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 25 June 2019, commencing at 7:00pm.
Michael Dickinson and Jim Haigh
Amanda Fitzgerald
Sarah Roberts
Dean Smith
Mark Spronken
Councillors:
P Murrihy (Acting Mayor)
A Aitken
S Asher
E Kontelj
S Mansfield
J Mason
P Murnane
R Nelson
T Sullivan
M Cutter (Chief Executive Officer)
B Luxford (Director Economy, Investment and Attraction)
G Smith (Director Planning, Design and Development)
G Wilson-Browne (Director City Services)
M Dugina (Director Customer and Corporate Services)
R Stevens (Director Community Life)
R Leonard (Acting Director Governance, Strategy and Performance)
The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7:00pm.
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.
Councillor Peter Murrihy (Acting Mayor), on behalf of the Councillors, Management and staff of the Greater Geelong City Council acknowledged the retirement of Mike Kelly (Manager Financial Services).
Mike is known for this commitment and dedication to managing the City’s finances. He has been able to ensure the City has maintained a stable financial position during a period of significant change. The financial integrity of reporting delivered by Mike and his team has been exemplary. During this time he has delivered 20 annual organisational budgets, all with the traits of consistency, prudency and accuracy.
The City wishes Mike all the best for his future endeavours.
Councillor K Grzybek, Councillor Harwood (Mayor) – (Leave of Absence).
Councillor Sullivan moved, Councillor Asher seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 28 May 2019 be confirmed.
Carried.
Nil.
Michael Dickinson and Jim Haigh submitted questions prior to the Council Meeting and will be responded to in writing.
Amanda Fitzgerald addressed Council as follows regarding the 5G Wireless Network:
Is the City of Greater Geelong aware of the 5G wireless network rollout currently happening in Geelong West and Norlane?
Although ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) admit that there are gaps in the knowledge of 5G, that the radiation will be absorbed into human tissue, and that they cannot guarantee 5G to be safe, why are we still set to be the human guinea pigs in this trial?
Who can I (and the many other concerned residents of Geelong) work with within the Council to apply the precautionary principal so we can place a halt on the roll out until further, truly independent testing can be done to ensure our community is safe?
Councillor Murrihy noted Ms Fitzgerald’s concerns regarding such technology and advised he had checked with Council’s planning department who advise that the roll out of the 5G network is controlled by Commonwealth and State Governments, and is not likely to be a planning issue that will directly involve the City of Greater Geelong.
Councillor Murrihy suggested that the query and concerns should be directed to the local state and federal MP’s for their information and attention.
Sarah Roberts asked the following in relation to Council’s budget:
What is Council’s policy on the threshold level of agreement and support that is needed from property owners before you decide to declare the charges?
Councillor Murrihy responded the guidelines say that where Council is contributing the majority of costs, then it may proceed with the scheme despite there being objections.
In the case of Pioneer Road, Council funded over two thirds of the cost and decided to proceed with the scheme. Council assesses each scheme on its merits.
What is Council’s current position on how Part 5 Division 2, 114 (1-4) on page 96 of the Local Government Bill Exposure Draft will impact your upcoming SRC policy review?
Councillor Murrihy advise it is now not clear what the State Government intends to do in relation to Special Rates and Charges.
Information about a proposed Local Government Bill 2019 has been released by the Minister for Local Government last week.
He has advised that as the independent review into the local government rating system will provide its recommendations to government by 31 March 2020, previously proposed changes to the rates and charges provisions in the Local Government Act 1989 will not be introduced in the new Bill.
The provisions relating to rates and charges will continue to operate under the Local Government Act until the rating system review has been completed.
The only exception to this will be that the new Bill will amend the Local Government Act to provide for Environmental Upgrade Agreements to be available to residential properties.
Regarding the construction of the other three footpaths over the past five years noted by the officer, they are unrelated to my submission, as they are over 2.3km away from Grovedale West Primary School, which is at the heart of the 1km radius precinct in my submission. I thank Council for seeking a City Works Footpath and Road Prioritisation report in 2019.
Dean Smith addressed Council as follows in relation to Amendment C372:
Are the current submissions for Amendment C372 null and void due to the proponent changing the development overlay at the 11th hour?
The original traffic study provided by the proponents was conducted during the school holidays with low traffic flow. Then another recent study was also conducted over a long weekend period. Don’t Council think that these studies should have been conducted during normal working days to get a true and correct count of the traffic movement? Shouldn’t these studies be re-done to reflect this?
The way that the proponent has organised the consultation of the development is ridiculous.
sent to residents start of December when everyone is busy
Council meeting then on 11 December when people are busy
public meeting was only a tick and flick event.
There was no presentation given to residents. In a very noisy room full of mad people asking the same questions various times to the same person
now the change in development overly at the 11th hour.
Do you think this is a fair and reasonable way to inform the residents of this proposal?
Councillor Murrihy thanked Mr Smith for his questions and advised the matter will be discussed later in the evening.
Council has to approach its decision making with an open mind to ensure that we act fairly and impartially, in good faith and listen to both sides of the argument that is put to us for consideration.
Because of this, we are happy to have heard your submission and will consider the points made, but cannot provide an answer that prejudges the outcome of the related debate and decision making.
Mark Spronken asked the following regarding Amendment C372:
Is Council happy to adopt the officer’s report when there are still strong objections from VicTrack, EPA, VicRoads, Powercor, Department of Transport and Boral in regards to drainage, noise and air quality pollution?
Why have the proponents offered Council $500,000 to improve Ghazeepore Road when they have stated that there will be no perceptible traffic increase on Ghazeepore Road?
Councillor Murrihy thanked Mr Spronken for his questions and reiterated his previous response in relation to Amendment C372, in that Council will be considering the report later in the evening.
Nil.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
