By Ethan Benedicto
There were roughly 110 public questions during the Tuesday, 18 March Casey Council meeting, which, despite being held online, showed the people’s eagerness for answers.
During the meeting, it was also revealed that the council’s monitors, Cameron Boardman and Peter Stevenson, have received, to date, $60,000.
The questions that were addressed ranged from a wide range of topics, where, to generalise, and revolved around infrastructure concerns, planning decisions such as the waste transfer station, local laws, governance concerns and transparency, and the naming of Guru Nanak Lake.
The question about the monitors’ salary was raised by Anthony Tassone, vice president of the Casey Residents and Ratepayers Association, in a bid to “ensure transparency”.
Jennifer Bednar, head of direct customer and corporate services, said that the State Government sets the rate for the monitors.
She also added that the two monitors perform their roles “in a part-time capacity”, which means that “payment will fluctuate across the 12 months according to their hours worked”.
Delving into the topics, concerns around local laws and the waste transfer stations remained dominant, with residents questioning the councillors’ roles in the issues.
Questions were raised about whether councillors would have some role to play in the future when it comes to planning permit applications, which was responded to by details regarding delegation protocols.
Some councillors displayed dissatisfaction over the process of Veolia submitting its own risk assessment but ultimately acknowledged that approval was made under existing laws and planning protocols.
On local laws and permits, it was highlighted and emphasised that it is not illegal to tinker with vehicles on one’s premises.
However, concerns can arise when noise levels exceed reasonable limits, if there is excessive storage of vehicle parts, and if activities affect neighbouring amenities.
It was also noted that officers have legal authority under the Local Government Act 1989, an act that was hotly debated by the silent protestors outside Bunjil Place, as well as online.
While these issues have a historical aspect to them, the overarching topic of infrastructure was also prevalent.
These ranged from road congestion and upgrades to safety concerns around crossings, and potholes, with specifics highlighted on Soldiers Road and Clyde Road.
Existing road networks also faced questions, with traffic, speeding and the need for traffic calming measures brought up.
Touching on community engagement and transparency, there were calls for improved council communication with the residents, including a proposal for a resident email subscription for updates.
Ms Bednar responded by stating that an email newsletter is readily available, called the Casey Catch-Up which is sent out monthly.
There were also ratepayer concerns revolving around reductions to the council’s rates due to failing property values.
To this, Ms Bednar also replied by saying that “the total amount of rates collected by a council remains the same regardless of whether the property values increase or decrease”.
Building on this, there were questions on budgetary concerns over council expenditures and questions on council spending on signage and maintenance.
This segued into the current Guru Nanak Lake, formerly Berwick Springs Lake, to which questions were asked regarding the process that the council followed prior to the November 2024 events.
James Collins, director of city planning and infrastructure, said that it had been determined that it was then determined that the “relevant landowner and naming authority (State Government)… should lead the consultation with the community”.
“It is unclear to us how this requirement was not met by the State Government,” he said.
This story provides a rough overview of the questions asked, and some topics and or questions may have been left out.
More information will be provided once the minutes of the meeting become available.
