Council Minutes invent a report

The Minutes of the council meeting on 25 January 2011 state falsely that a report will be issued concerning public health issues associated with the proposed drain in the Central Road area.

The Minutes record correctly that Ms Cheryl Hardy asked councillors whether the council has conducted a study into public health issues associated with the proposed drain in the Central Road area (see 'Councils compel residents to subsidise a developer" [26 January] on this blog). However, the Minutes then record that Mr. David McArthur answered that, 'The report in relation to public health issues will be made available.' This isn't a true record of events. Mr McArthur stated that no such study had been done and so there was no report.

This is another desperate attempt to justify the highly contentious 'Special Charge' of many thousands of dollars that councillors voted unanimously on 25 January to levy on each household in the Central Road area.

Council compels residents to subsidise a developer

City of Greater Geelong councillors voted unanimously last night to compel residents in the Central Road area of Drysdale to subsidise the costs of Melbourne-based property developer Pinnacle Holdings.

This extraordinary decision is the latest stage in an eleven month argument between the council and residents. The council wants the residents to pay $1,149,476 (77%) of the cost of a new drain to service Pinnacle Holdings' planned retirement village in the area. Last night, councillors voted unanimously to levy a 'Special Charge' compelling each household in the area to pay between $2,000 and $250,000 for the Pinnacle Living drain. Just under half the households in the area now face a bill for more than $10,000 each.

The residents - many of them retirees on fixed incomes - have argued that since the drain enables Pinnacle Living to build and profit from its retirement village, Pinnacle Living should pay for it. The council has responded that while the drain's primary purpose is to service the proposed retirement village, its presence will enable nearby residents to sub-divide and sell their properties at a profit - a 'special benefit' as the council calls it. From that perspective, the 'Special Charge' is a way to recoup the cost of the drain from the people who will benefit (profit) from it.

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) has supported local residents in their argument. DCSCA has argued that the councils' position is flawed on two counts:

• The council has guessed how much 'special benefit' (profit) will accrue to local households from the drain's installation. It has admitted that it has no evidence that the subdivision and/or sale of any block of land in the area will even cover the 'Special Charge' levied on the owner of that land, let alone generate any profit.
• The council's guesstimated 'special benefit' is a phantom value. Households gain a 'special benefit' only when they subdivide and/or sell their land. Until then, they gain nothing. In public and private meetings about the proposal, many households in the Central Road area have said that they don't want to subdivide and/or sell their properties, because, 'This is our home, not an asset'.

'Question Time' at the council meetings on 14 December 2010 and 25 January 2011 revealed further flaws in the council's position:

• The council changed the legal basis of its proposed ‘Special Charge’ for households in the Central Road area after it was exhibited for public comment and after councillors were due to discuss it. In Question Time on 14 December 2010, councillors were asked how the proposed 'Special Charge' on households in the Central Road area could proceed, when Section 163B (6.1) of the Local Government Act prevents it from doing so if a majority of landowners object to it (which they do). Officers replied that under Section 163B (6.2) of the Local Government Act, the council can levy a 'Special Charge' to protect public health. That was the first time that the proposed 'Special Charge' had been related to public health. Public health considerations were absent from the documentation about the proposal that was exhibited for public comment; and they were absent from the officers' report on the proposal that councillors were due to discuss at that council meeting on 14 December 2010. Perhaps this is why councillors Richardson and Macdonald acted swiftly at that meeting to ask the council to postpone discussion of the report until the 25 January 2011.
• The council has no evidence to support its claim that the drain is a public health issue. In Question Time on 25 January 2011, councillors were asked whether the council had investigated whether there were any specific risks to public health if the drain wasn't installed. Officers replied that council had conducted no such investigation, but that 'drains and public health often go together'.
• The council changed the operation of its proposed ‘Special Charge’ for households in the Central Road area after it was exhibited for public comment. The council responded to the public outcry over its proposed 'Special Charge' by allowing households to defer payment until they subdivide and/or sell their property. However, if a household decides to defer paying its 'Special Charge', the council will charge it 5% p.a. compound interest. For example, if a household defers a 'Special Charge' of $10,000 for five years, it owes $12,762; and if it defers for ten years, it owes $16,288. Further, the officers' report of 25 January states that that interest will accrue quarterly, not annually, which will increase the debt still further. The deferral option is a major change in the council's ‘Special Charge’ policy and sets a precedent for the future operation of that scheme; and the council introduced it after it exhibited the original proposal for public scrutiny and comment. Nonetheless, it has refused to exhibit an amended version of the original proposal that includes the deferral option. In Question Time on 14 December 2010 and on 25 January 2011, councillors were asked why the council wasn't seeking public comment on this change of policy; on each occasion, officers replied that it wasn't a change of policy, so council didn't need to seek public comment on it.
• The council has entered a legal agreement to share the drain's cost without budgeting for it. In Question Time on 14 December 2010, councillors were asked whether and how the council has budgeted for its (legally binding) share of the cost of the drain. Officers and councillors replied that there isn't a specific budget item for this cost. Instead, the council intends to pay for it with a loan, then levy the 'Special Charge' to get landowners to pay off that loan and any associated interest.
• The council doesn't know how it will recover any money outstanding from deferred 'Special Charges'. Under the deferral option, when the council is due to pay its share of the drain's cost (in five years), it may not have received all the money that the 'Special Charge' is meant to deliver. In Question Time on 25 January 2011, councillors were asked how the council intended to raise the outstanding amount. Officers replied that the council had no idea how it would do so.
  

Festival of Glass web site goes 'live'!

The web site of the inaugural annual Festival of Glass has just gone 'live', to cheers and merry-making across the wonderful world of glass!

The Festival - an initiative of the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association - happens at Drysdale's Potato Shed on February 20 2011 from 10.00 - 5.00. (For the background to the Festival, please use this blog's 'Search' function to look for [you guessed!] 'Festival of Glass'.)

Until now, the Festival's online presence has taken the form of a blog, which keeps people up-to-date with the preparations for the Festival:
http://festivalofglass.blogspot.com

The web site address is:
https://sites.google.com/site/afestivalofglass/
The Festival web site complements the blog, because it draws together all the information that exhibitors and visitors need. It also includes a rolling gallery of some of the exhibits from the Festival, giving a taste of the extraordinary diversity - and the amazing skills - that will be on display on the day. It's worth visiting the gallery more than once, because as new exhibitors sign-up to the Festival, samples of their work will be added to the gallery.

Now you see a proposal ...now you don't!

City of Greater Geelong councillors have moved swiftly to avoid discussing a controversial proposal to change the council's Special Charge scheme without public consultation.

At a council meeting on December 14, councillors were due to discuss an officers' report recommending that landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs should be allowed to defer paying a 'special charge' for a new drain ... but at a cost of 5% p.a. interest. (See 'Giving with one hand, but taking away with the other' on this blog [14 December 2010].)

At that meeting, exchanges during 'Question Time' revealed three things about the officers' recommendation:
1. CoGG has entered a legal agreement without having budgeted for the cost
CoGG has entered a legal agreement with Pinnacle Living (the company that wants to build a retirement village in Central Road and needs a new drain to do so) to pay 75% share of the $1.5m cost of the drain. It hasn’t budgeted for this expense, so it intends to pay for it with a loan. It then intends to get landowners to pay off that loan plus 5% p.a. compound interest. (This would mean that a household currently facing a ‘special charge’ of $78,p000 will, after ten years, face a bill for $127,000.)

2. CoGG has changed the legal basis of its proposed ‘special charge’ for Central Road
CoGG is asserting that despite Section 163B (6.1) of the Local Government Act preventing it from proceeding with the ‘special charge’ because a majority of landowners in Central Road have objected to it, it can still proceed because Section 163B (6.2) of the Act enables it do so if a drain is required to safeguard public health. In all the reports, etc. concerning this proposal, public health has never been mentioned as a reason for proposing it; and the recommendations in the officers’ report to last night’s meeting include the following: ‘Construction of the main drain is required for the orderly, proper and safe development of the Central Road properties within the drainage catchment.’ (Recommendation B[d], p25). Where was the concern with public health when those recommendations were written?

'Public health' emerged as the rationale for the scheme soon after local landowners claimed that the scheme couldn't proceed in the face of majority opposition - as set out in Section 163B (6.1) of the Local Government Act.

3. CoGG is considering changing its 'special charges' policy without consulting the public
The proposal to institute the ‘deferred payment’ (at 5% p.a.) around the Central Road ‘special charge’ scheme sets a precedent for the operation of the ‘special charge’ scheme across the whole Council. Nonetheless, the report recommends that the council should introduce this change, despite the fact that it hasn’t been published for public scrutiny and comment. Officers stated that this was permissable because the proposal was a 'variation' to an existing policy, not a new policy.

When council reached the Central Road item on the agenda, Cllr. Andy Richards – who was formally proposing it – immediately proposed that the matter be deferred until the next council meeting (25 January 2011). Cllr. Rod Macdonald seconded the proposal. There was immediate agreement and council moved swiftly to the next item. To an outside observer, it appeared as though councillors and officers had decided – in their ‘pre-meeting meeting’ - that this item needed to be looked at again.

A final note on council procedure. An internal council Submissions Panel met earlier this year to consider objections to the Central Road ‘special charges’. The chair of that Panel, Cllr. Jan Farrell, told everyone there that objectors would receive notice of when the council would consider the Panel’s report. Landowners in Central Road have received no such notice. So if they hadn’t noticed the item on the agenda when it was published on the Friday preceeding the council meeting, they would have had no chance to question the legality of the proposal as they did last night.