Minutes - Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council - 18 March 2026
MINUTES OF THE Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council HELD 18 March 2026 IN St Kilda Town Hall AND VIRTUAL VIA TEAMS
The meeting opened at 6:31pm.
IN ATTENDANCE
Cr Makin (Chairperson), Cr Buckingham, Cr Cunsolo, Cr Halliday, Cr Hardy (online), Cr Jay, Cr Mears, Cr Thomann.
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer, Brian Tee, General Manager City Development, Kylie Bennetts, General Manager Community Wellbeing, Robyn Borley, General Manager, Governance and Performance, Paul Wood, Acting General Manager, City Infrastructure, Daniel Lew, Director, People and Experience, Christine Dening, Manager Community Building and Inclusion, Dana Pritchard, Manager Open Space, Recreation and Community Resilience, Mike Fisher, Manager City Planning & Sustainability, Karen Roache, Coordinator Strategic Transport, Susie Filleti, Business Engagement Coordinator, James Gullan, Acting Manager Communications and Governance, Emily Williams, Senior Council Business Advisor, Josh Vearing, Council Business Advisor.
The Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Owners and Custodians of the Kulin Nation. We acknowledge their legacy and spiritual connection to the land and waterways across the City of Port Phillip and pay our heartfelt respect to their Elders, past, present, and emerging.
1. Apologies
Nil.
It was noted that Councillor Crawford is on an approved leave of absence.
2. Confirmation of Minutes
|
That the minutes of the Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council held on 4 March 2026 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/archive.php
Public Question Time:
· Michael Barrett: Before I commence, my question at the 4 March Council meeting referred to the NEXTDC M1 data centre, I was in fact referring to the NEXTDC M4 data centre at 127 Todd Road, Port Melbourne. Further to my question on 4 March regarding the commonality of electricity and water supply your response confirmed the commonality of supply across the cities of Melbourne & Port Phillip and the M4 data centre, however your view was that these activities were managed by the Victorian Government. My response to this and using the Water Act of 1989 as an example, both water and electricity are managed on behalf of the public by the Victorian State Government and specifically relating to electricity, the Victorian Government has recently re activated the State Electricity Commission on behalf of the Victorian public I thank Councillor Halliday for his supplementary question to you on March 4, reinforcing to you the importance of electricity and water supplies to the residents and ratepayers City of Port Phillip. I also note with interest that the Australian Energy Market Regulator estimates that Data Centre power consumption will amount to 19% of Melbourne’s electrical energy grid by 2050 (up from 2% today) and Melbourne Water estimates that current applications for water usage from Data Centre’s across Melbourne exceed the current top 30 non-residential users in Melbourne. I also note a joint letter in early 2026, from the mayors of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Hobart writing to their respective state governments, highlighting the same issues as outlined above. Since the meeting of March 4, could you outline your proposed course of action relating to the issues identified above, including Victorian Local and State Government departments and the respective time lines for these discussions?
Brian Tee, General Manager City Development advised that the site in concern is on the City of Melbourne side of Fishermans Bend and confirmed that the City of Port Phillip did not participate in that decision making process. At the 4 March Council meeting, Brian Tee undertook to review and engage with the State Government on this issue because of the commonality and impact of electricity and water use will transmit past Local Government boundaries. The conversations and documentation that Council has seen from the State Government have confirmed that in the State Government’s view they are not concerned about the impact on water and electricity. They have identified that the site was used by the Westgate Park Print Plant which was demolished in 2024, and from their perspective, the relevance is that the existing utility infrastructure including power, water, sewer and telecommunications connections are sufficient to manage the draw on water and power from this site. The State Government have also indicated, in their view, that the Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Standards around water efficiency is best practice for data at the NEXTDC M4 data centre. Council has reached out, but not heard back from, colleagues at the City of Melbourne to understand if they have any concerns and undertook to provide Michael with an update once conversations have been had with the City of Melbourne.
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer added that they attended the Melbourne 9 (M9), meeting last week Mayors and CEO’s of the nine inner metro Councils. This is a topic amongst the nine Council’s, particularly the City of Melbourne, and it was raised during this meeting. The M9 group is working on a joint advocacy position on this and undertook to keep Michael informed on the progress.
· Matthew Roberts: On
10 December 2025, Councillors voted to endorse the allocation of $300k over two
years to South Port Community Housing Group. The 2022 Social and Affordable
Housing Regulation Review made recommendations to the Victorian Government to
overhaul and improve community housing regulation in Victoria. Will Council
work with me to advocate to the Victorian Government for these recommendations
to be implemented in order to benefit all community housing residents in our
municipality?
At the 4 February Council meeting, a question was asked if renters were
consulted prior to voting to allocate $300k, Council confirmed the answer was
‘no’. I’ve read the 2022 State Government Review into social
housing regulation and that Review found that the Housing Registrar is out of
date and not fit for purpose in adequately regulating community housing or
addressing complaints from community housing residents. Will Council assist
existing residents of this housing provider to resolve their issues or complaints
and if so, how?
Christine Dening,
Manager Community Building and Inclusion advised that Council’s
Homelessness and Affordable Housing Strategy outlines Council’s role in
social and community housing as a local planning authority, and in promoting
community wellbeing and inclusion. The funding provided to South Port
Community Housing Group over the 2025–26 and 2026–27 financial
years speaks to these responsibilities and responds to the strategic pillars of
the Homelessness and Affordable Housing Strategy. As part of implementing
this strategy, officers will be developing an advocacy plan and can consider
the recommendations from the 2022 Social and Affordable Housing Regulation
Review in the development of this plan. Christine Dening encouraged Matthew to
provide any feedback regarding this to officers or directly to them. Additionally,
in the lead up to the upcoming 2026 Victorian Election, Council will be
advocating across a range of topics. The community is encouraged to add their
voices to Council’s advocacy efforts and can suggest alternative advocacy
priorities through the 2026 Victorian Election Hub on the City of Port Phillip
website. Christine Dening encouraged Matthew to provide their feedback on the
advocacy priorities by completing the Advocacy Community Engagement Form.
The funding provided to South Port Community Housing Group was for the purpose
of delivering two programs intended to assist people experiencing or at risk of
homelessness with access to housing and supportive wraparound services. As
previously noted, these programs would have no impact to existing
tenants. Council does not have regulatory authority over community housing
providers; however, Council officers can assist residents to understand their
concerns and help identify the most appropriate pathway to resolve issues or
complaints. Depending on the matter, this may include referring residents
to the appropriate external body responsible for oversight and dispute
resolution, such as the Victorian Ombudsman, VCAT, Rental Dispute Resolution
Victoria, a community legal service or other specialist agency.
· Isaac Hermann: The 'Picturing Democracy' Exhibition text asks 'Who and What is not seen?' Does Council consider that the exclusion of minorities from this exhibition is acceptable? Did the Exhibition Commission Brief require multiculturally inclusive content? How does the exclusion of Jewish, Buddhist, Chinese, Taoist, Hare Krishna and Hindu places of worship enhance social inclusion? With significant Jewish content that is readily available from the City Collection - why does it only form 1 out of 106 images? With significant Chinese content that is readily accessible from the City Collection - why is there zero Chinese content? The Mayor and Councillors joint declaration in December 2025: 'Stand in Solidarity Against Antisemitism’ notes: 'To our Jewish Community we say: ‘We see you. We stand with you'. Why has this Exhibition made the Jewish Community invisible and 'unimaginable'? There looks to also be issues with Council's 'Social Cohesion, Diversity and Inclusion' Policy': How does this demographically distorted Exhibition reflect Council Policy? The Australian Human Rights Commission notes there is nothing casual about racism. Will Council consider whether there may be issues of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975. Localities are left out – Ripponlea is entirely left out and Elwood is barely in the exhibition. Historic and more significant campaigns are ignored in this 'Picturing Democracy' exhibition?
Kylie Bennetts, General Manager Community Wellbeing thanked Isaac for raising their concerns about the exhibition that is currently on display at the Carlisle Street Arts Space. They advised that since receiving Issac’s registration to speak at the meeting, the relevant service manager had made contact and confirmed that an internal review of Council’s processes related to this matter was underway. Once this review was completed, a response would be provided to the questions submitted to Council. The service manager also invited Isaac to participate as a key stakeholder in the development of Council’s new Creative and Prosperous Cities strategy to share their experiences and ideas. Kylie Bennetts noted that Council’s arts program delivers work in partnership with a broad range of communities, including recent initiatives reflecting Jewish community history and heritage.
· Adrian King: Please can Council explain why is the new pavilion at Lagoon Reserve painted in the colours of Albert Park College, a State funded education organisation? Did Albert Park College at any point whatsoever indicate its desire for the 2nd floor that has been built? Noting this additional 2nd floor has come at a cost to ratepayers of circa $3m+. Did Albert Park College at any time communicate to any Council personnel its willingness to fund all or part of the cost of the additional 2nd floor?
Dana Pritchard, Manager Open Space, Recreation and Community Resilience advised that Lagoon Reserve pavilion is a Council owned and managed community facility. The colour treatment reflects a design decision by Council informed by a broader reserve context and consistent with elements used in other recent Council projects. Albert Park College did not indicate any willingness to financially contribute to the construction of the pavilion. There was no direct collaboration or financial contribution from Albert Park College at any stage of the project. The second level of the pavilion was planned and delivered by Council to provide a flexible space for community use, this space is now available for the community to hire and the completed facility is being showcased to the public at an open day on 19 March 2026.
The response provided at the meeting was corrected on 1 April 2026:
The colours used on the pavilion were chosen by the consultants and approved by Council officers to fit with the look and feel of Lagoon Reserve. They are based on the native vegetation in the area, particularly wattle and banksia.
At Council briefings in December 2019 and March 2020, Councillors were advised that Albert Park College met with officers (August 2019) and corresponded in November 2019, outlining its interest in contributing funding to a Pavilion redevelopment. The school was seeking to include a 160 m2 double classroom, and suitable toilet, change and access arrangements to support their educational programs.
There was discussion about community groups potentially accessing the classroom out of hours. Albert Park College proposed this as an upper storey to the Pavilion.
The Scouts verbally contacted officers in mid-2019 to also flag interest in potential inclusion of scout facilities in a new Pavilion at either Elder Smith Reserve or Lagoon Reserve.
At Council briefings in December 2019, March 2020 and June 2022, Councillors were advised that Albert Park College had indicated it had some funds to put towards the proposal, however no specific dollar amounts were mentioned.
These briefings also highlighted that the Scouts had contacted officers to flag interest in potential inclusion of scout facilities in a new pavilion and they could contribute $500k to the project.
At a Councillor briefing in March 2020, three design options were presented to Councillors for consideration. Councillors provided feedback to progress with a new small pavilion.
At the March 2020 briefing Councillors also supported investigating the possibility of external funding partners for the pavilion project if a second storey was progressed. Councillors supported officers engaging with Albert Park Secondary College and the Scouts to consider their aspirations (and funding) in consideration for the pavilion.
At a Councillor briefing in June 2022, officers provided four options for Councillor feedback including: Option 1 – Do Nothing; Option 2 – Investigate modular design option; Option 3 – Single story pavilion constructed with an option to include a second story into the future; and Option 4 – two-storey pavilion. This briefing recommended progressing with a single storey pavilion (Option 3) and completed further investigations to undertake minimal upgrades to the Reserve. This briefing highlighted the only way to include either the Scouts or Albert Park College requests into the build would be to include a second storey.
Councillor feedback from this briefing informed the project direction including that most Councillors did not support receiving funding from external sources as this could impact broader community use and most supported building a two-storey pavilion to future proof the facilities.
In September 2022, at a public Council meeting, Council endorsed progressing the detailed design for a two-storey pavilion and viewing balcony (Option 3) for the Lagoon Reserve Pavilion. At this meeting Council also committed additional funding for the project from Council’s Open Space Reserve and rates.
The Lagoon Reserve Community Room is available for community hire as a Council-managed space.
· Elisa Webb: The City of Port Phillip has recently announced a request for more than $60 million in State Government funding, for projects across the area that 'aim to improve daily life for residents', and which reportedly addresses community feedback. St Kilda Park Primary School raised the issue of the huge discrepancy in capital works funding for local schools with Bryan Mears in December last year. Publicly available figures show that since 2016, St Kilda Primary School has received $10 million in funding for new building works. St Kilda Park Primary has received just $200,000 in the same decade. These schools were built 7 years apart in the late 1800s and are both older heritage buildings requiring extensive maintenance and improvements. Neither School has an indoor hall, and in fact, St Kilda Park Primary School has never had one. Can Council please provide insight into the decision-making process around advocating for St Kilda Primary to receive another $12.5 million dollars in capital works funding, while no request at all was made on behalf of St Kilda Park Primary?
James Gullan, Acting Manager Communications and Governance advised that the process of Council’s advocacy priorities is set out in Council’s advocacy strategy which was endorsed in 2024. Each year Council undertakes a review of these priorities and that review is informed by feedback from the community, community groups and the Councillors. All the proposed advocacy items are then assessed and prioritised against Council’s advocacy principles, outlined in the advocacy strategy, including whether there is a clear ask, evidence of need, and alignment with Council’s plan. Council’s State Advocacy Election wish list was informed by these principles. In relation to St Kilda Park Primary, if there is project of importance they wish Council to assist to advocate for, the recommendation is to complete Council’s advocacy form online. That form was launched in November 2025 and has been promoted through Council’s social media channels. The next review of these priorities is coming up in June 2026, so now is the right time to make that request, and the form is available of Council’s advocacy page. Once a form is completed an officer will be in contact.
Council Report Submissions:
Item 9.2 Draft Foreshore Management Plan for Public Consultation
|
· Isaac Hermann |
Item 10.1 Collaborative Procurement to New e-bike and e-scooter Agreement
|
· Claire Mear |
· Penny Essing |
Item 11.1 Port Melbourne Special Rate and Charge 2026-2031 – Consideration of Objections and Submissions
|
· Vincenzo Di Felice |
· Mike Stevens |
· Nick Latras |
|
· Tony Hill |
· Jodee Affleck |
|
Item 11.2 South Melbourne Special Rate and Charge 2026-2031 – Consideration of Objections and Submissions
|
· Anne Michaels |
· Andrew Scawen |
5. Councillor question time
· Councillor Jay: Following on from Elisa Webb’s question during public question time. Can officers clarify that the money that was promised was actually brought to us by a candidate. The website says that $12.5m was promised by Rachel Westaway from Prahran, and the school falls into Prahran. Is it fair to say that the school has advocated their MP, and then their MP has come back to us and we’ve supported that?
James Gullan, Acting Manager Communications and Governance advised that in terms of Council’s advocacy priorities Council prioritises projects that are Council managed and Council owned. In this case the school had run an impactful advocacy campaign for their community hall, they’ve run an independent campaign and approached Council for support leveraging off their existing campaign. James Gullan confirmed that Cr Jay was correct, much of the hard yards had been done through the school and their work advocating to local candidates. In terms of what’s listed on Council’s website, it is an election commitment at this point in time a non-binding commitment. The Liberal party have made a commitment that if the candidate and the party were to be elected that they would investing in that School.
Mayor Makin followed up to ask whether the community can share their advocacy ideas or priorities through Council’s Advocacy Hub and if community members can use the online form to raise any issues they wish Council to advocate for on their behalf?
James Gullan, Acting Manager Communications and Governance confirmed that the advocacy hub is a new way that Council is looking to solicit feedback from the community on advocacy priorities for them. Officers then assesses the eligibility of that project against the Council plan and a range of existing criteria. It is then prioritised based on community need, community impact benefit and a range of other criteria.
Councillor Halliday asked to clarify whether community members see what our current advocacy priorities are on the same webpage?
James Gullan, Acting Manager Communications and Governance confirmed that Council has a comprehensive advocacy website that has a list of Council’s fully endorsed advocacy priorities. Council also has a state election hub that has a wish list for the upcoming election which is a more comprehensive list of advocacy priorities which Council needs a partnership with State Government to resolve and also a range of localised capital projects that Council would appreciate a commitment to fund.
· Councillor Halliday: With the ongoing unpleasantness in the Middle East we are seeing a spike in fuel prices. What exposure do we have as an organisation to these higher fuel prices, and at what point will this have a material impact on our budget?
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer advised that Council does have risks associated with what’s going on. Council runs a range of services that rely on fuel and a range of services that rely on supply of goods from the Middle East and major shipping lanes. Council understands from COVID and the conflict in Ukraine that when there is trouble in that region there is flow on impacts to Council. Council is doing some work internally as part of the budget process to review that risk in detail and will report back to Councillors in terms of implications. Council is looking to reforecast some of the inflation impacts on major contracts that will have an impact on the budget process.
Councillor Halliday followed up asking how insulated are we from this? What amount of the Council fleet in electrified?
Paul Wood, General Manager City Infrastructure stated that Council has a strong commitment through policy to achieve a zero emission fleet. The majority of Council’s light fleet is either electric or a zero emission vehicle. The exception to that is certain vehicles that are required to be taken home at night where there is not charging facilities for staff. The challenge is Council’s heavier fleet such as street sweepers, hook trucks, and beach cleaning equipment which predominantly, for operational reasons, are not electric.
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer added that the same can be said for Council’s heavy vehicle fleet that is contracted through contract services such as waste kerbside collection. Council have looked previously into electrification of the heavy vehicle fleet. Council did some procurement, but unfortunately the market is still maturing and Council have had some false starts in that space.
Councillor Halliday followed up in relation to testing the market again given that spaces like the mining industry are heavily electrifying as we speak. Does Council have provision in the current waste collection contract for electrification through the course of that contract?
Paul Wood, General Manager City Infrastructure stated that the waste contract is an extension of the existing contract and the existing contract doesn’t have terms that requires for electric vehicles. There is limited opportunity other than continuing discussions as part of Council’s contract management around the future of fleet with the service provider.
· Councillor Jay: Has Council, with the rising cost of electricity, taken into account the increase to electrical costs in the budget?
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer stated that in prior years electrical costs have been a largely fixed cost that gets passed on, but Council has invested in things like sustainable energy. Council entered into collaboration to us access to renewable energy for some of the electricity sources which has insulated Council to some extent in relation to increases. Council does complete a review of electricity costs as part of the annual budget process. Council has also spent quite a bit of time putting solar on key buildings and then collaborating for access to renewables.
Councillor Jay followed up asking if Council harvests rainwater as the cost of water with the data centres is questionable with the data centres going forward?
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer stated that Council does harvest rainwater and there is currently a project around the expansion of stormwater harvesting, there is currently a scheme in Elwood. There is some technical work to do to expand that, which is looking at piping and trenching potentially from here into M.O. Moran Reserve. Council has done work over the years on other options, but it has come down to two major options one of which we are proceeding with at the moment. This will come to a stage-gate for decision making in the near future, Council is completing feasibility and making sure that it is deliverable. Council is also looking at buildings where it makes sense to have rainwater storage solutions where possible noting that on small buildings and pavilions it doesn’t really work.
· Mayor Makin The Fishermans Bend framework was predicated on the vision of 80% of transport movements being a form of sustainable transport including walking, cycling and public transport. This was based on the vision of frequent bus services, a series of tram connections, as well as a heavy rail underground through Melbourne Metro 2. Given this hasn’t been provided, I am therefore assuming Fishermans Bend is not achieving that 80% target of modal share, what impact does that have on the residents of Fishermans Bend given a climate of rising petrol prices and what impact does that have on the resilience of current and future communities of Fishermans Bend?
Brian Tee, General Manager City Development advised that the issue around the 80% transport being sustainable was part of the Fishermans Bend framework and the delivery of tram, train and bus infrastructure and Council has struggled to obtain the business case for that. Council undertook some work as early as 2017 which showed that the absence of public transport would have an impact on the commuters and congestion, and would influence the type of development at Fishermans Bend and would compromise the delivery of the Fishermans Bend vision in its entirety, not just in terms of the sustainable suburb, but also the type of development that is seen to be required for Melbourne to deliver on its housing outcomes.
Mayor Makin followed up asking for confirmation whether the advocacy hub includes several public transport and sustainable transport priorities for Fishermans Bend including frequent bus services, those long promised but never delivered tram connections, as well as ongoing advocacy for the heavy rail of the Melbourne Metro 2 connections?
James Gullan, Acting Manager Communications and Governance confirmed that is correct including the 606 bus and a range of pedestrian treatments.
6. Petitions, Joint Letters and deputations
Nil.
7. 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 – January 2026 Issue 125 – (Attachment 1). 3.2 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 unanimously |
8. A Healthy and Connected Community
9. An Environmentally Sustainable and Resilient City
|
PURPOSE 1.1 To seek endorsement for the expansion of the private electric vehicle charging pilot to include emerging technology. 1.2 To seek endorsement for the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Guidelines. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Endorses the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Guidelines (Attachment 2). 3.2 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or delegate, to make non‑material amendments to the EV Charging Guidelines where such changes are required to improve clarity, reflect updated technical standards, or correct minor errors, provided that these amendments do not alter the intent or direction endorsed by Council. 3.3 Endorses Council expanding the types of Private Electric Vehicle Charging devices permitted by Council in response to new charging technology subject to a review of the technology demonstrating compliance with the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Guidelines and permit conditions. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously |
|
PURPOSE 1.1 To present the Draft Foreshore Management Plan (FMP) to Councillors and seek approval to proceed with community engagement. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Thanks the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation, Community Reference Group members, and all community members who have helped inform the draft Foreshore Management Plan to date. 3.2 Releases the draft Foreshore Management Plan as outlined in Attachment 1 for community engagement for a period of four weeks. 3.3 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate the ability to make minor editorial changes to the draft Foreshore Management Plan that do not materially alter its intent, to facilitate community engagement. 3.4 Endorses the removal of the action ‘Develop a Foreshore Character Study’ from the draft Foreshore Management Plan prior to engagement, noting that the intended design standards will instead be incorporated into the service levels within Council’s Asset Management Plan. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously |
The Mayor adjourned the meeting for a break at 8:25pm
The meeting resumed at 8:39pm.
10. A Safe and Liveable City
11. A Vibrant and Thriving Community
EXTENSION OF TIME
Moved Crs Cunsolo/Halliday
That council in line with provision 10.2 of the governance rules extends the meeting on 18 March 2026 by 30 minutes (until 10:30pm).
A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously
EXTENSION OF TIME
Moved Crs Cunsolo/Jay
That council in line with provision 10.2 of the governance rules extends the meeting on 18 March 2026 by 30 minutes (until 11:00pm).
A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously.
The Mayor adjourned the meeting for a break at 10:05pm.
The meeting resumed
at 10:11pm.
12. An Engaged and Empowered Community
|
PURPOSE 1.1 To seek Council endorsement to submit motions to the Municipal Association of Victoria’s State Conference. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Endorses the submission of motions to the Municipal Association of Victoria’s State Council on the following themes (as per Attachment 1): 3.1.1 Strengthening
council-led social cohesion initiatives 1. Acknowledge the importance of all levels of government working collaboratively and constructively to combat all forms of racism, hatred and bigotry as well as promote social cohesion in Victoria. 2. Establish a dedicated funding stream and partnership framework to support local governments in leading the community in social cohesion initiatives, and to prevent and respond to racially malicious incidents. 3. Resource councils to deliver practical, evidence-based initiatives such as upstander training in schools, community engagement, and social cohesion taskforces. 4. Facilitate collaboration between councils, state agencies, and community organisations to share best practice, respond to incidents, and build safer, more inclusive communities. 3.1.2 Statewide multi‑year beach renourishment program That the MAV advocate to the Victorian Government to: 1. Establish a statewide, multi-year beach renourishment program with clear governance, risk-based triggers and transparent funding pathways to protect public assets and promenades, maintain safe and accessible beaches, reduce storm damage and repair costs, and safeguard tourism and coastal ecosystems across Port Phillip Bay and the broader Victorian coastline. 2. Implement coordinated delivery and capability supports, including a predictable co-funding model, standardised technical guidance and monitoring, streamlined environmental approvals, and a preference for nature-based, climate-resilient designs to achieve better value for money and scheduling certainty for councils. 3.1.3 Improving bus service frequencies in Victoria That the MAV: Call on the Victorian Government to: 1. Fund and implement Victoria’s Bus Plan, as outlined in the Department of Transport and Planning’s Bus Network Reform Implementation Approach, to improve bus services in Victoria and; 2. Deliver a vibrant public education campaign to promote bus use. 3.1.4 Protecting authorised officers as front-line workers That the MAV advocate to the Victorian Government to: 1. Amend legislation to recognise local government authorised officers as protected front-line workers, applying emergency-worker-level aggravated assault penalties for assault, threats, intimidation, or obstruction while performing - or because of - their official duties, regardless of the enabling Act. 2. Provide implementation guidance to Victoria Police and courts, and public communications reinforcing zero-tolerance for aggression towards council officers. 3.1.5 Legislation and funding to the EPA to support acoustic cameras to mitigate hooning That MAV calls on the Victorian Government to: 1. Enable enforcement with acoustic cameras by clarifying or amending the Environment Protection Act 2017 and Environment Protection Regulations 2021 so EPA Victoria can rely on approved acoustic-camera evidence (with human review) to issue Vehicle Testing Notices and infringements. 2. Fund a statewide program for EPA Victoria (with Victoria Police and DTP) to deploy mobile and fixed acoustic cameras at Police-identified hotspots, under a standards, privacy and evaluation framework. 3. Co-fund council participation, recognising local installation costs, with EPA managing devices, data and enforcement. 3.1.6 Statewide active & accessible transport acceleration That the Municipal Association of Victoria advocate to the Victorian Government to: 1. Establish a recurrent funding mechanism to co-fund council-led walking, wheeling and cycling upgrades and public-transport access works, building on the congestion-levy reinvestment precedent. 2. Publish and fund a time-bound program for accessible tram stops (level boarding) and higher-capacity trams, with milestones co-designed with councils. 3. Complete a metropolitan bus network review and uplift (frequency, operating span, and intermodal connections), prioritising first/last-mile corridors identified by councils. 4. Co-deliver protected, connected cycling corridors on State-managed arterials and protected intersections at key nodes to close network gaps and reduce serious injuries. 3.1.7 Strengthened homelessness responses, social housing access, and rental stability That the Municipal Association of Victoria advocate to the Victorian and Australian Governments to: 1. Strengthen integrated, prevention‑focused homelessness responses, including early‑exit pathways from institutions, properly resourced interim housing, and retention/expansion of locally delivered services. 2. Renew and expand social and community housing with tenant‑safe renewal; deliver emergency and short‑term options (including culturally appropriate First Nations responses); and scale proven, diverse models. 3. Increase affordable and key‑worker supply through partnerships and innovation, a statewide register to track voluntary affordable housing agreements, and measures that reduce displacement from short‑stay accommodation. 4. Stabilise the private rental market via mandatory affordable housing contribution requirements, stronger renter protections (lease security, improved CRA), mitigation of short‑stay impacts, and accessible dispute resolution. 5. Strengthen place‑based systems with a single coordinated access point, growth‑enabling State infrastructure, and opportunities to collocate Council services in new social, community and affordable housing. 3.2 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer or delegate to make non‑material changes to the motions where required, or to align with collaborating Councils. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously |
|
PURPOSE 1.1 To report on the expenses incurred by Councillors during February 2026 in accordance with the Councillor Expenses and Support Policy. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Notes the monthly Councillor expenses report for February 2026 (Attachment 1) and that this will be made available on Council’s website. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously |
13. A Trusted and High-Performing Organisation
|
PURPOSE 1.1 To seek Council endorsement of the revised Psychological Health and Psychosocial Hazards Policy |
|
That Council: 3.1 Endorses the revised Psychological Health and Psychosocial Hazards Policy (Attachment 1) and notes its application to Councillors. 3.2 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate to make minor edits to the Policy that do not materially alter its content. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously |
14. Notices of Motion
Nil.
15. Reports by Councillor Delegates
Mayor Makin and Councillor Jay reported that they attended the St Patrick’s Day festivities at O’Donnell Gardens and that it was a great family-friendly event. Mayor Makin thanked Gabriel Williams, Minister for Transport Infrastructure of Victoria and Nina Taylor, Member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly for their attendance at this event.
Mayor Makin reported that they attended the M9 community safety public forum with the Police commissioner which provided a great opportunity to work with police and community providers around a range of community safety aspects and share a range of community safety topics. The M9 advocacy campaign around high-growth areas of inner Melbourne were also discussed and it was a great opportunity to demonstrate the need for funding streams to support growth in these areas.
Councillor Thomann reported as the Councillor delegate to the Art Acquisition Reference Group that the Louisa Briggs sculpture commission is progressing well and the committee agreed to accept a gift of a painting by Andrew Sibley of Mary-Lou Jelbart which was an entry for the Archibald Prize in 1996.
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 CEO Employment Matters 3(1)(f) personal information, being information which if released would result in the unreasonable disclosure of information about any person or their personal affairs. Reason: Under the CEO Employment and Remuneration Policy, Section 16 - Confidentiality, Council does not disclose any personal information, being information which if released would result in the unreasonable disclosure of information about any person or their personal affairs. The CEO's remuneration falls into that category. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously |
The meeting closed to members of the public at 10:28pm.
The meeting reopened to members of the public at 10:48pm
As there was no further business the meeting closed at 10:48pm.
Chairperson ________________________________________