Minutes - Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council - 19 March 2025
MINUTES OF THE Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council HELD 19 March 2025 IN St Kilda Town Hall AND VIRTUAL VIA TEAMS
The meeting opened at 6:32pm.
IN ATTENDANCE
Cr Crawford (Chairperson), Cr Buckingham, Cr Cunsolo, Cr Halliday (virtual), Cr Hardy, Cr Jay, Cr Makin, Cr Mears, Cr Thomann.
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer, Brian Tee, General Manager City Growth and Development, Kylie Bennetts, General Manager Community Wellbeing and Inclusion, Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure, Claire Stevens, General Manager Organisational Capability and Experience, Robyn Borley, Director Governance and Performance, Mike Fisher, Manager City Planning and Sustainability, James Gullan, Head of Governance, Emily Williams, Senior Council Business Advisor, Veronica Jenkin, Risk Officer.
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 19 February 2025 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: http://webcast.portphillip.vic.gov.au/archivephp.
Public Question Time:
· Graeme Halperin: In relation to unactivated retail land rating, the differential rating which results in a 400% rating increase for so called unactivated retail land. Has the Council received legal advice on whether its differential rate for "unactivated retail" land complies with the Ministerial Guidelines dated April 2013 for Differential Rating? In line with these guidelines, is the penalty for unactivated retail land an unlawful penalty having regard to a high court decision in 2012 called Andrews and ANZ Bank Ltd which expanded the operation of the penalties doctrine beyond contracts.
Peter Liu, Chief Financial Officer advised that the rating strategy was updated in 2023/24 with consideration of the Ministerial Guidelines for Differential Rating. Council did receive legal advice on this matter and there were no provisions contained in the ministerial guidelines that suggest these differential rates cannot be applied and therefore, it complies with the guidelines.
· Elizabeth Vorrath: My concern is following a promise of installation of a red press button pedestrian stop light on Glenhuntly Road for Elwood Primary School with 650 students, Elwood Secondary College with around 900 students and the adjoining Poets Grove preschool centre with 100 children from 0-4 years of age. 1700 children attend this education hub in term time with a crossing supervisor to help them in the morning and afternoon until around 4pm, but around 60 students attend afterschool programs and 80-90 attend holiday programs. Daycare operates outside of School times and there is no crossing supervisor to help the dog walkers or families crossing to and from the regular farmers and community held at the Primary School on Saturdays. Other Council’s seem to have been able to coordinate with Vic Roads to get press light stop buttons for their schools on far less busy and dangerous crossings, we have been hoping for nearly fourteen years. What can the Council do to help coordinate this with Vic Roads?
Mike Fisher, Manager City Planning and Sustainability acknowledged the concerns raised at this area particularly during busy school times where there is high traffic. By way of background, Glen Huntly Road is a road managed by the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP). A pedestrian press button operated signal project was initially proposed along Glen Huntly Road in this position, however during the design phase, constraints were found around the canal, therefore the proposal was changed to a pedestrian zebra crossing. DTP undertook community engagement on the proposed improvements and the feedback indicated that a pedestrian zebra crossing did not align with the communities’ expectations and therefore the proposal did not proceed.
However, Council officers have since been working with DTP to advocate for a crossing and DTP are now reviewing plans which is positive. Council officers will continue to discuss with DTP their approach to community consultation and will hopefully be able to report back on the progress soon.
· Dr Gerry McLoughlin: Request a response from Council (particularly the new Councillors) on what Independent legal / planning advice has been sought on the implications for the City of Port Phillip of the previous Council's 21 August 2024 unanimous resolution to 'Proceed with Intention to sell land parcels, road, and laneways on Balaclava's Coles carpark' exclusively to Coles Pty Ltd. What was the advice?
Lachlan Johnson, General Manager Operations and Infrastructure advised that at the 21 August 2024 Council meeting, Council resolved to commence a statutory process of consultation on the potential sale of land parcels in Balaclava to Coles. Council did not resolve to sell the parcels but rather to seek feedback from the community on a potential sale. This process of engagement, which Council commenced with its decision of 21 August, is outlined under Section 207a and Section 223 of the Local Government Act of 1989 when Council is considering discontinuing a road or selling land. Legal expertise was sought to inform the proposal considered by Council at its meeting of 21 August. Council has utilised the urban design expertise of Council staff to also inform the process. Council has not sought advice to review the implications of the 21 August decision. Council has delayed the commencement of the consultation period whilst we review the proposal and work through initial feedback from the community and the newly elected Councillors. Pending the outcome of that work, we anticipate the consultation period will commence in the next few months.
· Frank Artuso: With a 57% rise in incidents against Safety & Amenity personnel over the past year and acknowledging Council's own response of further training, wellbeing support and safety tools. What other measures have Safety & Amenity personnel suggested? What are the interlinked protocols should on a given day Council is unable to fill the rostered scheduled of numbered Safety & Amenity personnel?
Brian Tee, General Manager City Growth and Development acknowledged that they are very proud of the work that our Local Laws officers do and they well regarded and respected by our community. The work that they do is often unsafe and we have seen an escalation in incidents involving Local Laws officers. Council constantly reviews those incidents to ensure that the training and protocols are in place to ensure their workplace is as safe as it can be working with our OHS specialists in advising those work programs.
Council schedules de-escalation training annually with officers which is very important and has been very successful. While the amount of incidents has increased, the amount of serious incidents has decreased. We also provide other supports, each of our officers has body cameras, they always patrol in pairs, sometimes in dangerous situations we make sure there are three individuals in place and in the most serious of times, we work with the Police to make sure there is Police presence.
In relation to the protocols to make sure we always have officers available, generally there are always officers available and couldn’t recall a time where Council, has missed a shift. In emergencies, we are able to call on other team members within Council’s Safety & Amenity department such as our Animal management officers who are able to work with our Local Laws officers to allow full coverage of all shifts.
· Frank Artuso: Where does or when will the Clever Port Phillip program specifically integrate Artificial Intelligence (AI) to improve efficiency and financial performance? How has the City of Port Phillip integrated public sector tailored AI in key areas of customer service & administration, urban planning, environmental monitoring, traffic & parking, and public safety. The Victorian Government provides precise and prescriptive AI public sector guidelines. Can you reference other Councils who have adopted AI? Do you know of the 16 NSW Councils trialling amongst themselves the suite of three different AI planning and development tools? Would an AI model of Institutional Memory leveraging at least three terms of Council decisions and processes be valuable and valued. Could this institutional memory draw upon past motions, minutes, briefings and more be an affective input on current matters, minimising "fixes that fail". Can this collation be used to create case studies, generate scenarios and assist in risk assessment? Beyond this, could an AI model cross pollenating with other Council’s agendas and initiatives provide opportunities for our own consideration and adoption, therefore positioning this Council for optimum performance?
Claire Stevens, General Manager Organisational Capability and Experience acknowledged that AI technologies have great potential for Local Government for service delivery and efficiencies, however, they also come with risks. Council has developed a set of AI Guidelines for staff, within our ICT Policy, and we are developing an AI Strategy which we aim to finalise within the next 12 months. This strategy will take into consideration the various risks and opportunities and will be in line with Australian Government guidelines. Council officers will seek to engage with various stakeholders and other Councils through this strategy development. Officers are also working with some of our vendors, for example Technology One our vendor partner for our One Council system, to understand their strategies in incorporating AI into their solutions that we use.
Council has undertaken some pilots in the AI space, for example, Robotic Process Automation (to assist in property transfer process within our rates team), Intelligent defect management (capturing images of assets with defects such as broken footpaths) and development of a smart chat agent which could be deployed on Council’s website for customer experience. These pilots are not in the ‘live environment’ at the moment but we hope to deploy and trial our website chat agent the coming months. Frank’s suggestion of an AI model using Institutional Memory across Council terms is a good and interesting one, and Claire Stevens undertook for Council to take on board to consider.
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer added that AI is something they have been working on recently with Council’s Chief Information officer to ascertain what Council can do in this space and getting prepared with a strategy. We are one of the initial Council’s looking at potentially using the planning app “myLot” and have also had some initial discussions with Microsoft Azure, who have an AI functionality as well. We are not tying ourselves to one provider and are looking at what we can do with our existing vendors. Due to the advanced technology platform that Council uses and our maturity in the technology space, vendors are interested in working with Council to trail new technology. We have also started discussions with other Council’s around news cases, we have had initial conversations with the City of Melbourne to see how we can work together.
·
Adrian King: I
refer to the City of Port Phillip (CoPP) performance reporting webpage. The
2024 JWS Community satisfaction report pages 10 and 11 shows that on every
single 1 of 22 different services and metrics provided to our community, the CoPP
scores below the metro average for 21 Council’s. Note this was also the
case for every single JWS 2023 score. How does this set of hard incomparable independent
facts reconcile with the following statement on the Council’s website.
“CoPP performs very well overall with may indicators favourable or
comparable to similar Council’s”.
The JWS Community satisfaction report 2024 page 8 shows that the CoPP’s
score for “overall Council direction has fallen from 51 points in 2021 to
42 points in 2024”, a fall of circa 20% in the Council score in just
three years. In contrast the metro average score is steady. Why has the CoPP
score for overall Council direction plummeted in the last three years?
Robyn Borley, Director Governance and Performance advised that there are a range of factors impacting the results of Council’s Community satisfaction survey. We acknowledge the downward trend in the overall satisfaction with Council direction and we’re actively seeking to better understand the drivers for that. Following a competitive procurement process, a new provider was selected this year. In addition to benchmarking against the common set of Local Government indicators, we expect to receive deeper analysis, enhanced benchmarking and more actionable insights than previous years, allowing Council to better respond to areas of community concern.
Council Report Submissions:
Item 7.2 Petition Response: Request to not proceed with Edwards Park Public Amenities
|
· Malcolm Garrow |
· Jos de Bruin |
|
Item 9.1 Friends of Suai Annual Report 2023/24
|
· Megs Alston |
|
|
5. Councillor question time
· Councillor Makin: What is Council’s success rate in collecting Parking infringement revenue?
Peter Liu, Chief Financial Officer advised that almost nine months into this financial year (2024/25). Council’s collection rate is sitting around 73% for those that are six months old. Infringements above six months are referred to Fines Victoria.
· Councillor Halliday: In relation to differential rates, as we are applying the rate, have they been tested in court or challenged since we put them in place?
Peter Liu, Chief Executive Officer advised that from their knowledge this has not been tested in court, however there is one other Council, being Darebin that have implemented differential rating for unactivated retail. From their understanding the City of Port Phillip is the second Council to introduce this rate. The rate is about occupation or a vacancy similar to what we are using for derelict/ vacant land purpose, where the land is not being used in its full potential.
· Councillor Thomann: Regarding the highly anticipated Community Safety Roundtable that took place today. We as Councillors only attended the last part of the session. Can officers please advise which organisations attended and if there is any early feedback we can report on? Also how can the community take part in further consultation through this process?
Brian Tee, General Manager City Growth and Development informed that we did have a very successful roundtable take place today with more than 20 service providers attend including representatives from Victoria Police. Having sought permission form the organisations to provide their details, the following attended: First Step, Housing First, SouthPort Community Housing Group, Launch Housing, St Kilda Community Housing, Ngwala Aboriginal Corporation, Port Phillip Community Group, Sacred Heart Mission, Better Health Network, Windara, Salvation Army, Access Health, Alfred Health, South Port Community Legal, Southside Justice, Global law Enforcement and Public Health Association, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre, The Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association and Victoria Police. A cross section of service providers that deliver services to some of the vulnerable members of our community.
The Mayor put out a statement thanking those community organisations for their involvement but also thanking the Chair Ian Gray who asked those organisations what role that Council can play to make our community safer. What actions, collaborations, service gaps and opportunities there are to improve safety in the work that those organisations do across our City. Councillors were in attendance at part of the session where those organisations and the Police provided some feedback in terms of the work that they have been doing.
In terms of the next steps, those conversations, ideas and submissions, the organisations have been asked to submit a written submission by 4 April 2025, those submissions will form part of Ian Gray’s report which will be tabled at the Council meeting scheduled for 21 May 2025.
The roundtable is one input into our new Community Safety plan which we are currently reviewing and formal engagement will start in late May 2025 on both the Community Safety and Ian Gray’s report. That engagement will involve in person and online opportunities and will include surveys, workshops and pop ups. Council will continue to keep the community updated as we progress to develop the community participation plan.
· Councillor Cunsolo: There is a burnt out building on the corner of Bay and Liardet Streets in Port Melbourne. Recently some of the ceiling material from the awning fell off. Can officers provide a public update on what Council are doing for this property?
Brian Tee, General Manager City Growth and Development advised that Council has received concerns from the community about this unsightly and potentially dangerous site and Council is very concerned about the safety of the site. There has been some materials that have fallen and they have been removed. We are also concerned about potential asbestos and have taken samples to be tested, if there is any asbestos found, Council will refer this to the Environment Protection Authority being the relevant authority. We have identified that the awning is structurally unsound and have put in an emergency works order for that to be remedied. We are also getting an engineer’s report to check if the whole building is structurally safe, if found to be unsafe, Council will take action. We are currently pursuing that work for the awning as that work has not been acted upon. Brian Tee assured both the Councillors and the community that Council are doing everything within Council powers to ensure the situations is addressed as quickly as possible.
· Councillor Halliday: Following on from the pedestrian crossing on Glen Huntly Road raised during public question time. Can officers clarify which avenue that Council and DTP agreed to pursue at this location. Was it a push button crossing or a zebra crossing?
Mike Fisher, Manager City Planning and Sustainability advised that the original was a push button crossing, it then changed to a zebra crossing, but the new proposal is seeking a push button
Mayor Crawford followed up to ask if officers as part of their discussions with the DTP look at other locations, noting that the School have requested the crossing not be too close to the bridge? Do VicRoads have a criteria for pedestrian operated lights to be a certain distance from each other? Council previously approved $50K in budget to encourage Vic Roads to install a crossing in this location. Can officers follow up if this $50K still exists in a current budget?
Councillor Halliday followed up, there is a supervised crossing just down the road. Within the DTP discussions, could these two crossings be consolidated into one?
Mike Fisher, Manager City Planning and Sustainability confirmed that VicRoads do have criteria in relation to distances and looking into the design proposal, there are some constraints around the canal, laneway and residents access. There are a number of factors to consider as part of this proposal, Mike Fisher undertook to raise these suggestions as part of the ongoing conversations with the Department and report back to Council. In terms of the $50K budget, the question was taken on notice.
· Councillor Halliday: In relation to the proposed sale of the Coles land parcel in Balaclava. Have we received legal advice specifically on the section 173 for achieving design outcomes there. We’ve chosen to go with negotiating directly with one particular vendor. Do we have a view on whether we would achieve a better sale price in an open tender market in comparison to negotiating with a single vendor?
Lachlan Johnson, General Manager Operations and Infrastructure advised that in regards to the section 173 agreement, when the previous Council considered the report in August 2024, Council legal advisors prepared a draft section 173 agreement. Council has not sought specific legal advice on the potential inclusion of other things and the 173 agreement to date.
The report from August 2024 speaks to a proposal to sale via private treaty rather than a public tender auction process. The justification for this within that report is that Coles were viewed as being best placed to be able to realise the synergistic value of that parcel of land and the parcels that would be created through the discontinuance of the roads and laneways through other acquisitions that they have made at this site. It was determined that this would be the best way to realise the greatest value for the land. The August 2024 report outlined how Council would ensure best value by an Independent valuation that took into account that synergistic value for Coles and that would be the agreed purchase price.
Chief Executive Officer statement
In accordance with rule 76 of council’s governance rules, the Chief Executive Officer referred to Lachlan Johnson, General Manager Operations and Infrastructure to correct a statement made in a response Councillor Halliday’s question above relating to legal advice on the section 173 agreement.
Lachlan Johnson clarified that Council has sought independent legal advice on the inclusion of design elements in the s173 agreement.
6. Sealing Schedule
Nil.
7. Petitions and Joint Letters
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. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Notes the CEO Report – Issue 115 (provided as Attachment 1) 3.2 Notes the amendment to CEO Report Q2 – Issue 114 (provided as Attachment 2) 3.3 Approves the budget request for $515,000 from the Sustainable Transport Reserve for Council’s contribution to the Beacon Road Active Transport Safety Upgrade. 3.4 Authorises the CEO, or their delegate, to make minor editorial amendments that do not substantially alter the content of the reports. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
9. Inclusive Port Phillip
|
PURPOSE 1.1 To present the Friends of Suai 2023/24 Annual Report (Attachment 1) and inform Council of the achievements of the friendship. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Notes the 2023/24 Friends of Suai Annual Report (Attachment 1). 3.2 Acknowledges the ongoing work of the Friends of Suai Community Reference Committee and thanks the Committee for its efforts. 3.3 Acknowledges the work of the Covalima Community Centre in Suai throughout 2023/24 and the role it has played in enhancing the lives of the Covalima community. 3.4 Acknowledges and thanks Carlene Harlock for the contribution and service they have provided to the communities of Port Phillip and Covalima through the role of Community Building Friends of Suai/Covalima and wishes them well with their future endeavours. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
10. Liveable Port Phillip
The Mayor adjourned the meeting for a break at 7:49pm.
The meeting resumed at 8:00pm.
11. Sustainable Port Phillip
Nil.
12. Vibrant Port Phillip
Nil.
13. Well Governed Port Phillip
|
PURPOSE 1.1 To facilitate the adoption of the Council Internal Resolution Procedure (CIRP) which will be observed when dealing with alleged breaches of the Model Councillor Code of Conduct. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Adopt the Council Internal Resolution Procedure. 3.2 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, to make minor changes that do not materially alter the Council Internal Resolution Procedure. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
|
PURPOSE 1.1 To facilitate the adoption of the Terms of Reference documents for Council’s various advisory and reference committees. |
|
The following questions were taken on notice during discussion of the item: Councillor Halliday: Can officers confirm why the Youth Advisory Committee Terms of Reference is not included within this report? Councillor Halliday: What is the reporting requirement for the Advisory Committees? They lodge their meetings within 14 days. Are these regularly published and what is the timeframe for publishing such reports? Robyn Borley, Director Governance and Performance took the questions on notice. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Adopts the updated Terms of Reference documents for the: · Business Advisory Group · St Kilda Esplanade Market Reference Committee · Friends of Suai Community Reference Committee · LGBTIQA+ Advisory Committee · Multicultural Advisory Committee · Older Persons Advisory Committee 3.2 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, to make minor changes that do not materially alter the Terms of Reference documents. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
|
PURPOSE 1.1 To report on the expenses incurred by Councillors during February 2025 in accordance with the Councillor Expenses and Support Policy. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Notes the monthly Councillor expenses report for February 2025 (attachment 1) and that this will be made available on Council’s website. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
|
PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this item is to report to Council 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 City of Port Phillip Governance Rules. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
14. Notices of Motion
Nil.
15. Reports by Councillor Delegates
Councillor Makin reported as the Councillor delegate to the Metropolitan Transport Forum to advise that they have been attending the executive meetings of the forum as the recently appointed deputy chair. The forum are putting forward a submission to Infrastructure Victoria supporting many of the recommendations calling for a stronger investment from the State Government into sustainable and active transport across Melbourne and Victoria more broadly. This is really important in terms of our own advocacy here at the City of Port Phillip around the long promised but not yet delivered tram extensions into Fishermans Bend as well as bus route improvements, cycling improvements and the long awaited Melbourne Metro too.
Councillor Halliday reported as the Councillor delegate to the Housing First Board to report that themself and Councillor Jay took up their positions on both the Housing First Board and Port Phillip Housing Trust Board. They have attended their first meeting and look forward to their role in contributing to delivering affordable housing in the City of Port Phillip.
Councillor Jay reported as the Councillor delegate to the South Melbourne Market Committee which had their first meeting last week. It was fantastic to hear the great updates on the market the vision for the markets future. Councillor Jay complimented the Market team who do a great job.
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 Children's Infrastructure North St Kilda Decanting Proposal 3(1)(a) Council business information, being information that would prejudice the Council's position in commercial negotiations if prematurely released. Reason: This report contains information that, if released prematurely, would compromise Council’s ability to undertake consultation successfully. Information contained in an attachment to this report contains confidential decisions of Council. 17.2 Melbourne Water Elwood Main Drain - financial agreement 3(1)(a) Council business information, being information that would prejudice the Council's position in commercial negotiations if prematurely released. Reason: This report contains information that may impair Council’s ability to effectively negotiate contractual arrangements with preferred suppliers for future tenders on reconstruction works. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
The meeting closed to members of the public at 8.22pm.
The meeting reopened to the public at 8:36pm.
As there was no further business the meeting closed at 8.36pm.
Chairperson ________________________________________