Minutes - Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council - 17 April 2024
MINUTES OF THE Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council HELD 17 April 2024 IN St Kilda Town Hall AND VIRTUAL VIA TEAMS
The meeting opened at 6:32pm.
IN ATTENDANCE
Cr Cunsolo (Chairperson), Cr Baxter, Cr Bond, Cr Clark, Cr Crawford, Cr Martin, Cr Nyaguy, Cr Pearl, Cr Sirakoff.
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer, Brian Tee, General Manager City Growth and Development, Tarnya McKenzie, Interim General Manager Community Wellbeing and Inclusion, Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure, Claire Stevens, General Manager Organisational Capability and Experience, Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager Governance and Organisational Performance, Simon Hill, Executive Manager Waste and City Maintenance, Paul Wood, Manager City Development, Lauren Bialkower, Executive Manager City Growth and Culture, Marc Jay, Coordinator City Permits, Thomas Mason, Coordinator Transport Safety, Xavier Smerdon, Head of Governance, Rebecca Purvis, Senior Council Business Advisor, Emily Williams, Council Business Advisor.
The City of Port Phillip respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Owners of this land, the people of the Kulin Nations. We pay our respect to their Elders, past and present. We acknowledge and uphold their continuing relationship to this land.
1. Apologies
Nil.
2. Confirmation of Minutes
|
That the minutes of the Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council held on 20 March 2024 be confirmed. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
3. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Nil.
4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME and submissions
Public questions are summarised below. The submissions were made verbally and can be listened to in full on our website: https://webcast.portphillip.vic.gov.au/archive.php
Public Question Time:
· Isaac Hermann: A Council email noted that: ‘Permeable pavements tend to be installed immediately around trees and not for long stretches of footpath – they are not a suitable product for footpath trafficability.’
Q1 So how are we to accept this statement when most of Melbourne is so familiar with our Domain Gardens’ Precinct Tan Track ? Permeable paving – Granitic Gravel – apparently is a suitable medium for ‘footpath trafficability’, and indeed meets City of Melbourne ‘Design and Construction Standards: I Quote ‘Granitic Gravel is a standard paving type in flat areas where a permeable surface is required.’
Q2 Is Council and the public overall not satisfied with the extensive permeable paving in the Blessington Street Gardens and elsewhere?
Q3 Just across the road, we have Irymple Avenue whose footpaths are satisfactorily paved with crushed rock Lilydale Toppings permeable paving for years – why has Council:
(a) not emulated this climate cooling and flood reducing example in other streets?
(b) and continued its dependence on a mix of recycled bitumen and rubber that creates terribly toxic stormwater runoff?
Q4 How do the costs of replacing and re-instating our bitumen footpaths every four to five years compare to the maintenance costs at Irymple Avenue?
Q5 What does Council spend each year on bitumen footpaths?
Q6 Please explain Council’s apparent reluctance to adopt permeable paving in light of the City of Port Phillip’s ‘Permeability Baseline Assessment’, June 2019 which recommends: - de-paving and new porous paving - amidst other measures.
Q7 How many new nature strips have been installed since this report was published?
Q8 Since the ‘Permeability Baseline Report’ of 2019 noted that 67% of Port Phillip public space was impermeable, and more recently that ‘Spatial Vision’s’ – ‘Surface Permeability Analysis of Elster Creek Catchment’ for ‘E2DesignLab’ having noted that: High permeability reduces flood risk and increases stormwater quality, urban greening, and amenity.
(a) What percentage increase has been achieved over all the municipality in these almost five years?
(b) in the extremely flood prone Shakespeare Grove – Secret Creek – Main Drain Catchment has there been an increase in permeability from its former 74% impermeable rating?
Brian Tee, General Manager City Growth and Development advised that essentially the question relates to the permeability baseline report, which Council undertook in 2019, which provided a starting point for Council’s measurements of permeability. We use that report and have a number of ways that increase permeability, including using permeable paving, building around 5 Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD’s) gardens and we try to replace paving with greenspace where we can. While permeable paving is good, it is more expensive and doesn’t maintain well in heavy utilised areas. For this reason, we are limited as to where we can use it, but we do use it where it is appropriate. The use of crushed rock and Lilydale toppings has been successful in Irymple Avenue, to protect the roots of those trees and it has served that purpose. It has a number of disadvantages and we have received a number of complaints particularly from people who use wheelchairs, prams or walkers, particularly when it is wet a lot of the topping gets picked up in people’s shoes. So it has been used but is has a number of significant disadvantages. In terms of the use of rubber and recycled material for our roads, Council does not use rubber. Rubber, as indicated by Isacc Hermann, breaks away and ends up in our stormwater. For this reason, we do not use rubber as part of our roads, instead we use a product called plasiphalt, which uses recycled plastic products and does not break up and enter into our waterways. We are measuring the percentage of permeable space that we are creating and that percentage in terms of the reduction of it. This is part of a 10 year project, so we are not able to provide an accurate percentage at this stage. Once all the data is available it will be publicly released.
Lachlan Johnson, General Manager Operations and Infrastructure advised that they would respond to questions 4 and 5. In relation to the cost comparison of replacing and reinstating our bitumen footpaths every four to five years compared to the maintenance costs, with the example of Irymple Avenue mentioned, it is not possible to directly contrast the two because of the wear, usage, and foot traffic on different streets will have different impacts in terms of maintenance, particularly when you have an impermeable surface such as the Lilydale toppings in Irymple Avenue. However, to give an idea, bitumen or asphalt is generally considered a cost-effective material for footpaths, it ranges from about $40-$50 per square metre to renew those sections of footpaths. In terms of the granitic sand or the Lilydale toppings permeable surfaces, it is highly dependent upon where its being installed, the foot traffic that’s there, any erosion that occurs during rain for example if its installed in high degrees of cross fall. Generally speaking, the costs to maintain a permeable surface are higher but it’s very difficult to provide a number. Council spends approximately $1.5 million per year on its footpath renewal program, which includes renewal of all footpath material types including concrete, asphalt, and the cost of some permeable footpaths. As mentioned before the cost of renewing asphalt footpaths is somewhere between $40-$50 per square meter, whereas for something like concrete footpaths, the cost can easily exceed $70 per square metre.
Tarnya McKenzie, Interim General Manager advised that Council is currently updating the Urban Forest Strategy and permeability is being considered through that process. The Strategy is due to come out for community engagement in late May. Questions 1, 2 and 7 were taken on notice.
· Justin Halliday: Over the last years, the number of trees planted annually by the City of Port Phillip has fallen significantly, despite the Act & Adapt strategy targeting a 2 percentage point increase in tree canopy cover. In 2018, council planted over 1,500 trees, but in 2022, council only planted 322 trees and in 2023 this fell further to less than 150 trees. What is the reason Council is planting fewer trees? Is it because the budget has been reduced or is it because Council does not have adequate staffing to manage the planting program?
Simon Hill, Executive Manager Waste and City Maintenance, advised that Council’s planting season runs from April to September each year, so reporting tree planting figures over financial years can lead to variation from year to year. However we acknowledge we had several years of lower than desired tree planting numbers, due to many unrelated factors such as tree availability and timing. We are focusing on procuring quality tree stock and young tree care to improve tree health and survival rates. We have made a coordinated and focused effort across council teams to ensure our tree planting numbers improve and this planting season which has now commenced we will be planting 1300 trees in streets and parks. Approximately 600 of those trees are going into parks and reserves to provide shade and to footpaths to provide better pedestrian amenity, creating biodiversity corridors. Simon Hill also noted that Council planted over 43,000 plants, shrubs and trees in total over the 22/23 year.
· Marion Attwater: In relation to the recommendation in the Independent Waste Review for the Audit and Risk Committee to ensure that the various recommendations are integrated into Council processes. I have looked at the biannual reporting and minutes of the audit and risk committees at numerous local councils in Melbourne, and the biannual reports that Port Phillip Council receives are extremely light on detail, and there doesn't seem to be any committee meeting minutes tabled in the Council agenda. I would like to suggest that Port Phillip Council alters the reporting requirements of the Audit and Risk Committee so that the public can more easily see how the Independent Waste Review recommendations are overseen. Can detailed minutes of Audit and Risk Committee meetings please be published in the council agenda in the future?
Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager Governance and Organisational Performance advised that the CEO has committed to periodic public reporting to Council on the progress in responding to the recommendations and undertook to follow up on the request for the Audit and Risk Committee meeting minutes to be published.
· Rhonda Small: We all know how rare significant parcels of land come up for purchase in Port Phillip whether for open space or as potential sites for affordable housing but we desperately need more of both. Council has shown itself to be agile in purchasing the Australia Post site in Firshermans Bend last year in order to create more open space in that area using Council reserves to do so. Will Council be equally as agile in responding to the current sale of more than 9,000 square metres of land and development sites across 12 titles fronting Barkly, Vale, Grieves and Carlisle Streets in St Kilda. Are Council officers aware of this rate opportunity? And will Council consider purchasing this once in a lifetime site for subsequent development as affordable housing in partnership, for example, with the community housing provider, the State Government or a private developer committed to affordable housing. In line with the key objective of increasing affordable housing in Port Phillip’s In Our Backyard Affordable Housing Strategy and the soon to be finalised Draft Housing Strategy?
Tarnya McKenzie, Interim General Manager Community Wellbeing and Inclusion advised that Council officers are aware of the large property and the current expression of interest process as it maintains a watching brief on the local property market and consider the acquisition of properties aligned with Council’s policies and objectives. The property in question is not being considered for acquisition at this time. With specific reference to affordable housing, our focus under Strategy of In our Back Yard (IOBY) is primarily on utilising Council's existing property assets to provide affordable housing opportunities. If the site is not purchased by a housing association or similar entity, there are opportunities within the planning process to seek and secure a component of community or affordable housing. Council would welcome the opportunity to use planning approaches to pursue community or social housing as a potential outcome through any private development on this site. Although the property holds promise for an innovative affordable housing solution, for the Council to proceed, this would require confidence in forward planning, including thorough due diligence of the site and its constraints, and the establishment of confirmed partnerships and secured funds.
· John Spierings (read on behalf by Xavier Smerdon, Head of Governance): In relation to the two independent reports investigating why many kerbside bins weren’t collected after Citywide took over as the kerbside waste and recycling contractor in mid-2023. I welcome Council's publication of these reviews. However, why hasn’t there been a robust debate in the Council chamber, in full public view, about what happened? Will the Mayor, Council’s Audit Committee and the CEO take responsibility for the systemic and individual failures identified by the independent reviews? Given the finding that 'a high weighting to price meant that any issues in capability, experience or transition were masked in the overall tender score...' will Council review the weight it places in contracts of getting the lowest price over evaluating the quality of the service? Given that Citywide now indicates its service delivery may not be sustainable at current levels, has this been provisioned for in the draft budget and at what cost?
Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure advised that Council takes the responsibility to deliver high quality services and value for money seriously. The situation that arose in July last year was unacceptable. In accordance with Council’s commitment to public transparency and accountability, the two independent reviews into the change of waste contractors have been published. While they found that the contractor was not fully prepared to perform the services, the reports importantly make a series of recommendations on how Council can improve its processes to avoid such a situation happening again. Council officers have developed a comprehensive management response to implement the recommendations of the review. This plan will be finalised with the Audit and Risk Committee in May this year, with the Audit and Risk Committee then overseeing the timely implementation of those actions. The waiting on price in this procurement was the result of the materiality of the contract value. The Council and community focus on affordability and sensitivity to rates and waste service charge increases. Quality elements were weighted higher than price overall. While price will always be a key consideration for contacts of this scale, and this weighting is not out of the realms for a contract such as this, we will review our approach to price weighting for future high value high risk procurements. Council is currently engaged in confidential commercial negotiations, where additional bins have been identified for collection such as large apartment buildings, skips and multiple collections per week. Council will pay for those as per the schedule of rates contract. Council’s draft budget 2024/25 to be considered later this evening does make appropriate provision for the delivery of waste and recycling collection services.
· Janette Fly: Why has the Council continued to extend the permit for the scaffolding at 237 Princes Street Port Melbourne when no construction has taken place since 8 December 2023. The contractor, told me they are working on another project for the same owner and I am wondering why hasn’t the work supervisor for this site directing that the continuation of construction does happen. As a result my car has been trapped in my back yard for 6 months.
Mayor Cunsolo took the question on notice.
· Jack Halliday: In this term, a section of Council has operated with one overriding objective: to reduce Council expenditure with a view to lowering residential rates. We now see the end result of this process in the procurement of Council’s new waste management contract and all the problems that were caused across the municipality. Council is to be commended for commissioning two external reports, one to examine the probity issues and the other examining the causes and the breakdown in development of the new contract. The probity report examined the process against six key probity measures that made significant findings of deficiency in process against four of the six measures. The causes report made 24 key findings about the whole process with three of them relating to the high weighting that Council gave to price against all the other considerations in the evaluating the tender bids. To quote from this report the high weighting to price meant that any issues in a capability experience or transition were masked in the overall tender scores, the sustainability pricing was not adequately considered in the evaluation process. Further, Council was not provided with a breakdown of scoring for each tenderer to allow for differences against each evaluation criteria to be considered. In other words, Councillors and officers weren’t provided with sufficient details of how the tenderers all scored on other important measures like experience, redundant capacity, flexibility and whether the pricing was sustainable. As we now know that contract isn’t sustainable, Citywide is saying there are many more bins collection points than they were made aware of. That means the terms of the contact requires more man power and vehicles that is consistent with their tender. Will price be given a proper weighting in future contract processes?
Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure referred to their answer given earlier in the meeting with relation to how weighting was determined in the procurement of the waste services contract. Council has given a commitment that in response to the waste reviews we are going to review how we apply price weighting for complex, high risk procurements.
Council Report Submissions:
Item 7.1 Petition: Inkerman Street Safety Improvement Project
|
· Jaz Bradley |
|
|
10.1 592-598 City Road, South Melbourne - Planning Scheme Amendment C217port
|
· Robert Carletti (Applicant) |
|
|
12.2 Proposed Fitzroy Street Special Rate and Charge declaration report
|
· David Blakeley |
|
|
12.3 Proposed Acland Street Special Rate and Charge declaration report
|
· Janet Rosenberg |
|
|
13.1 Draft Council Plan 2021-2031 (Year Four) and Budget 2024-25: Release for Public Consultation
|
· Ian Gray |
· Peter Moraitis |
· Jan Cossar |
|
· April Seymore |
· Nadav Zisin |
· Cecile van der Burgh |
14.1 Notice of Motion Councillor Marcus Pearl – Pickles, Bridge and Glover Streets Intersection
|
· Terence Coyne |
· Katrina Barlow |
· Mick Ahearn |
|
· Philip Edmands |
· David Reed |
· Paul Field |
|
· Matilda Field |
· Jennifer Taylor |
· Mariese Oneill |
|
· Sandy Columbo |
· Rob Tappenden |
|
5. Councillor question time
· Councillor Clark: Can officers advise what is the additional revenue that Council will derive from the Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) scheme?
Simon Hill, Executive Manager Waste and City Maintenance advised that Council has received $72,500 including GST in revenue from our kerbside recycling processor for the months of November and December 2023 for CDS revenue. We have budgeted for $330,000 including GST income for CDS collected in our kerbside recycling bins for 2024/25.
· Councillor Pearl: Can officers provide an update of asbestos in playgrounds given the recent issues by neighbouring Councils?
Simon Hill, Executive Manager Waste and City Maintenance, advised that currently all mulch suppliers are to provide a certificate of compliance that their products meet strict safety standards and don’t contain any asbestos contaminants. We also require our contractors to independently test all mulch products arriving at their depots before they can be used in Council playgrounds. This rigorous testing process is to ensure mulch is free from any hazardous materials, including asbestos, before it is dispersed. Council officers have recently completed visual auditing of all playground areas to ensure they are free from any contaminants. In addition, we have engaged an expert hygienist to conduct testing of a sample of playgrounds and parks across the municipality to ensure community safety. So far we have not identified any asbestos in mulch at our parks or playgrounds In addition, all mulch used in garden beds and native vegetation areas in the City of Port Phillip is sourced from our tree trimming program, which repurposes vegetation. This sustainable practice promotes environmental conservation while ensuring mulch is of the highest quality and safety standards. Simon Hill encouraged any residents who have concerns about any public spaces, to contact Council so we can investigate.
· Councillor Pearl: Can officers please provide an update on tree planting in the existing planter boxes on Ferrars Street and Canterbury Road? There are 15 or more empty boxes that have been there for quite some time.
Simon Hill, Executive Manager Waste and City Maintenance, advised that the maintenance and replacement of street trees along Canterbury Road and Ferrars Street is the responsibility of the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP). Officers have previously advocated to DTP to request replacement tree planting and officers will make further enquiries to the DTP requesting when this will occur. Simon Hill undertook to report information back to Councillor Pearl once an update is sought from the DTP.
· Councillor Pearl: Can officers please provide an update on the search for a School Crossing Supervisor at Port Melbourne Secondary College. And also provide an update on the clearing of the drain at the intersection of Williamstown Road?
Brian Tee, General Manager City Growth and Development was very pleased to advise that Council has a preferred candidate for the vacant School Crossing Supervisor position. Council are currently undertaking the relevant required checks and subject to the satisfactory completion of those, the person will be appointed to that role. Noting that it is a dangerous intersection, we currently have other officers temporarily at that crossing until this appointment has been made.
Simon Hill, Executive Manager Waste and City Maintenance advised that the drains at the intersection of Graham Street and Williamstown Road have been persistently blocked for some time. The clearing of these drains are the responsibility of the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) and this issue have been raised through DTP over several years. The DTP recently advised Council that the drains were scheduled for high pressure jetting on 5 April. However we are concerned that the jetting has either not occurred, or that it has been ineffectual, and the problem persists and we believe DTP need to engage a combination truck to remove the build-up in the system with the soil disposed of properly as per EPA guidelines. We are concerned the jet cleaning approach is ineffectual, and only pushes the build-up into the drainage system. Council officers inspected the drains again on 16 April and it is clear from that inspection that the DTP pipes and pits have not been cleared.
Council officers contacted the Ministers office on 12 April to request these works be prioritised.
Councillor Pearl requested that officers get in contact with the local member that promised this would be done.
· Councillor Pearl: Following my question last year, has the COVID19 vaccinations mandate been lifted for Council staff members?
Claire Stevens, General Manager Organisational Capability and Experience advised that Council’s COVID19 workforce vaccination policy remains in place and does include the requirement for an initial vaccine dosage. The COVID landscape has continued to evolve including regulatory and Government guidance in relation to risk controls and measure to protect health and safety. The executive team recently considered a review of the policy which specifically considered the possible removal of the requirement for vaccination and its impact on risk given our duty to ensure a safe workplace. At this stage we have not finalised any policy changes and are yet to formally consult with our staff following this review. As part of the consultation it will be proposed that Council withdraw the vaccination policy on the basis of the recent review and will soon commence staff consultation on the proposed policy change as we are required to do under the Enterprise Agreement and the Health and Safety legislation.
The Mayor adjourned the meeting for a break at 7.52pm.
The meeting resumed at 8.02pm.
6. Sealing Schedule
Nil.
7. Petitions and Joint Letters
|
A Petition containing 1,306 signatures was received from Canal ward, Inkerman Street residents and visitors, Inkerman Street business owners, their staff and clients. |
|
That Council: 1. Receives and notes the Petition. 2. Thanks the petitioners for their Petition. 3. Notes that a report on the Inkerman Safety Improvement Project will be considered by Council at an upcoming Council meeting to determine how to proceed with the project, and that the petition will be noted within that report. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED. |
8. Presentation of CEO Report
|
Purpose 1.1 To provide Council with a regular update from the Chief Executive Officer regarding Council’s activities and performance. |
|
Moved Crs Martin/Cunsolo That Council: 3.1 Notes the CEO Report – Issue 105 (provided as Attachment 1). 3.2 Notes an amendment to the CEO Report – Issue 104 (provided as Attachment 2) 3.3 Authorises the CEO or their delegate to make minor editorial amendments that do not substantially alter the content of the report. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED. |
9. Inclusive Port Phillip
Nil.
10. Liveable Port Phillip
|
10.1 592-598 City Road, South Melbourne - Planning Scheme Amendment C217port |
|
Purpose |
|
Recommendation – part a 3.1 That Council advises the Minister for Planning (C/- the Department of Transport and Planning) that Council does not support the Planning Scheme Amendment in relation to: · Articulation and extent of Architectural features cantilevering over Council’s laneway. · Solar access to hotel rooms along the eastern boundary, size and number of light wells. · The floor-to-floor heights of Levels 1-6 do not achieve the preferred adaptable heights. · The failure to demonstrate how water runoff from the subject site onto the abutting laneway to the west and north will be managed. · The tandem configuration of the car parking facilities without the support of Parking Management Plan. · The reliance on waste collection to be conducted off site from Boundary Street. · The failure of the loading bay to accommodate access by a Small Rigid Vehicle and meet the requirements of AS2890.2. · The minimal width of the loading bay and resulting impacts on ability of Small Rigid Vehicle to exit the laneway in a forward direction. · The loading bay garage door failing to demonstrate the minimum the minimum headroom clearance for a Small Rigid Vehicle of 3.5 metres. · The motorcycle parking infringing on the loading bay area. · The utilisation of the no standing zone on City Road for pickup and drop offs without clear signage and consent from the relevant authority. And for the reasons set out in Sections 9 and 12 of this report. All other aspects of the proposal including traffic, sustainable design and waste management are acceptable subject to receipt of more detailed information which will likely result in minor changes to the proposal. These design and operational concerns could be addressed by conditions of any Incorporated Document. Recommendation – part b 3.1.1 That the Council authorises the Manager City Development to instruct Council’s Statutory Planners, planning advocate and/or solicitors on: · Any future amendments to the application · Any VCAT application for review for the matter; and/or · Any independent advisory committee appointed by the Minister for Planning to consider the application. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
11. Sustainable Port Phillip
Nil.
12. Vibrant Port Phillip
PROCEDURAL MOTION - change to order of business
Moved Crs Cunsolo/Martin
That agenda section 14. Notices of Motion be considered as the next agenda item.
A vote was taken and the PROCEDURAL MOTION was CARRIED unanimously.
14. Notices of Motion
13. Well Governed Port Phillip
|
Purpose 1.1 To present a minor change to the Procurement Policy (Policy) for Council’s consideration and adoption. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Adopts the updated changes to the Procurement Policy. 3.2 Authorise the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate) to finalise and make minor changes that do not materially alter the Procurement Policy. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
|
Purpose 1.1 To report to Council the written records of Informal Meetings of Councillors at the City of Port Phillip as required by the Governance Rules. |
|
That Council 2.1 Receives and notes the written records of Informal Meetings of Council (attached) as required by the Governance Rules. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
15. Reports by Councillor Delegates
Mayor Cunsolo reported that they were excited to be travelling to Japan from tomorrow to visit Council’s sister City in Obu, Japan for three days. Mayor Cunsolo would be joining teachers and students from St Kilda Primary School and it would be a great opportunity to build on our City Cities relationship that was established more than 30 years ago. Within the sister theme, the Mayors sister-in-law would also be in Tokyo to celebrate their 40th birthday. The Mayor noted that this trip was all self-funded but while they were in Japan, they would be taking the opportunity to visit Obu. The Mayor said it was an honour to be representing the City of Port Phillip in another country and confirmed that no Council funding had been used for the trip.
Councillor Baxter reported as the delegate to the Friends of Suai/Covalima Comm Reference Committee Friends of Suai annual trivia night, who have their annua trivia night tomorrow night (Thursday 19 April 2024). Councillor Baxter believed almost all tickets were sold out, but urged anyone who was interested in attending to have a great night and come along to support our partnership with Suai/Covalima in East Timor. Councillor Crawford would be the MC for the night.
16. URGENT BUSINESS
Nil.
17. Confidential Matters
|
That Council resolves to move into confidential to deal with the following matters pursuant to section 66(2) of the Local Government Act 2020: 17.1 Agency & Labour Hire Resourcing 3(1)(a) Council business information, being information that would prejudice the Council's position in commercial negotiations if prematurely released 3(1)(g(ii)) private commercial information, being information provided by a business, commercial or financial undertaking that if released, would unreasonably expose the business, commercial or financial undertaking to disadvantage. Reason: The report outlines a proposed contracting arrangement and commercially sensitive information that if made public would potentially expose parties to unfavourable disadvantage. 17.2 South Melbourne Town Hall Main Works Contract Award 3(1)(h). confidential meeting information, being the records of meetings closed to the public under section 66(2)(a). Reason: The following contents of this email are confidential by virtue of the LGA 2020, section 3(a) Council Business Information. These reasons for confidentiality apply to this matter so as to not jeopardise Council’s negotiation position (financial / commercial terms) to award a contract. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
The meeting closed to the public at 10.21pm.
The meting reopened to the public at 10.34pm.
As there was no further business the meeting closed at 10.34pm.
Chairperson ________________________________________