Council Minutes - Section A: Procedural Matters - 28 November 2017

Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre in City Hall, 57 Little Malop Street, Geelong on 28 November 2017, commencing at 6:30pm.



Present

Councillors:


[Back to Top]

Also present:


[Back to Top]

Opening

The Chair declared the meeting open at 6:30pm.


Acknowledgements

Council acknowledged Wadawurrung Traditional Owners of this land and all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People who are part of the Greater Geelong community today.


Apologies

Nil.


Confirmation of Minutes

Cr Asher moved, Cr Kontelj seconded –

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 10 October 2017 be noted.

Carried.

Cr Mason moved, Cr Grzybek seconded –

That the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 14 November 2017 be confirmed.

Carried.

Cr Grzybek moved, Cr Mason seconded –

That in relation to the Minutes of 25 July, Andrew Keen (Executive Manager People and Organisation Development), be added as being present.

Carried.


[Back to Top]

Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil.


[Back to Top]

Question Time

Helen Freeman asked:

  1. What has been the level of financial support over the past ten years for the maintenance and development of Clifton Springs foreshore?

  2. When will the City of Greater Geelong provide an annual allocation to Bellarine Bayside to ensure that the foreshore continues to contribute to the leisure and tourism industries on the Bellarine Peninsula?

Peter Anderson, Acting Director Finance and Strategy, took the questions on notice for a written response within 14 days.


Janet Danielak asked questions in relation to Cleanaway Waste Services:

  1. How many incidents involving Cleanaway Waste Services have been reported over the last five years and how many residents were satisfied with the outcome?

  2. If the ratepayers pay the City of Greater Geelong rates that includes a levy for waste disposal, why, when a ratepayer reports an incident with a Cleanaway Driver and/or incident involving damage to property. Do the City of Greater Geelong have a law that says the resident must speak to the contractor directly when it is the City of Greater Geelong that has the contract with Cleanaway?

  3. Cleanaway Waste vehicles have four CCTV cameras. How often do the City of Greater Geelong carry out audits to ensure these cameras are operable, i.e. is there a risk management audit?

Guy Wilson-Browne, Director City Services, responded the City has a very comprehensive contract with Cleanaway, and does conduct periodic risk audits. He also added a more detailed written response will be forwarded.

Cr Nelson asked that the information provided to Ms Danielak also be made available to all Councillors.


Judith Brooks asked questions regarding Ozone Road Stormwater Outfill, Barwon Heads:

Is the project likely to be delayed beyond the December completion commitment and if so why? Can you confirm that the top of the outfill will be below the lowest astronomical tide level? Has there been any design variation which will adversely affect the visual and physical amenity to children and adult beach users?

The Mayor advised a written response would be forwarded but offered the following comments:

December deadline is still viable, but more than likely January. The river bed is now 1.0 metre higher than what it was in 2015 when we did the original survey for the design of the project. We need to raise the invert of the pipe by a minimum of 0.7 metres to accommodate the changed river bed levels which will be above the lowest astronomical tide data. The outfall will still be below most low tides and with more sand now over the beach, the outfall will still be low enough to be submerged for the vast majority of time. Approvals will need to be revisited but we are certain of a short turnaround. The contractors are proceeding with works at the new levels whilst approvals are underway.


Sandra Gatehouse asked the following:

The Barwon Heads Association has formed a parking sub-committee comprising local traders and local residents. We invited CoGG and Barwon Coast to join. Barwon Coast has accepted, but CoGG refused. We were disappointed by this. Parking has become an all year problem in Barwon Heads, and is no longer a summer holidays problem. The impact of the growth zones at Armstrong Creek and Ocean Grove is very apparent to all; as well as the significant development in Barwon Heads. (Despite community requests, Council has specifically excluded Parking and Traffic from the Barwon Heads Structure Plan 2017.) We consider that there are a number of immediate changes that could be implemented with little cost - regular enforcement- review and extension of timed parking - review and updating of out of date and poor signage - installation of more bike racks. More medium term actions include:- Consideration and review of the continual waiver of carparking for new developments - how many have been waived- how many more can the town absorb - what are the long term implications of this current practice - should there be a cost per waiver? Consideration of the safety of Hitchcock Avenue, as more developments are built only access is across very busy footpaths. Development of a plan to identify and monitor carparking needs.

Will council please join the Barwon Heads Association Parking sub-committee?

The Mayor responded we welcome the Parking Sub-Committee to provide updates on outcomes and concerns for us to consider. Where practical, we are always looking at opportunities to improve traffic operations. We are actively working with Barwon Heads community group on a number of transport and infrastructure related matters. Many coastal areas are subject to increases in summer population and resulting traffic volumes. This is a challenge we are continually working on to ensure safety is paramount during these influxes. As you may be aware, the Barwon Heads Structure Plan was adopted in August 2017. During the development of the plan we received submissions requesting that an additional traffic and parking assessment to be undertaken. This is not supported as considerable resources have been put into implementing improvements for the town and we will continue monitoring these. At this time we do not foresee any major actions relating to parking.

Guy Wilson-Browne added he was open to a Council officer attending meetings, from time to time, on the Parking Sub-Committee.


Peter Linaker asked:

  1. At the Council Meeting of 20 September I asked if the City would support the Temperance Heritage of Ocean Grove to have liquor permits determined by local referenda, under provisions of the Liquor Commission. The 1887 Covenant is now obsolete.

    Is it normal when not given at Council to later respond in a written document, available to Councillors and ratepayers attached to minutes. Question and replies for September were not available at the October meeting?

  2. Will the Planning Manager explain his response to the question to Council – is it “yes” or “no”.

The Mayor took the questions on notice for a written response.


Ian Kelly asked the following regarding the Geelong Saleyards:

  1. Geelong has had a livestock exchange service in the form of saleyards since 1869, in accordance with the Local Government Act functions of a Council to provide and maintain community infrastructure.

    This service was provided by Council until recent years and is now no longer available. Geelong region farmer are now significantly disadvantaged without a local livestock exchange.

    Will Councillors now reconsider the objectives under the Local Government Act by the development of short term and long term plans for the provision of livestock exchange services?

  2. Do Councillors realise the volume and value of primary production livestock transactions formally transacted in Geelong which now have to be transacted outside the Geelong region due to the lack of a livestock exchange service in Geelong? Based on Meat and Livestock Australia factsheets the 8717 cattle sold through the Geelong Saleyards in 2015-16 equate to feeding 78,000 people in Geelong with beef for a year yielding a value to producers of 8 to 9 million dollars. On top of this the 45,000 sheep sold equates to another 5 to 6 million dollars adding up to over 13 million dollars, a significant contribution to the Geelong economy deserving a local livestock exchange.

The Mayor thanked Mr Kelly for his questions and added the new Council will be continuing discussions and taking further advice on exactly what the position is.

Guy Wilson-Browne added Council has adopted a position on the Saleyards and will be continuing to work in accordance with that resolution.


[Back to Top]

Petitions

Nil.


[Back to Top]

Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports