General News
14 April, 2026
Residents air grievances against council and proposed tip closures at public meeting
Concerned residents gathered on Friday to oppose Central Goldfields Shire Council’s proposed closure of three-quarters of the shire’s transfer stations.
Concerned residents gathered on Friday to discuss their frustration with Central Goldfields Shire Council’s proposed closure of three-quarters of the shire’s transfer stations.
Over 40 people attended a community meeting on April 10 to discuss the proposed closure of Bealiba, Dunolly, and Talbot’s transfer stations and how the community can oppose it.
The meeting raised concerns in both council and their Draft Budget 2026/27 — some based in fact while others were misinformation.
The evening was organised by local David Hendrickson, the name behind the Save Our VicRoads campaign, to unify the community against council and their proposed transfer station closures.
“We’ve all got to come together as a community to fight our shire,” he said.
Council’s reason for the closures is to improve their poor financial position.
They aim to save $3.2 million in the next year toward an $11 million shortfall projected for the next four years.
While councillors voted to invite public feedback on the budget last month, what Mr Hendrickson proposed went one step further.
He offered to organise protests and encouraged residents to only partially pay their rates in opposition.
“If we’re not getting the service provided to us be stuffed if I’m paying for it,” Mr Hendrickson said.
While he insisted council “can’t do anything to us” if enough locals followed through, that’s not true.
Central Goldfields Shire Council state on their website all rates and charges must be paid by the due date.
Late or non-payments accumulate interest until they are paid.
Throughout the meeting Central Goldfields Shire CEO Peter Harriott was also singled out as pushing for the proposed closures.
“When he makes up his mind on what he wants he gets what he wants,” Mr Hendrickson said.
However, Mr Harriott said the draft budget is worked on collaboratively and is informed by councillor-adopted documents like the council plan.
“In anyone’s view of that I think you’d have to come to the conclusion that council set the strategic goals and aims,” he said.
The decision to accept the draft budget, either in the current or an updated form, is also up to the councillors at the May council meeting.
“They have a responsibility to adopt a budget so they need to do that but in what form is yet to be determined,” he said.
Mr Hendrickson also claimed that Mr Harriott could “override” the councillor’s decision but this is untrue except for extreme circumstances.
“If someone put up a motion that I felt was beyond the capacity, beyond the law, and would put council in jeopardy I would notify the mayor of that and give advice,” Mr Harriott said.
While Mr Harriott has previously said council’s financial position isn’t sustainable without the proposed cuts, Talbot resident Malcolm Solomano critiqued how council planned to spend ratepayer’s money.
Among his concerns were the growing number of council staff despite earlier, and smaller, projections.
“Someone should have picked that up, they haven’t, and now we’re suffering the consequences,” he said.
In 2023/24 council had around 142 full-time equivalent staff and spent $16,333,000 in total staff expenditure.
The 2025/26 budget forecast 154 full-time equivalent staff in 2026/27.
However, that same year saw staff increase to 169 full-time equivalent staff, costing $18,096,000 in total staff expenditure.
These positions seem to be carried forward in the current draft budget for around $1 million less by not back-filling positions.
What the community feel they are getting for the increased staff, however, was also highlighted by Mr Solomano.
Council forecast spending $562,000 on their community consultation team in 2025/26.
They’re responsible for “clear, transparent and targeted communications” with the community.
However, local satisfaction with council’s community consultation is forecast to be at 46 percent this year, increasing to 50 percent the year after.
“They’re happy with mediocre even if they upset people on the way,” Mr Solomano said.
He highlighted the draft budget’s FAQ, available on council’s website which says the rural transfer stations “don't have power, running water or toilets”.
However, at minimum the Dunolly and Talbot transfer stations do have tank water and a toilet.
Mr Solomano said council’s wording was correct, on a technicality, but was misleading the community.
Mr Harriott said he was happy to clarify the wording if there was a concern but said the facilities needed work.
“If anyone thinks we have got any aspect wrong please put that in the writing to us, make it part of a submission, and we’ll have a look at it,” he said.
Community members have until 5 pm Thursday, April 16 to make a submission to council.
The budget’s other proposed cost-savings include reducing labour costs, improving efficiency, selling surplus land and ending the community grants program.