However, I think, again we have not been given the whole story, the community needs to be made aware of the costs of disposing of general waste and what is expected of them, as I am sure this would save a lot of stress on both the workers, who I am sure have had to repeat them selves over and over and also the users.

So perhaps an itemisation of costs for various categories could be published: eg green waste @ $x per 50 kg, general waste $100 per ton unsorted (don’t hold me to this cost but I think it is correct), or sorted $50 per ton. A list of categories for sorting would also be good. I am sure there is a list but who knows exactly what is on this list. Is it available to be handed out to users?

I guess this is a whole lot of rubbish to most people however it could save a lot of hassle and even embarrassment (a lot of people do not carry money on trips to the ‘dump’ and may find the few coins in the ash tray – may leave them ‘short changed’ ) to both users and workers at our Waste Management Facility.

Also it leaves us wondering if we will find that the cost of using the ‘dump’ may lead to more ‘dumping’ particularly of green waste as people see this as more cost on top of the proposed rate hike of almost 15%. Yes I know that there was already a charge  but so far the comments have been it cost ‘$13’, it cost ‘$15’ etc for my grass clippings, green waste, I haven’t heard anyone with positive comments yet.. 

But I guess it’s early days yet. Let’s see if we can keep the community informed.

I refer to Greg Moran’s letter under the heading - Looking  for roads accountability – Inverell Times, July 8, 2016.  I attended the council meeting to which he refers. I had been concerned about Mr Moran’s ongoing attacks on council’s assertion that its Fit for the Future roads backlog was $10.1 million, not $80-odd million as claimed by him.  

Someone has been very much in error - and Council saw fit to provide a full explanation of its investigations and calculations.  So much for the continuing allegations of lack of transparency.  I was disappointed that the Times, who’s reporter was present at the meeting, did not cover the lengthy explanation in depth. The Times had certainly given Mr Moran’s views full coverage – and on more than one occasion.

Mr Moran stated “that it was council staff, not consultants, that carried out the internal analysis on the roads that resulted in the much reduced council sanctioned roads backlog of $10.1 million”. He also stated “that he is not convinced that council’s analysis is any more than an attempt to reach a benchmark figure that achieves for council Fit for the Future status.”    

No mention of the fact that the whole exercise was subject to a very thorough examination by council’s independent auditor, or that the whole exercise was required to comply with demanding state government requirements. I was convinced that council had carried out a thoroughly searching exercise in answer to the Governments requirements. It was extremely well presented and easy to follow, even for an amateur. For those who are interested, the whole presentation is available on council’s web site. 

I congratulate council and its staff on their efforts. When you look around the region, we are very fortunate.  

And, at the very least, Inverell Shire ratepayers are entitled to become fully aware of the council’s response, in this case.