Budget Snapshot

• Rates income up 5%
• Staff expenditure up  $6.8M (9%) on 2020 
• Cash Surplus $50M+
• Record Project Spending $82M 

Read the full budget here:
Stonnington Draft Budget 2021/22
https://www.connectstonnington.vic.gov.au/draftbudget2021

Do you wish to make a submission?
Written submissions will be accepted up to 5pm, Thursday 20 May and can be made:
https://www.asr2.com/stonnington/survey/Draft202122Budget.aspx?ver=1076915206
Or via email to finance@stonnington.vic.gov.au

What are "Services"? 
Council spends around $90M on "services"
When we categorise the spend based on external benefit to the resident vs benefit to the internal corporation of Council we see the TRUE spend on services that impact where we live (the lived experience)
The data shows us that Council only spends $51M on actual services that benefit you. That's only 25% of income actually being spent on YOU.

Staffing Costs
What strikes us about this budget is the enormous increase in staff costs from last year. This year is an about $6M increase in costs to $75.6M or 60% of all rates.
Where have those staff been increased?
Largely in the "Executive Leadership Team" which has seen a massive upswing in salary costs and also in "Special Projects" which has boosted numbers to hire more staff for projects and shift the cost to the actual project.
It appears that the ballooning staff costs deliver little if any increase in actual services to residents. 

Key Spends on "Services"
The following are items that we believe are included in the services spend that deliver little value to the community and should be reigned in or made more cost-effective.
$3.3 Million on Economic Development - a significant spend and Council can not articulate what this money is spent on. We have asked for minutes of the economic development committee for months - Council has not responded.
$1.2 Million on Environment Policy - again Council can't seem to articulate what this spend actually delivers
$3.2 Million on Communications - a significant spend on marketing, advertising and associated staffing costs to "communicate to the community". We would argue here that Council has a long history of poor communication and engagement, so what value is this function delivering to the community? This appears to be a large amount of money spent on "internal works".
$2.6M on organisational development - this is an internal cost to run the business and does not directly provide any service to the community. This is a large amount of money for a comparable staff-sized organisation in the private sector. This should be included in staff costs.
$3.6M on Risk Management - again a cost of business and appears internal in value and focus.
Councillors and Executives - $7.2M. Given Councillors receive a collective pool of about $400,000 - there is around $6.8M in Executive Salaries and expense here. A significant increase on the past years. Our view is that the organisation is now top-heavy and layered by the CEO with a lot more expense than before with no public benchmarks or KPI's to demonstrate any value for money.
Asset Management & Planning - $2.5M. This is the department that essentially works out the life cycle of council assets and public infrastructure and organises repairs, maintenance and the like. It seems a considerable expense with no demonstration of efficiency. 

​Projects Planned
Major projects planned in this budget are outlined in our article "Major Projects Planned"..

Council Revenue 

• Rates $126M
• Fees & Fines $20.8M
• User Fees $21.7M
• Grants $16.8M
• Loans $10M
• Other $6M
• Total funding $202.7M

Council Expenses

• Staff $75.6M
• Materials/services $63.9M
• Depreciation $20.6M *
• Other $11.3
• Total expenses $171.6M

Budget Feedback
Stonnington Council has a budget submission process that is difficult to navigate, so we have designed our own short form that you can complete and we will send to them for you. Please complete the BUDGET FEEDBACK FORM by clicking the link below..
https://www.stonningtonrp.com/budgetfeedback

The following are projects planned in this budget that are of significant dollar expense. We will give an explanation of benefits to the community with each.

Vehicle replacement
These are replacing council-owned vehicles and include cars, utility vehicles, and trucks as needed. There is no information on the number of vehicles and life cycle management. $2.1M is a significant cost, there could be savings here. 

Technology Replacement & Digital Transformation
There are costs of $2.1M to replace computers, laptops and staff IT equipment. When you combine this with the Digital Strategy Costs of $8.29M, Council is spending $11M or 9% of its annual rates on these items. This is significant and there has been no public business case or proof of value. The public deserves to see the business case and long-term savings and efficiency that this proposed spend would deliver. 

Local Road Resurfacing
This spend is a welcome improvement at $2M but it is still only 1.5% of the council's rates income. We believe move investment is needed here annually. 

Chapel St Redesign
This item is more misguided spending. Over the last 5 years, this Council has spent in excess of $80M on the area. $70M on Prahran Square and over $10M on street and footpath improvement works and the like. We accept there is always more to do in Chapel Street but spending another $3.2M on a "new design" will not improve the safety, cleanliness, social issues that continue to be ignored. We remain concerned that this spending is simply more waste that will lead to poor outcomes. 

Percy Treyvaud Masterplan
This is a controversial issue. The whole project is expected to be $46M at this stage. This year's spend of $7M reflects 5.5% of rates income. It is high. Over the last 5 years, Council has spruiked that this project is desperately needed. There is still no business case. The entire premise of this spend rests on the following equation.
 "The average number of netball/basketball courts metro councils have is about 1 per 1800 persons. Stonnington's population is 120,000 - therefore we need "X" number of courts and are roughly 14 courts short". There is no evidence that ANY kids in Stonnington are unable to play highball sports, rather, there are almost 50 courts right on Stonnington's boundaries with Boroondara, Monash, Glen Eira, Yarra, etc. This spending continues to be a political issue.

Upgrade Car Park Systems
At $1.2M this is a significant spend. Most of Councils carparks are outsourced. Perhaps this is wasteful as Council has not included the ongoing improvements as a cost to the actual car park contractors. 

Footpaths
At $1.4M  and only 1% of Council rates revenue, we believe this spend needs to be significantly increased annually. 

Budget Feedback
Stonnington Council has a budget submission process that is difficult to navigate, so we have designed our own short form that you can complete and we will send to them for you. Please complete the BUDGET FEEDBACK FORM by clicking the link below..
https://www.stonningtonrp.com/budgetfeedback

Did you know the ball with which one bowls in lawn bowls is “biased”. This means one side is flattened. As if life isn't hard enough!

The nuance of the physics in this distributed weight anomaly is beyond this author. But the result is that the bowl follows a curved horizontal trajectory when rolled, something like the curve of a banana laying down. 

Could it be that the inventor of bowls always bowled off to one side and so invented a non-spherical ball (termed bowl) to compensate? Subsequently, all those that followed had to deal with this. The ever dependable Encyclopedia Britannica informed me that a form of bowls was played in ancient Egypt. Moving forward a millennia or two, the ruling body of today's form of lawn bowls - the International Bowling Board - was founded in 1905. 

But back to the balls, or in this case the bowls. The concept of a biased bowl leaves this author somewhat discombobulated. Can you imagine the same physics being applied to ten pin bowling? The lanes would have to be three times wider. What about playing golf with a ball that is biased. One spends too much time looking for a ball the size of your eye as it is - whereas in squash one spends time avoiding being hit in the eye with a ball just the right size to replace it.

Some counties in England play a variation named Crown Green Bowls. In this version, a square area with a raised hump (aka crown) is located in the centre 

of the green. If that doesn’t add sufficient challenge, the surface of the green can also be uneven – just for a little more random excitement. At least here in AUS our greens are flat, true and generally surfaced with beautifully manicured grass or Astro turf. I must say the latter sounds a little like something the Jetsons would be using to play this game.

Whatever they were thinking (or drinking) when the governing body decided the rules, the result is a sport which is not only highly enjoyable but also very social. I tried my luck at bowls as did my children. We found ourselves engaged in what was for us initially a game of chance, largely due to the fact we had no skill in this discipline. But it was great fun from the first bowl to the last. And social! I cannot think of another ball game where one can equally enjoy the social aspect throughout the experience as well as the sporting competition.

All in all, can I recommend bowls to others? You bet! Would I recommend bowls as a family activity? You bet! So armed with this considered research, why not pick up the phone, call your local Malvern Bowling Club on 9509 2004.and give the casual “Barefoot Bowls” a try.

Location: 14 Coonil Crescent, Malvern VIC 3144
Website: http://malvernbowls.com.au/contact

Ratepayers Associations: a good idea back in 1888 and a good idea now

It’s Sat 21 Jan 1888 and we're reading The Sydney Morning Herald:
A fairly well attended meeting of the ratepayers of the borough of Randwick was held in the Town Hall, Randwick, last evening for the purpose of taking steps to form a ratepayers' association within the borough. Mr. P. R. Larkin, in the absence of Mr. B. Hogan, was voted to the chair. An apology was received from Mr. Alfred Allen, M.L.A., regretting his inability to be present. Mr. George Gale was called on to move the first resolution, and in doing so said he believed that such an association as it was proposed to organise would result in a great amount of good to the borough, as it would lighten the amount of work to be done by the aldermen, and would naturally assist them in the discharge of their duties. Its existence would strengthen the hands of the council, and would have the effect of causing the money of the municipality to be rightly handled and fairly distributed. He hoped that the operations of the association would at no time grate against the feelings of the aldermen, but that the council and the association would work in harmony with each other. He concluded by proposing "That a Ratepayers Association he formed," which was seconded by Mr. Isaac Hodgson, and supported by Messrs. George Wall and George Young (Balmain), and carried without dissent.

The meeting then resolved itself into a committee of the whole to discuss rules, a code of which was unanimously adopted. The public meeting was subsequently resumed and the election of officers proceeded with which resulted as follows:-President, P. R. Larkin; vice-president, James Middleton; treasurer, John Maynard ; secretary, D. A Thomas; committee, Messrs. O. Wall, George Gale, James Service, Thomas Payten, and H. Holcomb. The objects of the association are to watch the progress of all works and matters connected with the Municipality of Randwick, and to consider and discuss the same, and generally to promote a knowledge of and interest in municipal and other matters affecting ratepayers and residents of the borough.

Publisher 90

On 24 June, the Port Phillip Planning Committee released their 97-page report regarding an application for the construction of a 10 story building with 119 apartments, retail shops including food and drink premises, a wellness centre, gymnasium and a reduction in car parking requirements. The location at 1-7 Waterfront Place, Port Melbourne, has significant Beach Street frontage.

The report makes for interesting reading for the breadth of considerations, objections and Planning Officer’s responses and conclusion methodology. I shall leave it to you, the reader - who is likely local to this development - to draw your own conclusions regarding two matters that stand out:

• The Planning Officer's conclusion with respect to parking: and
• The Planning Officer's process for conclusion with respect to shadows.

Parking

The report states: “The development is not considered to result in a significant impact upon the road network. The development would provide parking spaces in excess of the requirements of the Planning Scheme. However, due to the way parking would be allocated (no parking allocated to customers of the commercial uses), a parking waiver is sought for the customer component of the parking requirements. The parking waiver is well justified and not considered to result in any undue offsite impacts.” 2.10, page 2

After reading this report, I visited Bay St, Port Melbourne. Bay St is one of jewels of Port Melbourne, with a bustling retail trade. It is very clear that the retail shops on Bay St do require car parking spots for their customers, and due to the strip's popularity, it can sometimes be difficult to find a car parking spot.

It is difficult to reconcile the council's position that retail facilities at Waterfront Place do not require additional car parking (page 49). The report asserts that the retail outlets will only service users who are “typically be in the area already, rather than driving to the Site”. Does this mean walking distance from their home? One must wonder if the future retail tenants will be willing to pay significant commercial rents in an area that only services the population in the building and residents within walking distance. Hopefully, this will not result in untenanted retail shops which will bring a ghost town feel to this new development.

It is also puzzling that council asserts that no visitors parking permits will be required and thus will not be available to any of the 119 dwellings (page 15 Permit Notes): "The owners and occupiers of the new dwellings allowed by this permit will not be eligible for Council resident or visitor parking permits."

Furthermore, and more importantly, it seems the developer is not required to make provision for visitor parking. One can only assume the Planning Officer is of the opinion that all residents will have very limited social life and no carers tending to their needs.

Shadows

The requirement for this building is that "Development should minimise overshadowing beyond the southern kerb line of Waterfront." (Requirement B8 page 75).

The Planning Officer's response to the proposed design is:

• "A detailed assessment in terms of winter shadows has been provided at section 13.4 of the Report; ultimately, they are considered to be acceptable." (page 52)

• Firstly, it is noted that the requirement is discretionary, stating that development should minimise overshadowing. Secondly, whether shadows are ‘minimised’, is ultimately a matter of judgement. It is clear, based on the planning controls, that a 10 storey development which delivers medium to high density housing has been contemplated for the Site, it is within this context that the term ‘minimised’ must be viewed.  (B8, page 70-71)

• Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that some level of shadows are inevitable from any development, particularly one of 10 storeys in height  (B8, page 70-71)

To this observer, the reasoning offered by the Planning Officer (in bold) does not contribute to the veracity of conclusion reached by the Planning Officer.

As is usual with planning applications, often the most sensible observations come from the general public. One astute objector responded: “...Reiterated concerns relating to winter shadows. In addition, bike and pedestrian paths along Waterfront Place are predominantly in shadow between 9 am and 3 pm at the June solstice, this is not consistent with the requirements of the DDO.  …" (Public Notification/Objections, page 52)

So what did the Planning Officer recommend?

Planning Officer's Recommendation
RECOMMENDATION PART A, page 3

"3.2 That the Responsible Authority, having caused the application to be advertised and having received and noted the objections, issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit."

"3.3 That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued for the use and development of the land, to carry out works and construct a 10 storey mixed use building over two basement levels, in a shared podium and two tower arrangement, comprising dwellings, retail (shop, food and drink premises, wellness centre), a restricted recreation facility (gymnasium) and a reduction in car parking requirements at 1 & 7 Waterfront Place, Port Melbourne."

The recommendation leaves one scratching one's head, wondering whether common sense has left council buildings. I parked my car outside the future site of 1-7 Waterfront Place, and had one final bask in the sunlight, before both the carpark becomes unavailable, and the sun is blocked out by yet another oversized development lining Melbourne's prime real estate.

Note: Page references cite PDF page numbers, not page numbers displayed lower right in document.

Author's Note: The Planning Officer's responses cited and referenced above are but only a subset of their considerations detailed in the 97 page report.