Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre in City Hall, 30 Gheringhap Street, Geelong on 23 May 2017, commencing at 6:30pm.
John Orchard
Markus Tschech
Hilary Hoevenaars
Lyn Dowling
Tracey Stone
Pat Seiler
Jan Laidlaw
Dorothy Trezise
Jacqui Bennett
Robert Hamilton-Jones
Ray Box
Brian McGlade
Yvonne Berry
Ron Nelson
Sandra Gatehouse
Mandy Bridges
Phil Joyce
Colin Bridges
Graham Hobbs and Ulrike Wurth
Notice of Motion - Review of the City of Greater Geelong Library Network
L Gardner (Acting Chair), P Dorling.
K Spiller (Chief Executive Officer)
P Bettess (Director Manager Planning and Development)
B Luxford (Director Investment & Attraction)
W Tieppo (Director City Services)
L Quinn (Director Community Life)
J Moloney (Director Finance and Strategy)
A Keen (Executive Manager People and Organisational Development)
G Russell (Manager Communication and Marketing)
R Leonard (Senior Manager Legal Services & Governance)
The Acting Chair declared the meeting open at 6:30pm.
Council acknowledges Wadawurrung Traditional Owners of this land and all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People who are part of the Greater Geelong community today.
On behalf of the Greater Geelong City Council and the Geelong Community, Acting Chair, Laurinda Gardner, sent a message of support to the City of Manchester, its people and all those affected by today’s tragic events. Our thoughts are with them.
Dr Kathy Alexander (Chair)
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 26 April 2017 be confirmed.
Carried.
[Back to Top]Nil.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded –
That Council consider a Notice of Motion in relation to the Review of the Library Network at the conclusion of Question Time.
Carried.
Question Time is an opportunity for questions to be addressed to Council and while the minutes record the general content, they do not purport to be a transcript of what was said by individuals. Likewise, the Interim Administrator or Officer verbal responses are in summary form only. Views expressed may not be the views of Council.
Council's practice is to provide a separate document on its website setting out questions and responses including any more detailed written responses which may be provided subsequent to the meeting.
The Acting Chair indicated that Council had received a large number of questions prior to this evening’s meeting, including sixteen relating to the Review of the Library Network. As a result, it is unlikely that there will be time to receive further questions from the floor.
John Orchard asked:
How does Council reconcile the proposed amendment with the clear strategic objectives for the renewal and intensification of development in Central Geelong?
What consideration has Council given to the implications of the proposed amendment for the future use and development of the land?
What has occurred since 1991 to warrant upgrading the land from the “C” grading in the Geelong urban Conservation Study?
Laurinda Gardner responded the question will be addressed during debate of Agenda Item 2.
Markus Tschech asked the following in relation to Amendment C359:
Council is currently working on new planning initiatives, including the Revitalising Central Geelong Partnership and Enterprise Geelong, to encourage economic investment in the Geelong CBD. Does the proposed heritage protection assess the impact on how strategic development will be delivered within the Geelong CBD area?
As part of the heritage review, how does Council see heritage protection being balanced against the Activity Centre Zone and strategic development potential of the Geelong CBD?
How does Council reconcile heritage protection to the land at 44 Ryrie Street, when there is an existing planning permit for a 12 storey office building?
Laurinda Gardner responded the question will be addressed during debate of Agenda Item 2.
The following questions were asked in relation to the Review of the Library Network and will be responded to in writing. Council’s Question Time document containing both questions and responses will also be available online.
Hilary Hoevenaars asked :
Given the lack of consultation with the communities directly affected by your decision, and your apparent lack of understanding of the true value of our library to our community;
Given the decision has been based on flawed reviews and mis-represented viability figures which do not use the current Australian Guidelines for Reviewing Public Libraries;
Given Chilwell Library is among the most cost efficient in the region, using only 1% of the total GRLC budget to service 5% of the community;
Given that if Chilwell Library closes, the cost savings to GRLC’s budget will be minimal, but the cost to the community (as measured by the current Australian Guidelines for Libraries) will be incalculable;
Given Chilwell Library beautifully supports the Council’s own municipal Health and Wellbeing Plan’s pillars of Social Connectedness and Physical Activity, social determinants of health easily measured in health dollars;
Given that Newtown residents pay some of the highest rates of the region simply because of the high property values which are directly related to the suburb’s amenity and close proximity to local services such as our much loved library;
Given close proximity to services is in line with broader government initiatives to reduce reliance on transport, roads, energy consumption and carbon emissions;
Given the reliance of 100+ pre schoolers and 700+ primary school students on Chilwell’s librarian and resources within walking distance of their homes and schools;
Given your interest in social equity and universally applied economic rationalisation and with Geelong West retaining its own library, which is closest to the new City library at only 1.5km and serves a population 2/3 that of Newtown, and in light of both the support we have received from our local State member, Christine Couzens, and the enormous public outcry regarding your decision to close Chilwell Library, without any prior consultation with the community most affected, will you now rescind this motion and allow the newly elected Council to consider this issue, after appropriate community consultation, and if not, why not?
Lyn Dowling asked:
The community has been told that the Chilwell Library is not economic or cost effective and yet the Council’s own figure show that the Chilwell Library serves nearly 5% or (9682 residents, of the whole population of the City of Greater Geelong with (210,000 residents), yet operates with less than 1% or $109,748 of the Geelong Regional Library budget of approximately $10million. Further, the three libraries set to be closed serve close to 14% of the whole population of the City of Greater Geelong, yet only cost 3% or $299,673 of the library budget. The relatively “minor savings” achieved by the City of Greater Geelong in closing the Chilwell Library will not compensate the Chilwell/Newtown community for the hurt and damage to our current and future communities and it will not help all the residents and the many thousands of children at the five kindergartens, 7 primary schools and three very large secondary schools in Chilwell/Newtown to fully participate in their education and being part of a “Clever and Creative” city.
Given the very low operating cost of the Chilwell Library at $109,748 why does the City of Greater Geelong refer to the Chilwell Library (and two others) as being uneconomic and not cost effective?
If the Geelong Regional Library Corporation were to apply universal economic rationalisation in this area, why has it not recommended that the Queenscliff library serving 3069 residents be closed? I submit that the Administrators have been significantly mislead by inadequate financial advice from the Geelong Regional Library Corporation and, as such, the basis for this recommendation was seriously flawed.
Tracey Stone asked that the GRLC, in their recommendations to COGG, failed to evaluate the Chilwell library against current national guidelines for reviewing Australian Public Libraries, which emphases measuring outcomes and impacts on people’s lives, rather than merely outputs (loans, visits).
Why have these evidence-based standards been ignored? The Chilwell library delivers direct outcomes for our children:
Early childhood literacy foundations are built in this library for:
Newborns: Group sessions for “New mothers” held by the librarian promoting vital reading to babies
Story time every Tuesday to 25-30 preschool children
Convenient access for my family to read together, in line with the “1000 books before school” campaign Accessing other libraries is NOT always possible with small children particularly for grandparents. Chilwell library provides a hub, close to home, to interact with our community. It’s free, kid friendly, safe and next door to the park. Where else in Chilwell meets these needs and delivers these outcomes?
Libraries are increasingly developing partnerships with education organisations to leverage resources and broaden accessibility again highlighted in these standards. Chilwell library has a long-standing partnership with Chilwell Primary School. How will students continue with their regular class excursions, access to resources in line with The Premiers’ Reading Challenge and ensure Chilwell Primary continues to deliver good quality educational outcomes?
Pati Seiler asked the following questions in relation to the Library closures.
Newtown is a growing, high-density residential area which attracts premium property prices, because of the suburb’s amenity and proximity to local services, such as our much loved Chilwell Library. Residents pay some of the highest rates in the region due to this amenity. More high density development is slated for the area. Why would residents continue to pay these higher rates if you remove facilities such as their only remaining community hub and library?
Planning for development in Newtown is consistent with broader government initiatives to encourage higher density living close to urban centres to reduce reliance on transport, roads, energy consumption and carbon emissions. It defeats the purpose (and reduces the attractiveness of this type of living) if inner urban residents are forced to hop on a bus or in their car to use a library. (300m walk from two primary schools to library, 200m from Bond Street Kindergarten). How is your proposed closure of Chilwell Library in line with best practice urban planning?
Jan Laidlaw asked the following in relation to the Library closures:
On the ‘Your Say’ section on the Council website, there is a survey about the Domestic Animal Management Plan. Time for responses to this survey has been extended to a four week period, due to strong community interest. Given the huge community interest in the close of the Chilwell, Highton and Barwon Heads Libraries, why hasn’t the closing date for Council’s current library survey been extended?
Fifteen of the twenty-three questions on the Domestic Animal survey are along the lines of how can we encourage people, do you have feedback, any ideas that can help, what can we do. Previous library surveys carried out by the Geelong Regional Library Corporation have been totally lacking in any questions genuinely seeking community input. Why is the current Council Library Survey so lacking in any questions that genuinely seek community input?
No genuine community consultation was done prior to Council making the decision to close the three libraries. Why was it decided to have totally inadequate community consultation after Council made the decision, rather than before?
Dorothy Trezise asked :
How will the closure of the Chilwell Library support the first choice of the assembly – a vision for a clever, creative city and region – when the local means for this are taken away?
In what way does the closure of the Chilwell Library support the vision of a caring city and a lifestyle city and region for the next 30 years?
Jacqui Bennett asked how can you propose to close the viable Highton Library when it is used by so many, including the five local primary schools and three kindergartens, who walk their students to it in order to gain an appreciation of books, the values of a library and library membership?
Robert Hamilton-Jones asked:
Geelong is currently transitioning from a manufacturing hub to industries such as search and innovation. Indeed one of the five priorities of the City of Greater Geelong’s current “City Plan” is to foster ‘A prosperous and innovative Geelong’. How is this pivot towards the so-called knowledge economy compatible with the proposal to close the public library in Highton, especially when the suburb’s population grew 11.5% in the five years to 2016. Surely instead of closing, the library needs modernising so it can provide a 21st century ‘knowledge centre’ for more than 18,000 residents, plus several local educational institutions?
Ray Box submitted two questions but was not present at the Meeting. A written response will be forwarded.
Brian McGlade as the area has been rezoned medium density and with major development in the Barrabool Hills, the library should be expanded, not closed. Your own figures show the need for a library and they meet the KPI. You are unelected officials making decisions without consulting the impacted community.
Yvonne Berry submitted two questions but was not present at the Meeting.
A written response will be forwarded.
Ron Nelson asked:
Why did the Administrators decide to close the Highton Library by saying it does not meet 21st century needs when the recently published Highton urban Design Framework recommends upgrading the library to meet 21st century.
Why have the Administrator’s chosen to close the Highton Library sighting poor figures when recent figures suggest that the Highton Library meets all KPI’s set by the GRLC.
The GRLC has put out a leaflet suggesting people in the Highton community catch the number 16 bus to either Belmont or Waurn Ponds. Do the Administrator’s know that bus 16 does not exist?
Highton Library is earmarked for closure on the basis that libraries are more needed in growth areas like Leopold and Armstrong Creek. Highton has a resident population of 16,000 and growing compared to 11,000. Council is even opening a new child care facility within 500 metres of the Highton Library. With hundreds of children to attend the new childcare centre, where will they go for their knowledge hub?
Sandra Gatehouse asked:
As you are aware the Barwon Heads community is a strong community. The process the Barwon Heads Library has strengthened us and given us an opportunity to meet and share the values we all have, and talk about why we have chosen to live in our coastal village. We note the amount of money being allocated to sporting clubs in the budget; and ask why there isn’t any value given to the fact that young and old can walk/ride to our local library, and that the community obviously values having this resource. We have over 1,200 signatures on our petitions to keep the lib ray open and this list is growing each day. We have not been involved in the decision making process to close the library; we have not been listened to and our contribution has not been taken into account. We are now being bombarded with conflicting messaging from the Council and the Library Corporation, and a useless survey, which is confusing to many.
Why is there a 5 page questionnaire on line with no opportunity to comment, and a 9 page version when we go into the library and ask them to print it? Coupled with the fact the library is actually closed for painting and refurbishment for a few weeks, our community has had enough. We request that all this messaging and patronising instruction now ceases until after the June 27th Council meeting so that we can have further constructive discussion about the future of library services in Barwon Heads.
Mandy Bridges asked:
Council's Community Engagement Policy in its City Plan states that Council recognizes "that effective community engagement enables Council to best meet the needs of the community by ensuring that planning and decision making is based on an understanding of the needs and aspirations of the community". It further states that the objectives of community engagement are to facilitate an exchange of ideas and information and that Council believes that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision making process. Why did the Council fail to follow its own policy when it decided to close the Barwon Heads, Chilwell and Highton libraries?
Phil Joyce – President Chilwell Primary School addressed Council as follows:
As highlighted on the City of Greater GRLC website, the Chilwell Library has a long and close history with Chilwell Primary School and other local primary schools. Chilwell Library provides support for class visits and events including book week events, library tours, study and free reading and access to an excellent collection focused on the educational need of primary school students. Chilwell primary School students use the library space for presentations, art exhibitions and club meetings. Indeed, with approximately 900 primary school students able to access the Chilwell Library within the area, the impact of student outcomes cannot be underestimated. Students at all levels of Chilwell Primary School undertake walking visits to the Chilwell Library during the year. This provides students with access to a resource that will underpin their education and learning for the rest of their lives. Moreover, teaching staff at Chilwell primary schools staff use the resources of the library to expand the educational horizons of the students and provide a culture of knowledge and community.
Therefore, as School President and on behalf of Chilwell Primary School, we respectfully ask:
Has the City of Greater Geelong proposed closure of the Chilwell Library taken into account the increased resources (financial, management and environmental) to Chilwell Primary School in transporting large groups of students, multiple times during the year to other libraries within the area? If so, can the City of Greater Geelong provide details of their plans and strategies to tackle this issue by providing resources to Chilwell Primary School?
Has the City of Greater Geelong proposed closure of the Chilwell Library taken into account the reduced local access to educational resources and events (book week events, library tours, study and free reading) by Chilwell Primary School students now that this proposed closure will require students to travel to alternative sites? If so, can the City of Greater Geelong provide details of their plans and strategies to tackle this issue by providing resources to Chilwell Primary School to maintain their current level of library usage into the future years?
Colin Bridges asked:
The Administrators have informed library members that “libraries are essentially a district level service for broader groups rather than local services”. Council has also stated that it understands the value libraries play as a community meeting space and that social connectivity cannot be valued in numbers and statistics. If past democratically elected Councils have had the foresight to establish and maintain for many years a policy of providing smaller diversified library services at a local level more readily accessible to less mobile residents, why is it right or acceptable for a temporary administration to change such policy shortly before it ceases office?
Graham Hobbs and Ulrike Wurth, as Highton residents, ratepayers and business proprietors in Barrabool Road, Highton since 1979 for 32 years (now a retired lawyer and veterinary surgeon respectively), my wife and I have witnessed the growing population and full primary schools (Bellaire, Highton, Montpellier and Belmont) all four situate within 1.5 kilometers of the library, major influx of young families, substantial subdivision still continuing and growth of the Highton community and Highton Village.
There has been a constant population growth in Highton, as per the following census figures: 2001 (11902), 2006 (14494), 2011 (15961), 2016 (18265).
There has been a 14.44% increment in five years, plus an increasing need to provide a convenient ratepayers public information source for the youth and older residents in the growing Highton community centre.
Accordingly, with this constant and projected growth in residents and ratepayers in Highton:
Why is the Highton Community Library proposed to close?
Ron Nelson presented a petition from approximately 2,500 concerned residents objecting to the closure of the Highton Library.
Mandy Bridges presented a petition containing approximately 1,340 signatures from concerned residents objecting to the closure of the Barwon Heads Library.
Hilary Hoevenaars presented a petition containing 2,392 signatures from residents and users asking Council to reverse its decision to close the Chilwell Library.
Administrator’s Response to Questions about the Review of the Library Network and Introduction to Notice of Motion by Laurinda Gardner:
Since our decision regarding the closure of the Chilwell, Highton and Barwon Heads Libraries at the April Council Meeting we have been impressed by the commitment and attachment of each of these communities to their local libraries.
We have been listening to the views of the affected communities, through email, in-person conversation and public meetings.
What we have heard is that people are concerned about:
Insufficient community consultation;
Administrators making this decision not elected representatives;
The value of local libraries as social and community hubs;
Inconsistency with the recently determined ‘clever and creative’ vision;
A growing population in general who need more libraries, not less.
The Commission of Inquiry report on the City of Greater Geelong had a number of findings. Prominent amongst these was the lack of a long term vision for the future of the municipality, and the consequent use of that vision to drive resource allocation decisions.
There is however a long term strategic vision for libraries, already established by the Council and GRLC. The vision is for a series of 21st century facilities provided at district level, providing equitable access to book collections, internet access, research services, etc across the municipality.
Repeated strategic reviews since 1999 have shown Chilwell, Highton and Barwon Heads Library branches as being the least used and having the smallest membership.
At present there is an inequitable geographic and service level distribution for libraries across the City of Greater Geelong. The construction of a new library has commenced at Leopold and planning is underway for upgraded or new facilities at Corio, Drysdale and Armstrong Creek. Therefore, our commitment to libraries and the value they contribute to a clever, creative and connected community is not reducing.
We continue to be committed to working with communities to design new service delivery arrangements which encompass the ancillary benefits of local libraries that people have reported, such as social gathering places within walking distance.
Our approach to engaging with the Chilwell, Highton and Barwon Heads communities will be strengthened and we will work with local representatives on how to co-design new models of service delivery. These models could for example include reconfiguration of the existing library buildings, transport support, visiting library services, and expanded operations of nearby other Council facilities.
As a first step we will be considering a Notice of Motion tonight to extend the original finish date for Highton and Chilwell to end of September in line with Barwon Heads.
Source: |
Investment and Attraction / Arts & Culture |
Director: |
Brett Luxford |
Index Reference: |
SUB-16-1219 : Geelong Regional Library Corporation |
At the Ordinary Council meeting on 26 April 2017, Council passed the following resolution:
That Council:
note the advice and resolution of the Geelong Regional Library Corporation from its meeting on 3 April 2017;
cease to provide a library branch at Chilwell, Highton and Barwon Heads in accordance with the Strategic Review findings;
close the Chilwell and Highton branches of the Geelong Regional Library Corporation by 30 June 2017;
continue to operate the Barwon Heads branch until 30 September 2017 to allow time for consultation with the community to identify appropriate community space(s) and/or support(s) required to meet and connect;
commence a consultation and communication process to identify suitable transition and support arrangements for continuing access to City of Greater Geelong library services and identify any additional supports required;
determine the City of Greater Geelong’s financial contribution to the GRLC for 2017/18 at a 2% increase or $186,000;
allocate an additional $15,000 in the 2017/18 budget to allow for the additional three (3) months of operation of the Barwon Heads Library.
Following this decision, work has commenced on consulting with each of the affected communities in relation to the suitable transition and support arrangements.
The communities of Chilwell and Highton have both highlighted the concern over the short period allocated for consultation.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That further to Council’s resolution made at its Ordinary Meeting held on 26 April 2017 to close the Chilwell and Highton branches of the Geelong Regional Library Corporation on 30 June 2017, the closure is extended to 30 September 2017 to allow suitable time for consultation with these impacted communities and ensure support arrangements are in place to allow these communities to transition to a new service model.
Carried.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
