oval). I am advised that there is a regular Friday afternoon Frisbee game which is not organised and basically anyone can turn up. I consider it a bit rich to prevent a bunch of kids playing Frisbee. My son says that they play on that oval as all the other ovals are being used for cricket. Could you please look into this for me. were the matter to be reported in The Leader I think we would look a little ridiculous.”

The same report went on to state: “The Frisbee group is a highly organised group who are regularly using Council facilities without a Council allocation and without proper authorisation…….. If members of the Frisbee group continue their unauthorised use of Council facilities then Council should issue warnings and Infringements if required.”