City of Melville Minutes – SMRC RRRC WCF Odour Issue – 18 August 2009
6. QUESTION TIME
Mr Kelers, Alfred Cove
Question 1
“Why Melville rates are increasing by 15.5% and whilst East Fremantle rates are increasing by 5%”.
Mr Tieleman, Director Corporate Services, responded to Mr Kelers question:
He was unable to comment on why the Town of East Fremantle rates have gone up by just 5% as he had not had the opportunity to peruse their budget document . In relation to the figure quoted for Melville – this figure appears to have been taken from the newspaper, which was itself based on a document prepared by the City of Fremantle.
Mr Tieleman stated that he had reviewed the Fremantle document and have noted the increase calculated was based on the minimum rate and included a number of allowances including discount the City had provided in previous years but not this year – was included in 15.5%. Many different scenarios in respect to percentage increases could be quoted. The average increase for the average ratepayer including waste services charge is 10.5%. The bulk of the increase was due to the $80 increase in the Waste Service Charge – this increase is due to the costs of collection and in disposing of waste increasing substantially as a result of the fire at the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council’s Canning Vale recycling facility requiring the City to find alternative location to dispose of the recycling materials. The increase in the State Landfil Levy from $7 per tonne to $28 per tonne which was going to be implemented from 1 July but has now been delayed until 1 January 2010 but will still have implications in current financial year. The costs of the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council have also increased because of the loss in income due to the reduction in the price received from recycling materials due to Global Financial Crisis. Increases in relation to General Rates are all accounted for in the budget document and the reasons for the increases are varied including the reduction in income from Investment revenue of over $1m dollars due to the reduction in interest rates and not due to investment losses. The City had experienced major revenue reductions in planning fees and major cost increases in relation to energy costs due to electricity and gas price rises. The budget has provided for increases in staffing costs of a 2.5% level in spite of our neighbours (enterprise bargaining agreements) which will be paying substantially more than that.
In summary Mr Tieleman stated that he cannot say how the Town of East Fremantle limited their increase to 5%. Melville have many more facilities than the Town of East Fremantle. The Town of East Fremantle has no libraries, recreation centres or portfolio of buildings, parks, or river space to maintain. Council needs to make the choice of whether to reduce services or continuing to meet our obligations through increased funding. Council chose to maintain services.
*************************************
Mr R Petterson, Leeming
Further questions submitted by Mr Petterson were taken on notice. A response in writing will be provided to Mr Petterson from Mr John Christie, Director Technical Services and the details contained in that response will be recorded in the Agenda and Minutes of the September 2009 Ordinary Meeting of Council.
Mr Petterson will also receive a response to the questions in writing. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on the 21 July 2009 Mr Rob Petterson submitted 6 questions relating to the operations of the South Metropolitan Regional
Council (SMRC). At that meeting these questions were taken on notice. A response in writing will be provided to Mr Petterson from Mr John Christie, Director Technical Services and the details contained in that response are recorded below:
Question 1
“As the SMRC cannot control how residents dispose of their waste, will the introduction of low watt globes that contain mercury have a detrimental effect on the quality of the compost they produce? If so, how? How will the long term use of this compost affect the quality of a land owners soil?
Response
The SMRC’s education campaign informs the community that only organic household waste, such as kitchen scraps and garden clippings, should be placed in the green top bin, and no glass (including light globes of any kind), metal, or plastic should be placed in the green top bin. Mercury is one of many chemicals tested for in the compost produced at the RRRC’s waste composting facility, as described in the answers to Mr Petterson’s previous questions which were outlined in the Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes – 21 July 2009. The SMRC and City of Melville recognise there are many problematic items in the waste stream that need to be safely disposed of, including compact fluorescent light globes, batteries, hazardous household wastes, and electronic waste. The SMRC is working with other Regional Councils, and State Government to develop effective disposal options for these items for the community.
Preamble to questions 2 & 3
‘In August 2006, I asked the SMRC the following question, the City of Canning advises the SMRC reached a deed of settlement of the WCF, who was this deed reached with? Did any money change hands? If so how much and was it required because the other party could not get the WCF to reach compliance?”
Question 2
‘Is the City of Melville aware that a deed of settlement had been reached?
Response
Many changes in elected members and staff have occurred since August 2006, however some Elected Members and Staff are aware that a deed of settlement was reached by the SMRC with the company who formerly operated the Waste
Composting Facility.
Question 3
‘Was the deed of settlement reached because compliance could not be achieved?’
Response
We understand the terms of the deed of settlement are subject to a confidentiality clause and the City, is not privy to or if it were, permitted to disclose the nature of the deed of settlement
Preamble to questions 4, 5 & 6
‘A report prepared by Brendan Doherty from the SMRC dated 12 July 2006, indicates the waste composting facility received 82,623 tonnes of household waste in the 2005/2006 financial year, yet produced only 16,546 tonnes of compost, this equates to only 20% of the total received.’ ‘In the WCF Process:’
Question 4
‘What are primary tommel residuals? And, what is done with these residuals’
Question 5
‘What are final screen residual? And what is done with these residuals?
Question 6
‘How does the SMRC classify what is ‘Moisture and Mass Loss’?’
Response to questions 4, 5, & 6
The SMRC can not compost a tin can, plastic bag, glass bottle, or any other inorganic item placed in the green top bin. The inorganic material placed in the green top bin must be removed from the compost; this is done by the trommels and
the final screens. This inorganic material is known as residual and in most cases can not be recycled at this time. We are advised that the SMRC is always looking at ways to recycle, reuse or divert this material, and further reduce the amount of residual waste sent to landfill. Residuals are however inert and if disposed of at landfill do not produce harmful greenhouse gases. The composting process produces a significant amount or heat which causes the moisture in household waste to evaporate; this is referred to as moisture and mass loss.
