Who Is Really Running Council?

On Wednesday 22nd September Cr Helen Murray moved a motion in reference to the Cleveland CBD Master Plan:

PROPOSED MOTION

Moved by: Cr Murray
Seconded by: Cr Reimers

1. That Council resolves not to adopt the Cleveland Centre Master Plan and Implementation Plan 2010.

2. That Council resolves to engage the following persons or their representatives to give their considered opinion on the future viability of urban koalas in the Cleveland area as a result of Council adopting the plan as proposed:

Dr Frank Carrick UQ

Ms Diedre de Villiers UQ

Mrs Deborah Tabart AKF

Mrs Debbie Pointing KAG

Mr Simon Baltais WPS

3. That the future of the Cleveland Master Plan be based on the best outcome and viability of the urban koalas in the Redlands

Was Cr Murray's motion really intended to further defer the Cleveland CBD Masterplan? Was she trying to prove another point in putting this motion as she threatened Councillors never to wear a green T Shirt again if they supported it?

Interestingly, I am told that two of the local names put forward in her motion have no scientific qualifications to offer. They are clearly committed to the “Save The Koala” and the “Green” cause – that is no secret!  Was it a test for them or their councillor colleagues? Maybe Cr Murray was putting on trial their loyalties to the “koala” cause? Was she challenging their claim to power suckled by the success of placing the current Hobson/Elliott Council in office? CARP, Wildlife Preservation Society Bayside Branch, Qld Conservation Council, Koala Action Group – all of these groups both openly and discreetly supported Hobson and her green team of Councillors in the 2008 Council Elections.

 Page from Koala Action Group Website pre-election March 2008 

Cr Murray actually raised some very important questions and points that we should all consider. Who is really running Redland City Council? Are there faceless people driving the decisions (or lack thereof) of Council? Do they have more influence than other residents? If so, why?

Cleveland CBD Masterplan

At the September General Meeting, Cr Helen Murray moved a motion not to adopt the Cleveland CBD Masterplan and to engage what she termed as experts to investigate the effect of this plan on the urban koala.  There have been numerous opportunities for councillors to request the input of the “experts” over the previous two and half years and I argued that point strongly in the debate. This motion was supported by Cr Murray, Cr Reimers and Cr Toni Bowler.  

PROPOSED MOTION

Moved by: Cr Murray
Seconded by: Cr Reimers

1.  That Council resolves not to adopt the Cleveland Centre Master Plan & Implementation Plan 2010.

2. That Council resolves to engage the following persons or their representatives to give their considered opinion on the future viability of urban koalas in the Cleveland area as a result of Council adopting the plan as proposed:

Dr Frank Carrick UQ

Ms Diedre de Villiers UQ

Mrs Deborah Tabart AKF

Mrs Debbie Pointing KAG

Mr Simon Baltais WPS

3. That the future of the Cleveland Master Plan be based on the best outcome and viability of the urban koalas in the Redlands

This motion was lost and following further debate the masterplan was finally adopted.

MASTERPLAN AMENDMENTS

This plan was due to be adopted in early 2008 but was rejected by Melva and many of her “new team of councillors”. I did not support further delays to this process. However. it was sent back to the drawing board for further consultation, workshops and consideration at the request of a majority of Councillors.   Councillors asked for a number of issues to be addressed including the ability for koalas to transverse the CBD area. 

IMPACTS IN BUSINESS

The community and business people of Cleveland need certainty to move forward and survive. The Cleveland CBD in particular has visible signs of struggle and needs an injection of strong vision which only Council can provide with input from the community. In the debate, I encouraged people to have a walk around the Cleveland CBD and maybe count the number of For Lease/For Sale signs that now exist. It was argued back at me, clearly these businesses are also responsible for their own fate. However, in the cycle of business turnover, astute investors are not filling these vacancies. Why? The cost of doing business in Redlands is no longer attractive, perhaps the risks currently outweigh potential return and Commercial premises copped an 18% increase in rates this year with no further investment in Economic Development for the City. These are considerations that business owners weigh up in making decisions to relocate or to start up/expand.

The efficiency and timeliness of Council's decision making impacts all residents. In this instance, Melva and a majority of councillors did not like the outcome of community engagement in 2007. After further consultation the amended plan has now been delivered which some Councillors are still not happy with. Nearly four years to deliver a high level visionary document is simply not good enough. Council must understand that time means money for private enterprise and the cost of not doing so is often passed on to the general public.  

Green Waste and Illegal Dumping

Currently green waste collected at Redland City Council's Transfer Station is transferred to Rocky Point (near Beenleigh) to generate green electricity. Redland Council does not receive any revenue from this except the fee at the gate paid by residents.

In the most recent Budget adopted by “Melva and her new team of councillors”, dump fees were increased dramatically, and a trial Waste Reduction Incentive Scheme was implemented to offer something in return for these increases and to assist with reducing the community's waste. The budget for this trial is $918,940 this financial year.

This issue was raised in a committee meeting debate yesterday and it became blatantly clear to me that even some Councillor's did not understand how this Waste Reduction Incentive Scheme operates. There are currently two incentives :

1. 
   
   Downsizing a 240l bin to a 140l bin OR;
2. 
   
   Getting a $16 refund for two trips to the transfer station (both receipts must be attached before a refund is given).

The debate predominantly centred around Incentive No.2; with questioning about the requirement to wait until a resident has two receipts before they can be cashed in.

The reason offered by the General Manager was that it costs Council $32 every time this refund is processed! That's right, it costs ratepayers $32 every time this $16 refund is processed???

I argued that if green waste is such a benefit to the environment by taking pressure off the traditional coal powered electricity – the best incentive Council could offer is in fact not to charge at the gate at all. Makes good sense to me!

The debate continued with arguments about illegal dumping with insinuations that I was stirring up “local hysteria” because I did not support introducing or doubling the gate fees at our dumps. Figures of illegal dumping over this term of Council were presented. Unfortunately, the recording of incidents of illegal dumping only began at my request after the introduction of gate fees in December 08, and of course, Councillors who supported this extra gate fee are now saying that the incidents of illegal dumping have always been this high. I will let the public be the judge of this as I continue to receive numerous complaints about illegal dumping in our bushland areas, our parks, charity bins and on private property, including building sites. In fact, the only incidents of illegal dumping that are recorded by Council are those that occur on Council property. I can report for the month of July it cost $8181.63 for council officers to collect and dispose 61.47 tonnes of illegally dumped waste on Council property alone. See the below link:

http://web01.redland.qld.gov.au/robo/Minutes_Agendas/July_Sept10/MinutesAndAgendasJuly-September_2010.htm

I have requested figures to be presented to Council on the % increase of contamination of yellow recycle bins for the last five years, to measure if the introduction and subsequent doubling of dump fees has had any impact on this also.

We should be encouraged to contact Council on every occasion that you find illegal dumping to ensure that these future statistics can be used to influence better decisions in the future.


ADDITIONAL NOTE:
I have added the chart distributed to Councillors do provide clarity. This chart reflects ONLY the REPORTED incidents of illegal dumping to Council.
It seems that my concerns are misunderstood by some Councillors (see post below).  The illegal dumping of green waste is the least detrimental to the environment.  My references to illegal dumping include all types. Particularly, general waste and building materials and especially asbestos.  I hope this assists in seeing the WHOLE picture.