Efficient meeting procedures shown off today

Yes, they really got their act together today. Sure, there was a little contretemps between a couple of councillors but the two meetings went through with councillors seeming to have, at least, read their agendas.

The Animals & City Standards committee meeting was a short affair anyway. Eight Items, only two of which had any substance. Even the last, closed, Item was handled quickly and smoothly when someone suggested that they could resolve its recommendations without closing it to the public. The meeting started at 8.30 and and finished at 8.57.

But before I race off into that world I want to take you back to yesterday when they had the City Roads Infrastructure committee meeting. You'll remember that I proposed that they would not have a need to run one of the Items, IN4, because there would be no progress with the item. But they did have a delegation from Main Roads and the item was kept open for the public, with the permission of the deputation as well as the councillors.

I understand that there were strong words from both parties and that the public there learned a number of things that were not common knowledge. Maybe someone who was there can make a comment about this part of the meeting? I may be able to get a decent briefing from someone too.

Back to Animals, the chair, Cr Able, made encouraging remarks about the number of animals registered. However, I think that the number of animals that are being caught in the city areas are an object lesson that the animal controls in Logan City are not working. It is more than a year since the new Act came into being and there is a continuing need for city clean-up.

I would be interested to see realistic figures about how many animals were found loose in the rural and rural residential areas compared with the built-up area's cat and dog-catching. We pay rates on the basis that we are big consumers of costs to maintain our low-density lifestyles—and it doesn't cost council that much!

I suppose that council makes more out of auctioned cars, found in the city, than from about out here too, Item AS3?

Item AS4, Magistrate's Penalty Decision of 19 December 2011—LCC vs Mark Blakeway, shows that Mr Blakeway was fined $10 thousand for the two offences and another $10 thousand for council's costs in bringing the prosecution.

As I expected the new City Standards Manager wanted to read out much of her Item AS5 monthly report. I hope that Cr Able can take her in hand and tell her that they are supposed to read the reports! She writes them. One of the things a good manager should know in local government is that the less you tell them the fewer questions are asked!

Item AS6, Update on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, now the Health Legislation Amendment Act 2011, that all indications show does not yet have a commencement date, is talked-up mightily in this report. I'm really quite shocked that there are so many quotes from MLAs at parliament.

Yes, there is a chart starting on page 30 comparing new and existing schemes but there should have been another comparing what council said it wanted with what it got, too! But nobody made that comment. But why get up-tight? It was only a For Information report.

Item AS7 is not what I thought that it might be and there is a process initiated to get another landowner to do the right think about chopping down trees. The initial facts show that it might be expensive for the landowner. You could guess that the total might come close to the maximum $166+ thousand fine for that sort of clearing.

The Planning & Development committee meeting started at 9.03 am and ran through its Items with considerable alacrity. During PD1, Cr Able asked a question about multi-unit application objections that the officer could not answer off his cuff and he will get back to Able with an answer. Item PD2 about resolved court appeals was not questioned. Nothing was said about the Material Change of Use—Public Worship—Ahmadiyya Muslim Association of Australia Item at PD3 and that was resolved.

Item PD4, MCU for Intensive Agriculture at Greenbank was kissed-off too.

Cr Black said that he was unhappy that Vodafone was not going to use an existing tower and wanted the Item, PD5, delayed so that officers could look into it. I believe that they were surprised when Black told them there was already a competitor's tower nearby. The officer tried to point out that the new mono-pole towers were not an eyesore like the old lattice ones and that the emissions were controlled by internationally recognised standards but Black, bless his cotton socks, told them he knew those things. He was just concerned that they were going to erect another tower when one already existed! His colleagues agreed and the sent the officer off with a flea in his ear to look further. Meanwhile the MCU would be deferred.

There's a new State government charging regime for development being done by ULDA that is going to cost new home owners a bit more for their houses—I don't believe anyone knows how much more a bit is! Cr Able, at Item PD6, could only get them to say it would be more—without saying even what more than and such non-comparisons are useless! Item PD7, another monthly report was resolved without pause. After morning tea Items PD8 and PD9 were disposed just as quickly.

During the discussion of Item PD10, Discount of Infrastructure Charges, it came out that this was a long-running saga where everyone had agreed with the discounting back in 2007 but because of continued movement of staff, of government policies and of the weather the whole thing was shuffled under the table. They decided to go with the recommendations, which seemed to me to be the best solution.

Paid parking, Item PD11, saw a few swords crossed as Black and Hackwood wanted to joist from opposite sides of the table. Those who know tell me that Black has made an unkind cut into Hackwood's back by supporting a competing candidate against Hackwood.

Cr Able started by speaking very strongly against limiting parking in such a way as to charge for it. He said that it was scandalous but without offering any particular reason other than his considered opinion. Hackwood gave an example of what was going on in Beenleigh where the combined rail and shopping carpark was choked with commuters at the train end and not very many shoppers at the other end. He said that there were moves to take the express stop from Beenleigh to Holmview. Cr Smith offered what was happening at Chermside as another example. He said they needed to think before banning paid parking. Lutton said that they needed to control the situation and that the Planning Scheme could lend itself to the needs of management. There are examples in the agenda from page 251 to 253 that could be developed.

Just about everybody had their say, some at least three times, and they ultimately decided to add to the resolution that a Working Party be formed to pursue a range of possible options and report to a future meeting. Working parties are normally made up of officers and councillors and there are no records of who said what from them. In this case a good idea.

Items PD12 and PD13 are about Liveable Cities Program and they were both kissed off in a flash. Both of these items are reports to the committee of actions taken during the holidays by the Mayor under her executive powers.


The meeting was then closed for discussion of Item PD14, New Planning Scheme First State Interest Check, and everyone trouped outside. Those who know the usual result, a long wait and then a nothing resolution, left for other pastures, as did yours truly.

Thursday's Governance, Finance & Economic Development committee meeting has a 17-Item agenda, nothing much outstanding except that there is an explanation of the new councillors' remuneration. I will not be at that meeting.