Questions posed by residents at the Monday 22 September meeting of Hume City Council included concerns included the potential role of council in HiQ’s proposed waste-to-energy facility at Bulla, a ratepayer also pressed the council on transparency, and frustration was expressed over lengthy delays in the council’s Snap Send Solve system.
Q1: HiQ is proposing a waste-to-energy incinerator in Bulla. If the project is approved, Hume City Council may be tempted to send its 55,000 tonnes of household rubbish there each year and pay HiQ to burn it.
Given growing community opposition to this project, will Council pledge not to enter into any waste supply agreement with HiQ, and not to direct Hume’s waste to the Bulla incinerator if it receives planning permission?
Response: Acting Director Infrastructure & Assets: Council has existing contracts in place for landfill disposal, including Heidelberg Materials which is valid until March 2027 with an option to extend to March 2029 and Hi-Quality, which is valid until April 2027 with an option to extend to April 2029.
Based on the value of these contracts, a public tender process would need to be undertaken ahead of their expiry to ensure we can meet Hume’s waste disposal needs. This tender process would be managed in accordance with our Procurement Policy, and we would aim to secure arrangements that provide the best value for money. The future method of waste disposal will be subject to the decision of a future council when determining the contracts awarded.
Q2: Council processes a significant number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests each year, yet neither the requests nor the responses are made publicly available. This creates unnecessary duplication, limits community access to information, and reduces transparency.
At the state and federal level, some agencies now proactively publish FOI requests and responses as part of their open government commitments. Will Hume City Council consider adopting a similar policy to routinely publish all FOI requests and their responses on its website, subject to privacy and confidentiality requirements, to strengthen transparency and improve community access to information?
Response: Chief Financial Officer and Acting Director Customer & Strategy: Data on the number, processing time and decisions made surrounding Council’s Freedom of Information Requests is supplied and included in Hume’s annual report and also reporting produced by the Office of Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC).
For example, in 2024/25 Council received 66 FOI requests of which access was granted in full for 17, in part for 15, and denied in 1 request. 6 requests were withdrawn, 1 did not proceed and 3 requests produced no documents. 10 requests were responded to outside of the FOI act in line with our Public Transparency Policy. 13 requests were not finalised within the reporting period.
Council has not previously considered proactively making its Freedom of Information requests or decisions public. Hume is an active participant in the Local Government Victoria’s working group which is developing a model Public Transparency Policy for the sector. The suggestion to proactively publish more FOI data to reduce duplication and increase transparency will be considered as Hume reviews its own Public Transparency policy.
Q3: Why is council taking so long to action Snap Send and Solve. The example provided shows it took council nearly nine months to complete when the response originally provided stated it would take at maximum two business days? There many more going back 8 months not completed.
Response: Acting Director Infrastructure & Assets: Council received 35 000 Snap, Send Solve requests in the past twelve months, most of which are responded to promptly and within service standards.
Council acknowledges that the service request referenced in the question took longer than expected to finalise. In this instance, the graffiti was on private property and was determined to not be offensive. As such, it does not meet the requirements of Council’s Graffiti Management Policy for removal by Council.
The automated response in November 2024 did not reflect our operating model or align with our Graffiti Management Policy. Council identified this issue, and we have since strengthened our processes, taking steps to improve consistency of response times.
Council remains committed to responding to graffiti reports promptly and in line with our adopted policy.
Q4: How can the community get information showing legal costs spent by this council for the past two years and itemised?
Response: Chief Financial Officer: Thank you for your question. The appropriate way to seek information on Council’s legal costs is via a Freedom of Information request. Information on how to make this type of request can be found on Council’s website.
For context, Council’s as a tier of government are required to engage in many legal processes, as such legal costs are incurred.
In the past two financial years being 2023-24 and 2024-25, Council has spent approximately 1% of Council’s overall budget on legal costs. This is used to support the responsible use of resources, risk mitigation and enforcement action in line with Council Plan Objectives. Most legal costs are incurred in areas of Council operations where Council is a responsible authority or exercising enforcement action, for example in planning and development.
Q5: As of 30 June 2025, outstanding council rates in Hume reached $45.75 million, owed by 18,623 ratepayers — a sharp increase from $39.58 million the previous year.
Of this, more than 6,300 households are on payment plans covering $19.19 million, while a further 5,350 accounts worth $27.16 million have been referred to debt collection.
These figures highlight that many residents are already under significant financial strain, struggling with rising cost-of-living pressures. At some point, Council itself must demonstrate austerity in its spending to reflect the realities faced by the community.
In 2025 which departments within Hume City Council have delivered budget savings between the 2024/25 and 2025/26 budgets? Please provide a clear breakdown by department, including the amount reduced.
Response: Chief Financial Officer: Thank you for your question. This question will be taken on notice and responded to at a future Council meeting.
Q6: Council would be aware that the increased number of heavy vehicle movements – particularly effluent trucks servicing greenfield housing estates and transporting waste to the Sunbury Waste Water Treatment Plant—has resulted in significant deterioration of local infrastructure.
Jackson’s Street, Harker Street, several Council roundabouts, gutters, and drains are now showing visible damage. Residents pay sewerage rates that cover maintenance of pipes; in cases where these pipes are not yet connected to the treatment plant.
Are these costs being used to cover maintenance of other infrastructure damaged by heavy vehicles and can Council confirm whether it is actively seeking, or intends to seek, repair budgets or compensation from Melbourne Water or the relevant water authority to address the road and infrastructure damage caused by these truck movements?
Response: Acting Director Infrastructure & Assets: Council is aware of the increased heavy vehicle movements associated with transport to the Sunbury Waste Water Treatment Plant however the infrastructure and service arrangements are led by Great Western Water.
Council shares the communities frustration with the current arrangement in place for the management of waste water in many greenfields areas, however sewer infrastructure is not controlled or constructed by Council.
Council can confirm that the developer is responsible until the ultimate infrastructure is in place. Council has no input into this process, but we certainly share the frustration with the additional truck traffic.
Council regularly advocates to developers and the Victorian Government about the need for the timely delivery of infrastructure in our growing communities.
Council’s Road Management Plan, outlines how often roads and footpaths are inspected, the intervention levels for defects and response times for when defects are identified. Under the Plan, road inspections of Jacksons Street and Harper Street were last done in April 2025, and footpaths were inspected in May and June 2025.
Under the Plan, additional inspections can also be done at any time in response to reports of damage. In response to your comments, Jacksons Street and Harper Street will be inspected this week and arrangements made to repair any defects that exceed intervention levels.
The increased movements referenced here are legally using the road, therefore Council is unable to recoup costs to address road or infrastructure damage which may be caused.
Q7: Now that the 2020–2024 Councillor term has concluded, can Council please provide a full and complete list of every complaint which had been lodged to the Principal Conduct Registrar for alleged Councillor misconduct only, which did not proceed to a Councillor Conduct Panel, including who the complainants were, what the outcome of each matter was as whether there was a finding of breach, no breach, the application was withdrawn or any other result, and also include the costs incurred for each application if reported or since calculated, such as the appointment of arbiters, room hire, catering, security, transcription services and staff costs for responding to emails, telephone calls and other matters, calculated at the relevant hourly rate of the Council officers involved?
Response: Chief Financial Officer: This question will be taken on notice and responded to at a future Council meeting.
Q8: Are there any other matters from this period involving former Councillors that remained as continuing or ongoing legal complaints or proceedings, and if so, can Council please list these matters and provide their outcomes to date?
Response: Chief Financial Officer: This question will be taken on notice and responded to at a future council meeting.
