Town of East Fremantle Minutes – SMRC RRRC WCF Odour Issue – 6 May 2007
163.1 Structure and anticipated Timeline of Zero Waste Plans and Summary report of Materials Recovery Facility from 1 July 2006 to 30 April 2007
By Shelley Cocks Principal Environmental Health Officer on 31 May 2007
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information on Zero Waste Plans and introduce some ideas for discussion and future action. Further, to provide Councillors with the attached Report which summarises Recycling data over the period 1 July 2006 to 30 April 2007, and comparative information from 1 July 2005 to 30 April 2006. The data includes tonnages from all contributing councils
BACKGROUND
The Western Australian Local Government Association and the Municipal Waste Advisory Council have drafted the attached “Zero Waste Plans – Structure and anticipated Timeline”. Zero Waste Plans are intended to ensure a consistent and rigorous approach to waste management throughout the State. The plans will be used to provide a tool to the Department of Environmental and Conservation, Waste Management Board and The Minister when assessing applications for waste management funding.
ATTACHMENT
Zero Waste Plans are consistent with the philosophy underlying the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Bill 2006. The vision is towards zero waste and the goals are:
• Minimise environmental impact of waste management
• Manage waste in a sustainable manner
• Increase awareness of the impact of waste issues on the environment by the whole community
REPORT
For a limited period, funds are available from the Waste Management and Recycling Account for Local Government to assist with the preparation of Zero Waste Plans, enabling potential access to additional funds in the future. Amounts of $5,000 are available for each local government authority which is completing Phase 1.
For local governments that are part of constituted Regional Local Governments, the Board has determined that the allocation of funds for Phase 1 will be paid directly to the Regional Local Government. Phase 1 is the completion of an online survey of baseline information on municipal waste management and in the case of the Town of East Fremantle, the survey will be completed by the South Metropolitan Regional Council.
The Department of Environment and Conservation will analyse the data provided and
allocate categories for local governments based on the level of information provided and
the sophistication of the current system. The DEC will then provide a report to the SMRC
which will include information gaps, suggestions for improved efficiency of existing
services and facilities, future opportunities and scenarios developed using the iris
software.
Phase 2 will involve the development of strategic Zero Waste Plans including community
engagement and collaborative partnerships. This phase will be followed by an approval
process and finally implementation.
DISCUSSION
There are several issues that arise as a result of Zero Waste Plans. While the SMRC will be closely involved with the Zero Waste Plans on behalf of the member councils, it behoves the Town to consider the ultimate consequence of zero waste and plan accordingly.
First is a continuation of our good record at recycling and I attach the most recent report on tonnages received at the Materials Recovery Facility for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 April 2007. The figures are self-explanatory and indicate a steady rate of receipt of recyclables over the years. What are the barriers to an increase in recycling by residents? Would more recycling be collected if more bins were allocated per household? Should recycling be collected more than once per fortnight?
A comparison between the SMRC member councils tonnes of recycling collected and population have revealed the following amounts of recycling collected per person per year:
Canning – 83 kilos
Cockburn – 90 kilos
East Fremantle – 105 kilos
Fremantle – 105 kilos
Kwinana – 92 kilos
Melville – 99 kilos
Rockingham – 96 kilos
Clearly East Fremantle and Fremantle lead the way in regional recycling and this may be due to an enhanced environmentally aware population, a characteristic of our community which we want to nurture and encourage.
Secondly, the WARR Bill refers to zero land fill by 2020, and we are no doubt familiar with land fill sites being located further and further from the metropolitan area, and one by one being closed. Of the member councils of the SMRC Cockburn, Kwinana and Rockingham have their own land fill sites and they provide tip passes to their residents
on an annual basis. Canning, Melville and Fremantle do not provide tip passes to their residents, and, in fact, East Fremantle is the only one of the member councils not to have a land fill site, to provide residents to a tip pass with another Council. Council should seriously consider the decision to cease providing tip passes to residents as it is
potentially costly and reduces the opportunity for creative solutions other than land fill.
The total number of rateable properties within the Town of East Fremantle is 3374 so the potential cost of tip passes is $67,480 should all ratepayers use their tip pass within the year. This financial year we have been invoiced $9620 for tip passes by the City of Cockburn. Two green waste passes are also issued with a potential cost of $74,228. This financial year we have been invoiced $5,800 by the SMRC for green waste passes.
Bulk verge collections currently occur twice a year, and green waste collections occur three times per year. Our current contract is based on a fixed cost per collection ($7,700) plus tonnage. Should tip and green passes not be distributed by Council, then these collection services may be further utilised, resulting in a cost savings balance of the difference between utilisation of tip and green passes and the increase in tonnage. It should be noted that all other councils in the SMRC have only 1 bulk verge collection per annum. Council should consider whether to drop a bulk verge collection per annum when the current contract comes to an end in 2008.
CONCLUSION
Waste management is an area undergoing great changes as heralded by the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Bill 2006 and Zero Waste Plans. The emphasis on climate change and the focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by restricting landfill and recycling an array of goods including those which were previously treated as hazardous substances means that we are poised to take a new direction in waste management. Waste minimisation must become a core aim of the community seeking to reduce the amount of waste leaving the household. We need to consider whether to
reward residents by a reduced rate if residents wish to use a 120 litre bin instead of a 240 litre bin, even though the cost of emptying both sizes is the same to Council. Should we be further encouraging the use of home compost bins to reduce the amount of rubbish being collected?
RECOMMENDATION(S)
That:
1. the Draft Zero Waste Plans Structure and anticipated Timeline Document, and the
RRRC Operational Report be noted,
2. Council:
(i) cease providing tip passes and green waste passes on an annual basis,
(ii) reduce bulk verge collections from twice per year to once per year following expiry of the current contract,
(iii) reduce the rubbish rate for residents who wish to exchange their 240 litre mobile garbage bin to a 120 litre mobile garbage bin,
(iv) subsidise the provision of compost bins and worm farms to residents,
(v) provide an additional recycling bin to residents, on request,
(vi) provide recycling bins to commercial properties,
(vii) allocate monies saved from items (i) (eg 2006/7 – $15,420) and (ii) ($7,700) to cover the costs associated with items (iii) to (iv).
Cr Harrington – Cr Ferris
That:
1. the Draft Zero Waste Plans Structure and anticipated Timeline Document, and the RRRC Operational Report be noted,
2. Council:
(i) cease providing tip passes and green waste passes on an annual basis,
(ii) reduce bulk verge collections from twice per year to once per year following expiry of the current contract,
(iii) reduce the rubbish rate for residents who wish to exchange their 240 litre mobile garbage bin to a 120 litre mobile garbage bin,
(iv) subsidise the provision of compost bins and worm farms to residents,
(v) provide an additional recycling bin to residents, on request,
(vi) provide recycling bins to commercial properties,
(vii) allocate monies saved from items (i) (eg 2006/7 – $15,420) and (ii) ($7,700) to cover the costs associated with items (iii) to (iv).
Cr Martin raised concerns regarding issues in the proposed motion.
General discussion took place and the following general consensus was reached:
• ratepayers to be issued with one tip pass and one green waste pass
• two green and one bulk waste verge collections to held during the year
• the issue of formalising the practice of exchanging 240 litre bins with 120 litre bins be dropped.
• An explanation of any changes to Council’s refuse services be included in the ratenotice.
The Chief Executive Officer whilst thanking the Principal Environmental Health Officer for her report, suggested that in the light of the discussion, the item should be deferred to allow further advice from the Principal Environmental Health Officer with regard to these ssues, in respect of the various proposals:
• financial cost implications
• contractual implications
• environmental implications
• social implications (eg elderly)
• implementation issues.
In the light of the above discussion and the Chief Executive Officer’s comments, Cr Harrington and Cr Ferris agreed to withdraw their motion.
