Council getting ahead of the game
I reply to Fred Sassmannshausen’s letter (“Organics service confusing”, Bendigo Advertiser, August 24).
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Mr Sassmannshausen is correct, the City of Greater Bendigo does not require residents to have a compost bin or worm farm on their property.
However, those seeking an exemption from the organics service must prove that they are intentionally and effectively managing their organics waste on their property (via a compost bin or worm farm etc) to be eligible for an exemption from the service.
The new organics service is a compulsory service just like your waste and recycling services. Residents do not have the option to simply opt out.
The decision to introduce the new organics service was one that was not taken lightly by council.
Council voted to introduce the service because it is a key action of the City’s 2014-2019 Waste and Resource Management Strategy, which was subject to significant community consultation, and it is in line with the state government’s Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan.
In time, all local government areas in Victoria are expected to implement systems to divert organic waste from landfill.
The new service will also reduce the current and future financial and environmental liabilities that must be paid by the ratepayer to the state government each year for every tonne of waste that is sent to landfill - this currently totals over $3.4 million per annum.
It is a fact that organic waste placed in landfill is the biggest cause of dangerous methane and other greenhouse gases, and the city’s new organics service will result in 12,000 tonnes of organic material being recycled into re-usable compost each year, which is a great outcome for the community and the environment.
Ian Couper, interim director of presentation and assets, City of Greater Bendigo
Ratepayers left out of budget process
Mayor Rod Fyffe’s letter “Councillors hold budget power”, (Bendigo Advertiser, August 12) letter defended the indefensible, favouring gross weaknesses in the council plan and budget public processes.
Michael McKenzie’s letter “Candidates face challenge”, (Bendigo Advertiser, August 10) nailed the fact that residents are far removed from the process.
In closed forum meetings officers brief councillors, then both decide the draft plan and budget, with no opportunity for ratepayer scrutiny or ideas. Special interest lobby groups get inside running; no broad community ownership.
Cr Fyffe claimed councillors put “forward projects for consideration as part of the [draft] budget process”. I'll provide the back of a stamp for him to publish each councillor’s past four-year contribution.
He knows once drafts are published they are near set in concrete. Only then are residents called to present submissions, and not before. At council hearings, submitters are given five minutes to present, and five for questions, no matter if they address one simple issue or numerous complex issues.
My experience is most councillors do not read residents’ submissions, but rely on officer reports that dodge research and ideas that question their pre-determined position.
Sure, councillors eventually vote at a public council meeting. Compliant councilors nod and deliver scripted speeches; only a couple seem capable to do their own research and debate. Michael McKenzie called this charade for what it is: Council passing all this off as the community’s plan and budget.
Council ignored its poor community satisfaction survey results, and muddied reasoned public criticism. It’s the disgraceful impotence of the public processes and councillor input, along with lack of transparency, that is concerning. Don’t be fooled, Rod’s claim of “extensive public consultation” is definitely hollow.