COB-RGB

 

 

 

 

 

Council  Agenda

 

 

 

25 June 2014

 

 

 

 

 

ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

 

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 25 June 2014

 

 

 

TO:                  THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

 

 

NOTICE is given that a meeting of the Council  will be held in the the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, commencing at 5.30pm.

 

Your attendance is respectfully requested.

 

 

 

Mike Archer

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

13 June 2014


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council  MEETING TO BE HELD ON 25 June 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors. 5

2....... Attendance. 5

Apologies. 5

Approved Leave of Absence. 5

3....... Prayer. 5

4....... Public Question Time. 5

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice. 5

Public Question Time. 5

5....... Announcements Without Discussion.. 5

Announcements by the Presiding Member. 5

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member. 5

6....... Application for Leave of Absence. 5

7....... Petitions and Presentations. 5

8....... Disclosure Of Interests. 5

9....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 5

Previous Council Meetings. 5

9.1          Minutes of the Council  held on 28 May 2014. 5

Committee Meetings. 5

9.2          Minutes of a Meeting of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee held 13 May 2014. 5

9.3          Minutes of a Meeting of the Finance Committee held 5 June 2014. 6

10..... Reports of Committee. 7

10.1        Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - PERIOD ENDING 30 APRIL 2014. 7

10.2        Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – APRIL 2014. 33

10.3        Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS. 62

11..... Planning and Development Services Report. 130

Nil

12..... Engineering and Work Services Report. 130

12.1        REGIONAL STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN.. 130

12.2        ADDENDUM TO SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES. 182

12.3        AWARD OF TENDER RFT06/14 PROVISION OF GREEEN WASTE PROCESSING AND RECYCLING   186

13..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 190

13.1        DUNSBOROUGH FORESHORE CAFÉ AND/OR KIOSK:  STRATEGIC REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE SITES. 190

13.2        REQUEST FROM ST JOHN AMBULANCE TO LEASE A PORTION OF LOT 434 MOLLOY STREET BUSSELTON.. 226

14..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 234

14.1        PROPOSED DIFFERENTIAL RATES IN THE DOLLAR AND ASSOCIATED MINIMUM PAYMENTS - 2014/15 FINANCIAL YEAR. 234

14.2        DRAFT CITY OF BUSSELTON CORPORATE BUSINESS PLAN 2014/15 - 2017/18. 238

15..... Chief Executive Officer's Report. 307

15.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 307

16..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 329

16.1        LOCATION OF SOUTH WEST INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS. 329

16.2        REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROVISIONS RELATING TO RELOCATED DWELLINGS IN PORT GEOGRAPHE. 330

17..... Confidential Reports. 331

17.1        Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - VACATING OCCUPIER – UNIT PAYOUT

This report contains information of a confidential nature in accordance with Section 5.23(2(e)(iii) of the Local Government Act 1995, as it contains information relating to a matter that if disclosed, would reveal  information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person, where the information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government

18..... Questions from Members. 331

19..... Public Question Time. 331

20..... Next Meeting Date. 331

21..... Closure. 331

 


Council                                                                                      5                                                                        25 June 2014

 

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

 

Nil

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Nil

3.               Prayer

4.               Public Question Time

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice 

Public Question Time

5.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member 

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member

6.               Application for Leave of Absence

7.               Petitions and Presentations 

8.               Disclosure Of Interests

 

9.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

9.1             Minutes of the Council  held on 28 May 2014

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council  Meeting held 28 May 2014 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

Committee Meetings

9.2             Minutes of a Meeting of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee held 13 May 2014

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)        That the minutes of a meeting of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee held on 13 May 2014 be received.

 

2)        That the Council notes the outcomes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee meeting held on 13 May 2014 being:

           

a)    The Committee approved the use of Meelup Regional Park on 19 July 2014, for the Great Adventure Challenge event in accordance with the Meelup Regional Park General Event Conditions for the kayak leg of the challenge, from Eagle Bay, through Meelup Park to Dunsborough, however, did not approve the use of the unauthorised trail from Bunker Bay to Eagle Bay.

 

b)    The Committee received the Environment Officers Report.

 

 

Attachments

Attachment a   Published Under Separate Cover Minutes of Meelup Committee Meeting 13 May 2014

 

9.3             Minutes of a Meeting of the Finance Committee held 5 June 2014

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1)        That the minutes of a meeting of the Finance Committee held on 5 June 2014 be received.

 

2)        That the Council notes the outcomes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 5 June 2014 being:

 

a)    The Committee noted the Information Bulletin – April 2014

b)    The Financial Activity Statements – Period Ending 30 April 2014 Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.1 of this agenda.

c)    The List of Payments Made – April 2014 Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.2 of this agenda.

d)    The Financial Activity Statements – Period Ending 30 April 2014 Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.3 of this agenda.

e)    The Asset Management Plans Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 10.4 of this agenda.

f)     The Vacating Occupier – Unit Payout Confidential Item is presented for Council consideration at Item 17.1 of this agenda.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      7                                                                         25 June 2014

10.             Reports of Committee

10.1           Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - PERIOD ENDING 30 APRIL 2014

SUBJECT INDEX:

Budget Planning and Reporting

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance & Information Technology

REPORTING OFFICER:

A/Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Darren Whitby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 30 April 2014  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 5 June 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

Pursuant to Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act (‘the Act’) and Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations (‘the Regulations’), a local government is to prepare, on a monthly basis, a statement of financial activity that reports on the City’s financial performance in relation to its adopted/ amended budget.

 

This report has been compiled to fulfil the statutory reporting requirements of the Act and associated Regulations, whilst also providing the Council with an overview of the City’s financial performance on a year to date basis for the period ending 30 April 2014.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Regulations detail the form and manner in which financial activity statements are to be presented to the Council on a monthly basis; and are to include the following:

 

§ Annual budget estimates

§ Budget estimates to the end of the month in which the statement relates

§ Actual amounts of revenue and expenditure to the end of the month in which the statement relates

§ Material variances between budget estimates and actual revenue/ expenditure/ (including an explanation of any material variances)

§ The net current assets at the end of the month to which the statement relates (including an explanation of the composition of the net current position)

 

Additionally, and pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Regulations, a local government is required to adopt a material variance reporting threshold in each financial year. At its meeting of 22 July 2013, the Council adopted (C1307/185) the following material variance reporting threshold for the 2013/14 financial year:

 

That pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, the Council adopts a material variance reporting threshold with respect to financial activity statement reporting for the 2013/14 financial year to comprise variances equal to or greater than 10% of the year to date budget amount as detailed in the Income Statement by Nature and Type/ Statement of Financial Activity report, however variances due to timing differences and/ or seasonal adjustments are to be reported on a quarterly basis.  

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations detail the form and manner in which a local government is to prepare financial activity statements.    

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

NA.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Any financial implications are detailed within the context of this report.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.3 - ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’. The achievement of the above is underpinned by the Council strategy to ‘ensure the long term financial sustainability of Council through effective financial management’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Risk assessments have been previously completed in relation to a number of ‘higher level’ financial matters, including timely and accurate financial reporting to enable the Council to make fully informed financial decisions. The completion of the monthly Financial Activity Statement report is a treatment/ control that assists in addressing this risk.   

 

CONSULTATION

 

NA.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

In order to fulfil statutory reporting requirements, and to provide the Council with a synopsis of the City’s overall financial performance on a year to date basis, the following financial reports are attached hereto:

 

§ Statement of Financial Activity

This report provides details of the City’s operating revenues and expenditures on a year to date basis, by nature and type (i.e. description). The report has been further extrapolated to include details of non-cash adjustments and capital revenues and expenditures, to identify the City’s net current position; which reconciles with that reflected in the associated Net Current Position report.

 

§ Net Current Position

This report provides details of the composition of the net current asset position on a year to date basis, and reconciles with the net current position as per the Statement of Financial Activity.

 

§ Capital Acquisition Report

This report provides year to date budget performance (by line item) in respect of the following capital expenditure activities: 

o Land and Buildings

o Plant and Equipment

o Furniture and Equipment

o Infrastructure

 

§ Reserve Movements Report

This report provides summary details of transfers to and from reserve funds, and also associated interest earnings on reserve funds, on a year to date basis. 

 

§ Reserve Transfers to Municipal Fund

This report provides specific detail in respect of expenditures being funded from reserves.  

 

Additional reports and/ or charts are also provided to further supplement the information comprised within the statutory financial reports.

 

COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY TO 30 APRIL 2014

 

Operating Activity

 

§ Operating Revenue

 

As at 30 April 2014, there is a variance of -1.3% in total operating revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

+44%

+$1,197

Other Revenue

+57%

+$208

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

-38%

-$3,406

Profit on Asset Disposal

-74%

-$41

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (YTD Variance: +$1,197K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§ The reimbursement of approximately $825K in relation to storm damage clean-up costs (January 2013 - $107K and September 2013 - $718K). However, this revenue is significantly offset by the additional costs associated with the September 2013 clean-up.

§ The earlier than projected raising of an invoice for $335K to the Busselton Jetty Environment and Conservation Association Inc. (BJECA) for the balance of the 2013/14 Jetty licence fee.        

§ A budget timing difference of -$160K in relation to grant funding for the Women’s Refuge; resulting from delays associated with this matter.  

 

Other Revenue (YTD variance: +$208K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§ Recyclables revenue is presently $50K above year to date budget estimates, with this principally due to the transfer of longstanding Trust funds held for recycling purposes.  

§ Sundry Income is presently $42K above year to date budget estimates, however the current balance is primarily due to ‘non-cash’ accounting entries (e.g. bringing the value of trade-in’s to account etc.).

§ Collective fines and penalties revenue is presently $30K above year to date budget estimates, albeit the variance is largely impacted by current budget timing differences (e.g. Bushfire fines)      

§ Unbudgeted Long Service Leave contributions from other local government authorities totalling $41K have been received, although this revenue is offset through employee costs.

§ Registration fees totalling $31K, relating to the Local Government CEO Conference. The adopted budget did not include an allocation for this revenue item.     

 

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (YTD Variance: -$3,406K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§ The unbudgeted recognition of Bushfire Service donated assets totalling $925K

§ The receipt of additional developer contribution funds of approximately $1.2M (above YTD budget estimates), albeit these funds are transferred to Restricted Assets upon receipt.

§ A collective year to date budget variance of approximately -$5.6M in respect of government grant funding, relating to projects such as the Busselton Regional Airport (-$890K), the Engineering capital works program (-$1.1M) and the Busselton Foreshore project (-$4.3M). In several instances, the respective grants have not been approved and consequently, the associated capital expenditures will not be incurred.  

 

Profit on Asset Disposal (YTD Variance: -$41K)

This (accounting) variance is directly related to the year to date performance in the ‘Plant and Equipment’ capital expenditure classification.   

  

§   Operating Expenditure

 

As at 30 April 2014, there is a variance of -2.5% in total operating expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Other Expenditure

-23%

-$654

Allocations

+10%

+$134

Interest Expenses

-48%

-$169

Loss on Asset Disposals

-50%

-$85

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Other Expenditure (YTD Variance: - $654K)

The current variance is primarily attributable to:

§ Donations, contributions and sponsorships expenditure is presently $347K below YTD budget estimates.

§ Collective Members’ related expenditure is presently $39K below YTD budget estimates.

§ Regional Development Strategies expenditure is presently $55K below YTD budget estimates.

§ Collective valuation expenditure is presently $87K below YTD budget estimates.

§ Community consultation related expenditure is presently $30K below YTD budget estimates.

 

Allocations (YTD Variance: +$134K)

The current (accounting) variance is primarily due to timing differences. Whilst the majority of individual allocations are administration based (and clear each month), this activity also includes plant and overhead related allocations. Due to the nature of these line items, the activity reflects as a net offset against operating expenditure, in recognition of those expenses that are of a capital nature (and need to be recognised accordingly). The present variance is reflective of the increased level of capital works activities being undertaken prior to winter.                  

 

Interest Expenses (YTD Variance: -$169K)

The current variance is primarily due to the delay in the drawdown of budgeted new loan facilities, with the variance further impacted by only a portion of two budgeted loans either drawn, or proposed to be drawn, this financial year.  In terms of the Annual Budget Review, it was projected that budget savings of approximately $173K would be achieved in this activity by financial year end, excluding reserve funded loan repayments. This estimate remains relevant.         

 

Loss on Asset Disposals (YTD Variance: - $85K)

As with the ‘Profit on Asset Disposal’ operating revenue category, this (accounting) variance is directly related to the year to date performance in the ‘Plant and Equipment’ capital expenditure classification.   

 

Capital Activity

 

§   Capital Revenue

 

As at 30 April 2014, there is a variance of -50% in total capital revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:  

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Proceeds from the Sale of Assets

-60%

-$460

Proceeds from New Loans

-85%

-$6,300

Transfers from Restricted Assets

-82%

-$2,977

Transfers from Reserves

+293%

+$3,245

 

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows:

 

Proceeds from the Sale of Assets (YTD Variance: -$460K)

This variance is directly impacted by the current performance in the ‘Plant and Equipment’ capital expenditure classification. With plant acquisitions approximately $1.9M (or 49%) below year to date budget estimates, the revenue associated with budgeted plant disposals/ trade-in’s is also well below year to date budget estimates.       

 

Proceeds from New Loans (YTD Variance: -$6,300K)

In terms of the amended budget, the following loan facilities were budgeted to have been drawn by the end of March 2014:

 

Description

Amount

$M

Land Acquisition for Parking

$2.2

Geographe Leisure Centre (GLC) Extensions

$1.2

Busselton Foreshore

- Active Playing Fields ($1.1M)

- Tennis/ Croquet Club Infrastructure ($2.1M)

- Brown Street Extension ($0.8M)

$4.0

TOTAL

$7.4

 

At this juncture, only $1.1M of the ‘Land Acquisition for Parking’ loan has been drawn. The GLC extensions loan ($1.2M), the Active Playing Fields component of the Busselton Foreshore loan ($1.1M), and also the Airport jet refuelling loan ($350K), are all projected to be drawn prior to the end of May 2014.        

 

Transfers from Restricted Assets (YTD Variance: - $2,977K)

This budget comprises a range of matters including the transfer of:

 

§ cash in lieu of parking (land acquisitions)

§ unspent loan funds (geothermal project)

§ unspent grant funding (for a range of projects)

§ contributions to works as identified in the adopted budget   

 

Whilst the year to date actual includes approximately $300K in the repayment of (unbudgeted) bonds and deposits, other transfers are now being undertaken wherever possible, to assist in funding operational cash-flow requirements.      

 

Transfers from Reserves (YTD Variance: +$3,245K)

This variance is primarily attributable to the earlier than projected transfer of funds (to recoup associated expenditures incurred), to assist in funding the City’s operational cash-flow requirements.          

 

§   Capital Expenditure

 

As at 30 April 2014, there is a variance of -33% in total capital expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold: 

 

Description

Variance

%

Variance

$000’s

Land and Buildings

-46%

-$4,624

Plant and Equipment

-49%

-$1,899

Infrastructure

-50%

-$10,747

Total Loan Repayments – Principal

-25%

-$204

Transfers to Restricted Assets

+977%

+$3,159

 

The attachments to this report include detailed listings of the following capital expenditure (project) items, to assist in reviewing specific variances:

§ Land and Buildings

§ Plant and Equipment

§ Furniture and Equipment

§ Infrastructure

 

In respect of the other classifications, an overview of the year to date financial performance is provided as follows:

 

Total Loan Repayments – Principal (YTD Variance: - $204K)

This variance mirrors the ‘Interest Expenses’ operating expenditure variance, albeit this activity refers to principal repayments. In terms of the Annual Budget Review, it was projected that budget savings of approximately $138K would be achieved in this activity by financial year end, excluding reserve funded loan repayments. This estimate remains relevant.    

 

Transfers to Restricted Assets (YTD Variance: +$3,159K)

The annual budget in any year is based on a conservative estimate of contribution funds that may be received, plus an estimated transfer of Aged Housing funds. The current favourable variance is primarily due to the receipt of contribution monies of approximately $1.2M (initially brought to account via the non-operating grants, subsidies and contributions operating revenue category), along with bond and deposit receipts of approximately $1.9M (for which no annual budget allocation is made). It is important to note however that performance in this activity does not directly impact on the City’s overall annual closing position, as revenue received is quarantined to equity.  

 

BUDGET VARIATIONS AND OTHER ‘KNOWNS’

 

NA.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In terms of the Annual Budget Review, completed as at 28 February 2014, a surplus closing position of approximately $330K was projected as at 30 June 2014 (excluding any re-list items). Notwithstanding this, the Net Current Position as at 30 April 2014 ($4.9M) is some $3.6M less than the 30 April 2013 position, in which a closing surplus position of $1.7M was achieved at financial year end. Whilst acknowledging that the Net Current Position is impacted by many factors, and fluctuates significantly towards financial year end, the comparative differential has nonetheless flagged an increased necessity to closely monitor financial performance over the remainder of the current financial year.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may determine not to receive the statutory financial activity statement reports.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

NA.

 

 

Officer Recommendation and Committee Recommendation

 

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 30 April 2014, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.

 


Council                                                                                      15                                                                                  25 June 2014

10.1                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - PERIOD ENDING 30 APRIL 2014

Attachment a          Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 30 April 2014


 


Council                                                                                      17                                                                                                         25 June 2014

10.1                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - PERIOD ENDING 30 APRIL 2014

Attachment a          Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 30 April 2014


Council                                                                                      21                                                                                  25 June 2014

10.1                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - PERIOD ENDING 30 APRIL 2014

Attachment a          Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 30 April 2014


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      25                                                                                                         25 June 2014

10.1                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - PERIOD ENDING 30 APRIL 2014

Attachment a          Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 30 April 2014


Council                                                                                      31                                                                                  25 June 2014

10.1                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - PERIOD ENDING 30 APRIL 2014

Attachment a          Financial Activity Statements - Period Ending 30 April 2014


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      33                                                                      25 June 2014

10.2           Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – APRIL 2014

SUBJECT INDEX:

Financial Operations

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

REPORTING OFFICER:

A/Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Darren Whitby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Matthew Smith

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   List of Payments Made - April 2014  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 5 June 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report provides details of payments made from the City’s bank accounts for the month of April 2014, for noting by the Council and recording in the Council Minutes.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations require that when the Council has delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make payments from the City’s bank accounts, that a list of payments made is prepared each month for presentation to, and noting by, the Council.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Section 6.10 of the Local Government Act and more specifically, Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations; refer to the requirement for a listing of payments made each month to be presented to the Council. 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

NA.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

NA.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.3 - ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

NA.

 

CONSULTATION

 

NA.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

NA.

 

CONCLUSION

 

NA.

 

OPTIONS

 

NA.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

NA.

 

 

Officer Recommendation and Committee Recommendation

 

That the Council notes the payment of voucher numbers M108433 – M108668, EF033748 – EF034227, T007075 – T007079, and DD002163 – DD002184, together totalling $5,047,457.38.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      61                                                                                                         25 June 2014

10.2                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – APRIL 2014       

Attachment a          List of Payments Made - April 2014



























Council                                                                                      69                                                                      25 June 2014

10.3           Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS

SUBJECT INDEX:

Asset Management

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Infrastructure assets are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Engineering and Facilities Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Asset Management

REPORTING OFFICER:

Asset Coordinator - Dan Hall

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Drainage Asset Management Plan

Attachment b    Footpaths and Cycleways Management Plan  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 5 June 2014, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. 

 

PRÉCIS

 

The purpose of this report is to present for adoption the Footpaths and Cycle Ways Asset Management Plan (FCAMP) and Drainage Asset Management Plan (DAMP).

 

This report recommends that the Council adopts the asset management plans for footpaths, cycle ways and drainage.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

In June 2013, the Council adopted a suite of corporate planning documents in order to comply with the State Governments Integrated Planning Framework. These documents were; a Strategic Community Plan and a Corporate Business Plan, supported and informed by key resourcing and informing plans, namely Asset Management Plans, a Long Term Financial Plan and a Workforce Plan.  Falling out of such planning each year will be each local government’s Annual Budget.  This framework is commonly referred to as Integrated Planning.

 

Under the guidance of the framework, asset management plans are required to be formulated outlining relevant information about each asset class such as location, size, value, condition and timing and cost of replacements/renewals of existing infrastructure.

 

Whilst these asset management plans are ultimately required to be completed for all City infrastructure assets, it is being done in a staged manner, starting with the major asset classes first.  Plans for Roads, Buildings and Parks and Gardens were adopted in June 2013 and the DAMP and FCAMP have been developed in 2014, and are presented within this report for adoption.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The Local Government Act 1995 S5.56 (1) requires the Local Government to develop a “plan for the future” and further detail in relation to this requirement is provided in regulation 19 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations. The Local Government is required to have a corporate business plan linking to long term financial planning that integrates asset management, workforce planning and specific council plans (informing strategies) with a strategic plan.

 


 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The data from Asset Management Plans is incorporated into the Long Term Financial Plan and in this way informs the Corporate Business Plan and Annual Budget.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The plans provide the Council with information pertaining to any “funding gaps” that may exist within the relevant asset category. i.e. situations whereby what has been spent historically is less than what is required into the future.

 

Expenditure was also scrutinised in terms of the amount being spent historically on renewing the existing assets as opposed to new and upgraded assets. Renewal of existing assets is critical in ensuring the maximum life is achieved from the assets in the most cost effective manner.

 

No immediate backlog of required renewals for drains or paths and cycle ways has been identified at this stage. Recommendations have been made within the plans around the need to increase renewal expenditure on historical levels and also review maintenance activities in the short term.

 

The long term perspective for these assets is that as each respective asset network ages, the renewal requirements will increase; the main consideration for the Council here is when to start putting money away to fund these large future spikes.

 

At what point in time is it incumbent on the Council to set funds aside for expenditure required in thirty years’ time, when there is no current large backlog of works?.

 

There is a balance needed between providing the assets for the ratepayers of today as well as providing surety for the rate payers of tomorrow. The recommendations made within the plans aim to achieve a balance between the funding requirements of today and tomorrow.

 

Drainage

 

The current LTFP 2015/16 – 2023/24 contains  allocated funds to the renewal of the drainage network. This amount allocated equated to an average yearly amount of $353,245 over ten years (2015/16 – 2023/24.

This amount of $332,900 equates to 0.55% per year of the current estimated replacement cost of the drainage network (currently estimated at $60,354,884). It is important that these funds remain allocated to drainage renewal – either through annual yearly expenditure or placement in a reserve for future identified projects.

As more research is undertaken and more is known about the current state of the drainage network, and more importantly; the costs associated with any large scale renewal, then it is likely that the City will be required to direct more funds to drainage renewal.

Whilst no recommendations for increased funding are made within the DAMP, it is perhaps prudent to note that future revisions are likely to recommend an increase in expenditure for drainage assets.

Any increase in expenditure though, will only be effective with a clear idea on how and where to spend it – especially in terms of large scale expenditure.

As an example (and purely for illustration purposes) an increase of renewal expenditure to between 1-2% of the current estimated replacement value ($60,354,884), would increase the average annual expenditure to between $600,000 and $1,200,000 per annum. An extra $270,000 - $870,000 over and above what’s currently allocated with the LTFP.

Based on the estimated age of the pipes and the Estimated Useful Life (EUL) of eighty years; the first renewal based on age would be 2040. The replacement cost of these assets would be $1.09M (in 2014 dollars). Although this figure is only an estimate, it does give an indication that any condition related failures of a network or catchment level are unlikely between now and the short-medium term.

Based on the condition assessments undertaken thus far, more immediate issues would revolve around increasing scheduled maintenance and dealing with isolated structural and serviceability issues. This should be combined within ongoing research and planning to ensure any large capital expenditure is undertaken in an effective manner.

The Cities financial obligations towards the drainage network will increase as times goes on and the network ages. With this in mind, it is important to put mechanisms in place now to ensure a large backlog of works doesn’t develop over time.

These mechanisms would include an increase in scheduled maintenance activities such as pipe jetting and vacuuming as well as more detailed stormwater management planning. It should be noted however, that renewal of high priority areas will still be required to be undertaken in conjunction with this additional research.

Footpaths and Cycle Ways

The current LTFP 2015/16 – 2023/24 contains allocated funds for footpaths and cycle ways construction. This amount allocated equated to an average yearly amount of $697,064 over ten years (2015/16 – 2023/24).  Of this amount $284,966 p.a. was to be allocated to footpath construction and $412,098 p.a. was for cycle ways construction. This amount of $697,064 is 2% of the current replacement cost of footpaths and cycle ways - $31,790,343.

The modelling undertaken within the FCAMP has not shown any additional funding required over and above what is allocated within the LTFP. It has however, highlighted the need to increase historical levels of renewal over time, within these existing expenditure levels.

Historically, (based on average 2008/09 -2011/12) the City has spent around 15% of its annual footpaths and Cycle Ways budget on renewal of existing footpaths. While this low percentage can be attributed to the overall age of the network, it needs to be increased over time to ensure the overall longevity of this existing network.

Within the first ten years (2014/15 – 2023/24)   of the FCAMP the renewal funding required is an average of around $11,000 p.a. This increases significantly over years eleven to twenty (2024/25 – 2034/35) to around $895,000 p.a. This equates to an average yearly total of $452,592 for the first twenty years of the plan. (2014/15 – 2034/35)

The FCAMP recommends that the renewal percentage be increased over time to meet the existing and predicted renewal requirements.

Planning for footpaths and cycle ways also includes a requirement for new construction. This is to link strategic footpaths together and also provides and also provides new or upgraded paths for areas which have narrow or no paths.

An estimate of potential expenditure for new footpaths is $7.5M and cycle ways is
$9.2M. These are broad estimates based on all possible paths. These figures could be further refined and prioritised; however are an indication of the demand for new paths and cycle ways within the district.

Construction of new paths and cycle ways is currently managed through prioritisation of the above lists within each year’s available budgets.

For these new paths to be achieved over a twenty year period, an average yearly amount required would be $375,000 p.a. for footpaths and $460,000 p.a. for cycle ways. Bearing in mind that the current yearly average within the LTFP is $827,716 (extrapolated over twenty years), a balance needs to be found to manage the network within existing expenditure levels.

Although there is no immediate “backlog” of works identified for footpaths, there are some large spikes in expenditure from year 30 onwards. These spikes are caused by large amounts of footpath being constructed at around the same time, being of similar current condition and as a result, being due for replacement at around the same time (i.e. Provence, Vasse Newtown). This increases the average renewal funding required to cover the next fifty years of footpath renewal to $1,342,637 over 50 years.

Bearing in mind that the overall fifty year average based on the extrapolation of the current LTFP figures is approx. $1.4M, then the continuation of the current allocation of funds would sufficiently cover the cost of the required renewals. It should be noted here though, that this does not cover the construction of any new footpaths or cycle ways.

The following, are potential options for the ongoing management of the paths and cycle ways network; considering the implications of building new paths also.

 

 

Scenario 1 - Fund fifty year renewal requirements of footpaths and cycle ways, with ongoing amount allocated with LTFP.

 

This option will present well in terms of the Cities ongoing asset management sustainability including ratios for asset renewal. The downside of this option is that no (or extremely minimal) new paths will be able to be built using these funds.

 

 

Scenario 1

          Ave p.a.
         $

Footpath Renewal 1-50 years

1,342,637

Ave Amount Allocated within LTFP

1,400,106

 

 

Scenario 2 - All new paths and cycle ways are built over the next twenty years using the funds allocated within the LTFP.

 

This will provide some vital linkages within the network as well as allow for older areas subject to infill housing to be upgraded and improved. This option will not allow for renewal to take place over the first twenty years. At the conclusion of the twenty years there will be a backlog of works for footpath and cycle way renewal of $16.7M. As an example of the extent of this backlog, the Council would need to implement a one off rate increase now of approx. 2-2.5% (based on 2014/15 draft budget base rate of $35.2M) for the renewal requirements over the first twenty years.

 

Scenario 2

          Ave p.a.
         $

New Paths and Cycle Ways 1-20 years

835,000

Ave Amount Allocated within LTFP

827,000

 

Scenario 3 –The renewal requirements over the first twenty years be funded through the LTFP allocation and the balance remaining each year be used for construction of new paths.

                                                                                                              

This option will allow for a balance of new and renewal, however it will also create a backlog of $7.5M after twenty years. This would equate to a on off rate increase now of 1-1.25% (based on 2014/15 draft budget base rate of $35.2M). proposed new paths would have to be further prioritised under this option also.

 

Although an increase in funding is an option to eliminate the expected renewal backlog resulting from this option (at the conclusion of twenty years). A more prudent approach in the short term may be a full review of the existing network to determine if there are any opportunities for rationalisation which could result in cost-saving in the future.

 

The results of this review could be presented to the Council before the next full review of the PCAMP due in 2016/17 – or at Councils earliest convenience if need be.

 

The recommended for these scenarios is number three.

 

Scenario 3

          Ave p.a.
         $

Renewal Paths and Cycle Ways 1-20

452,683

Ave Amount Allocated within LTFP 1-20

827,000

new Paths and Cycle Ways 1-20

375,033

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 2 – ‘Well Planned, Vibrant and Active Place’ and more specifically Community Objective 2.3 ‐ ‘Infrastructure assets that are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

An assessment of the potential implications of not implementing the officer recommendation and

adopting the asset management plans has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework.

The table below shows identified risks where the residual risk, once controls have been identified, as ‘medium’ or greater;

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

Increase in asset Funding Gaps

Reduced levels of service

Financial

Operations

Likely

Major

 

CONSULTATION

 

Nil.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Core and Advanced Asset Management

 

The asset management plans are prepared in the context of core asset management working towards advanced asset management planning. The initial plans have been undertaken to meet minimum organisational and legislative requirements for financial planning and reporting. This is referred to as the “core” approach and provides basic technical management outputs such as statements on current levels of service, forward replacement programmes and associated cash flow projections based on historical performance.

 

Advanced asset management involves engaging with the community to discuss and agree on alternative levels of service, applying analysis to individual assets and implementation of improvements identified in core planning.

 

Some elements of advanced asset management have been able to be incorporated in this initial process, such as discussion on alternative levels of service and applying analysis to individual assets.

 

Scope of Plans

 

The DAMP and FCAMP have been developed through a combination of desktop analysis, condition assessments on-site and staff knowledge and are building blocks for the ongoing management of the assets.

Condition assessments for footpaths and cycle ways were undertaken through a combination of on-site assessments and also use of the high speed video data that was captured for roads in 2013/14. This has saved significant amounts of time and made further use of the video data for roads.

Due to the difficult and expensive nature of detailed condition assessment of stormwater drainage infrastructure, Works and Design staff were consulted initially to determine any known areas of service deficiency. This was followed with drainage camera inspections of selected known problem areas.

This allowed the vast experience and knowledge of staff to be captured within the plan

These discussions also raised some interesting points regarding what level and type of detail should be contained within the DAMP.

Renewal / upgrade of drainage is not as simple as replacing like for like as whole of network considerations are needed when drainage works are undertaken. Unlike most other infrastructure assets such as roads and footpaths any changes made to one or more points in a drainage area can have a direct and significant effect of other drainage within the catchment or sub-catchment.

Stormwater management should consider issues at catchment and sub catchment level, rather than focussing on site level only.

Increasing pipe size and capacity in one area to solve a problem can cause coping issues for other smaller sized drainage down the line. Without a holistic approach, drainage renewal undertaken in isolation may be simply moving the problem from one area to another and creating larger problems along the way.

Opportunities for further investigation will also need to consider factors such as;

·    The need to have a disconnect between direct flow of stormwater at site into a natural water body, allowing time for filtration of pollutants to occur.

·    Rainfall has the potential to recharge the superficial aquifer, however an increase in impervious areas through urban development means less infiltration. Undeveloped catchments can absorb up to 90% of precipitation, whereas in built up areas, infiltration can be as little as 10% (ECITALC, 2002)

·    Traditional drainage systems have been designed to minimise local flooding by providing a quick path for run-off to waterways or basins. However solving the initial problem of moving the water away quickly can have negative impacts at an environmental level.

·    A shift from the traditional thinking of stormwater being seen as a waste product with a cost, to a resource with a value as discussed within the stormwater management manual.

 

Five Year Prioritised Project Lists

 

Drainage

 

Although it has been stated within this Asset Management Plan that more research is needed to determine the ultimate long term renewal plan for drainage. It should also be acknowledged that certain renewal / upgrade projects are needed now to ensure that critical issues are being addressed in a timely manner.

 

It is envisaged that the areas identified within the DAMP will be assessed and rectified where practicable over the next five years. This list of priorities will no doubt evolve in line with our knowledge and understanding of the drainage network; however it provides a good starting point for knowing where the immediate priorities lie.

 

Footpaths

 

The FCAMP includes an overall list of paths that will require renewal within the first twenty years of the plan. The list is prioritised in order of when the paths are due for renewal and will be a guiding document for the annual budget deliberations.

 

Levels of Service

 

The asset management plans have been prepared in the context of maintaining the existing assets at the current level of service to the community and have also made recommendations where gaps exist between current and required levels of service.  Required levels are dictated by industry and legislative standards and/or staff knowledge and expertise of best practice.

 

Maintenance Schedules

 

Based on the current age and condition of the networks it would be extremely beneficial to implement a review of the current frequency and type of scheduled maintenance activities. This would identify any possible improvements that could be made in the scheduled maintenance of the assets. This would in turn assist in prolonging the useful lives of the assets.

For all drains, footpaths and cycle ways, existing maintenance expenditure patterns will need to be measured against what’s required into the future. This will provide an insight into whether any changes to the types of maintenance being undertaken can be funded from within the existing maintenance expenditure; or alternatively, if additional funding is required over and above what is currently being spent. 

 

Maintenance schedules should also dictate service standards based on each path or drains relative importance within the network, these service standards should be tied to a cost and balanced against both existing and proposed budgets (scenario modelling). This will allow the Council (and ultimately the community) to make informed decisions about the standard they would like for upkeep of the asset; and their willingness and/or ability to pay for it.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The asset management plans are one part of the overall integrated planning process and provide a valuable link between the day to day management of the assets and the long term planning documents relating to these assets.

 

They are prepared in the context of continuous improvements and as such are subject to review and update to ensure their currency. They provide detailed information at a point in time and set the framework for ongoing effective management of infrastructure assets at the City of Busselton.

 

The assessment undertaken within the Asset Management Plans has not shown any current backlog of renewal works for drainage, footpaths or cycle ways. What is has shown however, is the need for dealing with the here and now, whilst at the same time reviewing, researching and planning for the future.

 

As more research is undertaken and more is known about the current state of the drainage network, and more importantly; the costs associated with any large scale renewal, then it is likely that the City will be required to direct more funds to renewal, or undertake rationalisation where practicable.

 

The footpath and cycle ways network needs to be managed with a balance of renewal and new as well as ongoing review of the existing networks. This will allow the City to determine if there are any options for rationalisation within the networks.

 

The Asset Management Plans for drains, footpaths and cycle ways provide a good initial snap shot of the state of the respective networks. They will require review and update over time to ensure the Cities current and future renewal obligations are being captured and catered for.

 

 

OPTIONS

 

Council could choose not to adopt the asset management plans at this juncture; however this may hinder the City’s integrated planning compliance.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The implementation of the Asset Management Plans would be effective immediately upon adoption of the officer’s recommendation.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.            adopts the individual asset management plans for Drainage and Footpaths and Cycle Ways.

 

2.            endorses the development of a Policy detailing the mechanics of administering and accounting for the funding for Drainage, Footpaths and Cycle Ways. and subsequent expenditure.

 

 Note:   The Committee felt that it was necessary to provide clarity in relation to the specific items included in the policy and that a funding model be incorporated to address any potential funding gaps associated with repairs required (in the future) for new footpaths within the City.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.            adopts the individual asset management plans for Drainage and Footpaths and Cycle Ways.

 

2.            endorses the development of a Policy (to be presented to Council prior to 31 December 2014) that provides a framework for the ongoing provision of Footpaths and Cycle Ways.  The policy is to include:

·    Details of the overall funds required to be directed towards footpaths and cycle ways over a period of 50 years;

·    The intended split between new and renewal expenditure and timeframes around the construction of the current prioritised list of new footpaths and cycle ways;

·    Identification of any future funding gaps (caused by spikes in expenditure); and

·    Details of how any future funding gaps will be met.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                      75                                                                                  25 June 2014

10.3                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS          

Attachment a          Drainage Asset Management Plan


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      105                                                                                                      25 June 2014

10.3                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS          

Attachment a          Drainage Asset Management Plan


Council                                                                                      109                                                                                25 June 2014

10.3                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS          

Attachment a          Drainage Asset Management Plan


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      115                                                                                                      25 June 2014

10.3                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS          

Attachment a          Drainage Asset Management Plan




Council                                                                                      123                                                                                25 June 2014

10.3                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS          

Attachment b          Footpaths and Cycleways Management Plan


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      129                                                                                                      25 June 2014

10.3                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS          

Attachment b          Footpaths and Cycleways Management Plan


Council                                                                                      125                                                                                25 June 2014

10.3                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS          

Attachment b          Footpaths and Cycleways Management Plan


Council                                                                                      131                                                                                                      25 June 2014

10.3                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS          

Attachment b          Footpaths and Cycleways Management Plan


Council                                                                                      129                                                                                               25 June 2014

10.3                             Finance Committee - 5/06/2014 - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS          

Attachment b          Footpaths and Cycleways Management Plan



 


Council                                                                                      135                                                                    25 June 2014

11.             Planning and Development Services Report

Nil

12.             Engineering and Work Services Report

12.1           REGIONAL STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

SUBJECT INDEX:

Waste

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Infrastructure assets are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Operations Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Waste Management

REPORTING OFFICER:

Waste Coordinator - Vitor Martins

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Strategic Waste Management Plan  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

A scoping study for a regional (shared) landfill facility between the Shire of Augusta Margaret River and City of Busselton was prepared in early 2013. A working group has been designated by CapeROC, among other tasks, to seek funding under the Regional Funding Program for waste infrastructure to develop under a regional arrangement.

 

The application for waste infrastructure funding under the Regional Funding Program requires that the regional group lodges a Strategic Waste Management Plan with the Department of Environment Regulation, after endorsement by all Councils involved.

 

The purpose of the current report is threefold: (1) to endorse Vidler Rd. as the preferred landfill site for further development, while securing Ridge Rd. as a strategic prospective waste site for the long term; (2) to endorse the Capes Region Strategic Waste Management Plan (Attachment A) that will provide direction for new waste management infrastructure and services in the region for the period 2016-2020 and is a requirement for obtaining funding under the Regional Funding Program and (3) to approve submission for $6.9 million waste infrastructure funding application under the Regional Funding Program.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

CapeROC resolved at the July, 2013 meeting to endorse, among other items, further investigation and progression of a regional landfill facility and that a Regional Landfill Working Group be formed comprising key officers from both Local Governments.  It also endorsed staff to seek external funding to assist with the next stage of works.

 

The major existing funding program is the Regional Funding Program (RFP). This is a five year funding program that supports regional groups of local governments across Western Australia in the implementation of Strategic Waste Management Plan priorities.

 

The Waste Authority is a statutory body comprising five members appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister for Environment and is responsible for managing the Regional Funding Program.

 

In December 2013, the Capes Regional Group comprised of the City of Busselton and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River was registered with the Waste Authority as the first step towards a possible funding application under the RFP.

 

CapeROC resolved at the January 2014 meeting to seek funding from the Waste Authority in the current funding round of the RFP to undertake a Strategic Waste Management Plan for the Capes region, that will provide a direction in regards to waste infrastructure and combined waste initiatives to increase diversion from landfill in the region

 

At the same meeting, a preferred regional site identified as Ridge Road was endorsed, subject to further investigation and to the de-proclamation of the site as part of the Margaret River public drinking water source areas (PDWSA). The geotechnical survey undertaken during March-April 2014 concluded that the shallow groundwater would determine significant development costs as a waste landfill due to the special engineering requirements associated with this particular site. However, Ridge Rd. is still needed as it provides an important option as a future strategic site, and City officers are continuing to work with the Department of Parks and Wildlife to acquire the land.

 

In March 2014 a funding contract agreement was signed between the Waste Authority and the City of Busselton as the leading local government of the regional group to support the development and endorsement of the regional Strategic Waste Management Plan.

 

In the meantime, given the possibility of expansion of the existing Vidler Rd. site, CapeROC resolved at the May 2014 meeting, to progress further study of this site as a regional landfill. The regional group was also discussed at this meeting, and while the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River was intent on finalising their own waste management strategy with a consultant prior to committing to a regional strategy, City of Busselton officials were given the task of preparing a regional waste strategy for endorsement by both Councils, should the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River support the regional arrangement in due course.

 

This report supports the Council decision for endorsing the Capes Region Strategic Waste Management Plan which includes a set of proposed projects to submit to the Waste Authority for funding under the RFP.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The provision of waste management services by Local Government is regulated by the Health Act 1911 and Part 6, Division 1 of Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR Act), according to which a local government may provide, or enter into a contract for the provision on its behalf of, waste services.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The City does not have a specific policy relating to any regional waste management arrangement.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

One of the key benefits in a regional waste initiative is the potential to gain substantial funding from the Waste Authority both in terms of formative documentation and strategies and development of infrastructure.

 

The Waste Authority provides ongoing funding for Regional Council Groups (RCGs) of two or more local government authorities working together who wish to prepare, review or update Strategic Waste Management Plans. The Regional Funding Program utilises funds available from the Western Australian Government’s Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Account (WARR Account) that is administered under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR Act).

 

If the strategy is endorsed by both Councils and the Department of Environment Regulation and the proposed projects are deemed as eligible by the Waste Authority, these projects may be funded under the RFP. This is a competitive bid funding stage where RCGs will compete for funds for projects which demonstrate best value for money and alignment with State’s waste diversion targets, meaning that funding is not guaranteed at the outset.

 

Also, according to the program guidelines, a minimum cash contribution of 20% of the cost of the project would still be required from RCGs and cccording to RFP guidelines preference will be given to projects that contribute above the minimum (20%) contribution.

 

Overall regional investment projects proposed in the Strategic Waste Management Plan are as follows:

 

Strategic projects

Capital

($)

New best practice regional landfill (cells 1 to 5 at Vidler Rd.)

8,500,000

Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Rendezvous Rd.

1,855,000

Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Davis Rd.

1,875,000

Construction and demolition waste recycling plant (impact crusher and jaw crusher excavator)

1,200,000

Garden composting/worm farming (composting bins and mobile garbage bin audit)

140,000

Cardboard sorting plant (power connection, excavator grabber attachment, baler, bins and shed)

185,000

TOTAL

13,755,000

 

To improve the chances of obtaining funding it is proposed that the CapeROC RCG will seek funding of up to 50% from the Waste Authority for each of the above mentioned projects, amounting to a total of $6.9million.

 

According to the program guidelines all projects funded through the regional Funding Program must be fully implemented, funds expended and final reports submitted by 31 March 2016, meaning that the bulk of the capital outlays would need to be incurred during 2014-2015.

 

Additional estimated labour requirements for the City of Busselton in accordance with the proposed projects would be as follows:

 

Strategic projects

FTE

Cost

(additional)

($ per annum)

New best practice regional landfill (cells 1 to 5 at Vidler Rd.)

0

0

Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Rendezvous Rd.

1.5

90,000

Construction and demolition waste recycling plant (impact crusher and jaw crusher excavator)

0.5

30,000

Garden composting/worm farming (composting bins and mobile garbage bin audit)

0

0

Cardboard sorting plant (power connection, excavator grabber attachment, baler, bins and shed)

1

60,000

TOTAL

3

180,000

 

The Governance model for a regional arrangement is not yet finalised. Therefore, a long term services provision contract between the City of Busselton and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River is still required.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The City’s 2013 Strategic Community Plan identifies one of its key goal areas as “Cared For and Enhanced Environment”, under which it supports the development and implementation of a strategy for the responsible provision of waste management services.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

If the Strategic Waste Management Plan is endorsed and funding is approved, the major risk associated is the inherent risk of a partnership with the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River, including the possibility of not continuing with the commitment once the funds have been allocated and/or projects have been initiated.

 

To reduce this risk a long-term contract agreement needs to be put in place specifying the rights and responsibilities of each Regional Council Group member and committing to a long term mutually agreed cooperation scheme.

 

Another relevant risk is the possibility of the Waste authority will approve funding for some but not all projects, and that the major project – the regional waste landfill – would not get the funding requested. This risk, however, would still make the funding submission successful, if only in part.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River was consulted in relationship to the Strategic Waste Management Plan. Although that document has not been before the Council it is expected that the Shire will endorse it so that it will be submitted under the RFP as a regional cooperation project.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The attached Capes Region Strategic Waste Management Plan presents the strategic regional projects to be submitted for the period 2016-2020. It was initiated having in mind the shared need to pool the resources of both of CAPEROC’s member in order to work towards achieving the State’s recycling targets.

The document develops the applicable strategic framework from the requirements set forth by National and State policy and regulations as well as relevant local policies.

A shared vision of the waste challenges, now and in the future, was established. Together with the strategic principles and an assessment of the relevant regional context in terms of demographics, waste production dynamics and review of current infrastructure and services, that Vision supports a set of options for waste reduction, management and disposal.

Given all that foundational background, the region’s strategic waste management plan was formulated so as to include the regional priorities and related strategic objectives. Regional priorities and strategic objectives identified were as follows:

Regional priorities

Strategic objectives

Adopting regional recycling and resource recovery solutions in line with sustainable waste management practices, working towards State waste recycling targets;

 

·      Improve recycling and resource recovery in line with State recycling targets and best practice guidelines, thus reducing reliance on landfill for waste disposal (waste diversion), community, C&D, green waste/organics

Engaging the regional economy in waste avoidance, reuse and recycling.

 

·      Engage local/regional recycling companies and charities in waste avoidance, reuse and recycling.

Implementing best practice and continuous improvement of waste management infrastructure and operations across the region.

·      Secure best practice waste transfer and disposal infrastructure for residual waste well into the future.

·      Improve efficiency of waste management operations, in line with intended service levels.

·      Improve waste management information for decision-making.

 

Empowering and engaging the Community in waste avoidance and recycling.

·      Improve community education, engagement and participation.

From the regional priorities and strategic objectives identified, and based on the review of current services and an assessment of available recycling and disposal options, a set of key projects was selected. These are the strategic projects referred to above (Financial Implications section).

In summary, the Capes Region Strategic Waste Management Plan proposes a focus on the development of a best practice strategic waste landfill site at Vidler Rd. (on existing City land) with a lifetime in excess of 20 years to operate on a regional basis, as well as two best practice community recycling and transfer station sites and recycling projects to divert construction and demolition waste, cardboard and organic waste from landfill, in line with the Waste Authority’s targets.

The Strategic Waste Management Plan also provides guidance for further development in the future, giving consideration to projects based on energy recovery and recycling of organic waste beyond 2020.

The potential to gain substantial funding from the Waste Authority is the major driver to prepare a Regional Council Group submission under CapeROCin accordance with the proposed strategy.

The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River is expected to endorse the regional Strategic Waste Management Plan and related Regional Investment Plan. However, the Regional Council Group governance model, as well as service levels and financial arrangements (gate fee) still need to be defined and agreed upon on a long term contract concerning the regional waste partnership under CapeROC.

Should the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River reconsider and not endorse the regional Strategic Waste Management Plan, endorsement by the City of Busselton is still proposed and the application for funding would be submitted to the Waste Authority by the City of Busselton alone, with the appropriate adjustments (i.e. dropping the transfer station and community drop-off centre at Davis Rd. as one of the strategic projects).

 

CONCLUSION

 

A Regional Council Group application for funding under the Regional Funding Program would yield the best chance to get funding for waste management projects in line with the State’s Waste Authority targets. This requires endorsement of a regional strategic waste management plan by both Councils and by the Department of Environment Regulation and needs to be submitted by 27/6/2014 to the Waste Authority.

 

The attached Capes Region Strategic Waste Management Plan provides an appropriate foundation for the development of regional waste services and infrastructure for the period 2016-2020 and sets the general guidelines for further development beyond that period.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council might decide not to pursue the regional strategy, in which case it would forgo the opportunity to submit an application for regional funding worth $6.9 million for the region, for a total capital outlay of $13.8 million.

 

The Council might decide to amend the regional strategic waste management plan, in which case there would be a risk of not having it submitted within the applicable deadline of 27/6/2014.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The following implementation timeline is proposed:

 

Council endorsement....................................................................................................... 25/6/2014

Submission to Waste Authority......................................................................................... 27/6/2014

Funding contract signed.................................................................................................... 31/7/2014

Design tenders issued....................................................................................................... 15/8/2014

Design tenders awarded................................................................................................... 15/9/2014

Construction tenders issued............................................................................................ 31/10/2014

Construction tenders awarded........................................................................................ 24/12/2014

All projects to be completed and funds expended............................................................ 18/12/2015

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1)    adopts Vidler Road as the preferred site for waste landfill development, while securing Ridge Rd. as a strategic prospective waste site for the long term;

 

2)    endorses the Capes Region Strategic Waste Management Plan 2016-2020;

 

3)    seeks $6.9 million worth of funding for waste infrastructure for the region by submitting an application during the current funding period under the Regional Funding Program, in cooperation with the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River.

 

 


Council                                                                                      181                                                                  25 June 2014

12.1                             REGIONAL STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN  

Attachment a          Strategic Waste Management Plan

 

 

 

 

 

STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2014-2016

CAPES REGIONAL ORGANISATION OF COUNCILS

 

 

 

 

30/05/2014


 

[blank page]


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I: STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

1.... Background...................................................................................................................... 5

2.... Introduction..................................................................................................................... 5

3.... Vision............................................................................................................................... 6

4.... Strategic framework: National, State and Local Policies..................................................... 7

4.1. Waste and Resource Management at the National level........................................................................ 7

4.2. Western Australia’s Waste Avoidance and Recovery Act 2007 (WARR 2007)..................................... 8

4.3. Western Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the Right Environment................................................. 9

4.4. Regional Funding Program............................................................................................................................ 9

4.5. Local Government Act 1995........................................................................................................................ 10

4.6. Local policies.................................................................................................................................................. 10

4.6.1...... City of Busselton............................................................................................................................ 10

4.6.2...... Shire of Augusta-Margaret River................................................................................................ 11

4.6.3...... Regional cooperation................................................................................................................... 12

4.7. Waste hierarchy, best practice standards and landfill diversion......................................................... 13

5.... Strategic principles......................................................................................................... 15

Part II: CAPES REGIONAL WASTE STRATEGY

6.... Region background information...................................................................................... 17

6.1. City of Busselton........................................................................................................................................... 17

6.2. Shire of Augusta-Margaret River................................................................................................................ 18

6.3. Population in the CAPEROC region............................................................................................................ 18

7.... Assessment of significant waste sources, quantities and classes....................................... 19

7.1. Waste production............................................................................................................................................ 19

7.1.1...... Mixed solid waste............................................................................................................................. 20

7.1.2...... Construction and demolition waste.............................................................................................. 21

7.1.3...... Organic waste.................................................................................................................................... 22

7.1.4...... Sorted end of life materials/products........................................................................................... 22

8.... Review of waste management infrastructure and services............................................... 23

8.1... Current waste infrastructure...................................................................................................................... 23

8.1.1...... City of Busselton............................................................................................................................ 23

8.1.2...... Shire of Augusta-Margaret River................................................................................................ 26

8.1.3...... Private infrastructure................................................................................................................... 27

8.2... Current waste services................................................................................................................................. 28

8.2.1...... Waste collection............................................................................................................................ 28

8.2.2...... Kerbside recycling......................................................................................................................... 28

9.... Assessment of options for waste reduction, management and disposal........................... 29

9.1. C&D waste sorting and recycling............................................................................................................... 29

9.2. Three bin system........................................................................................................................................... 30

9.3. Mechanical-biological treatment............................................................................................................... 32

9.4. Waste to energy............................................................................................................................................ 33

9.5. Sorting cardboard at the tip face............................................................................................................... 34

9.6. Garden composting/worm farming........................................................................................................... 34

9.7. Best practice landfill disposal..................................................................................................................... 35

9.8. Best practice Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station........................................................ 36

9.9. Assessment summary.................................................................................................................................. 36

10.. Capes region strategic waste management plan.............................................................. 38

10.1. Regional Priorities......................................................................................................................................... 38

10.2. Strategic objectives...................................................................................................................................... 39

10.3. Proposed management system configuration........................................................................................ 39

10.4. Key-projects................................................................................................................................................... 41

10.4.1.... Construction and demolition waste recycling plant............................................................... 42

10.4.2.... Cardboard sorting plant............................................................................................................... 42

10.4.3.... Garden composting/worm farming........................................................................................... 43

10.4.4.... New best practice landfill (cell 1 at Vidler Rd.)........................................................................ 43

10.4.5.... Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Stations............................................................... 43

10.4.6.... Other initiatives............................................................................................................................. 44

11.. Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 45


 

1.    Background

The provision of an effective and long term solution to waste management is a critical service provided to the community and one of the core functions of local government. In addition, waste management has been identified by the State Government as a service area where regional and shared co-operation and facilities are encouraged.

Recognizing that the development of a regional partnership for waste management would yield a more cost-effective and sustainable approach to the implementation of a pro-active waste strategy in alignment with state targets and regional priorities, the City of Busselton and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River decided to pursue a regional waste project under the Capes Regional Organisation of Councils (CAPEROC) framework.

The need for investigation into the feasibility of a regional landfill facility was identified by CAPEROC as part of the long term planning for waste services in both local authorities. Therefore, regional cooperation concerning waste management started with a scoping study for a regional (shared) landfill facility between the Shire of Augusta Margaret River and City of Busselton, prepared in early 2013. In July 2013 CAPEROC endorsed a direction for further progression of the project which included setting up of a working group comprised of key officers from both local governments to investigate governance, management and financial and seek external funding.

While the major focus of CAPEROC to date has been to find a suitable site to secure long term disposal options for both local governments, a larger scope of cooperation is proposed to be endorsed by both Councils under the present Strategic Waste Management Plan (SWMP) – 2014-2016, including a set of projects aligned with landfill diversion targets for the period 2015-2020.

2.    Introduction

In simple terms waste can be considered as any material that is produced as a result of human activity that no longer has a beneficial use, or is not beneficially used, and hence requires disposal or is otherwise released into the environment.

A common concern in developed societies is that consumption is leading to an increase in waste generation. So far there has been no decoupling between society’s increasing level of affluence and waste generation, thus resulting in ‘throw away’ societal trends.

According to Western Australia’s Waste Authority, the State’s performance when benchmarked against other mainland states is still poor and requires a significant boost if comparable outcomes are to be achieved by 2015. (Western Australian Waste Strategy: “Creating the Right Environment”)

While waste management has been historically considered, first and foremost, as a public health concern, a greater emphasis on environmental protection and sustainability has emerged during the last quarter of the last century. There was, hence, a shift from the emphasis on sanitation to resource recovery and efficiency as well as sustainable natural resource use.

Contemporary public policy options targeting waste increasingly need to consider sustainability-based concepts such as product environmental life cycle, extended producer responsibility and the waste hierarchy in addition to the more conventional role of the protection of human health.

The waste hierarchy, a hierarchy of preference to avoid, reduce, reuse and then recycle before disposal, is a simple and common sense approach that sets an order of preference for action to reduce and manage waste. Historically, this concept was introduced for the first time into European waste policy through EU’s Waste Framework Directive (1975/442/EEC), but has since been widely accepted and adopted in most other developed countries including Australia. In Western Australia it is enshrined in the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 in the context of the consideration of resource management options, as well as by reference to the principle of waste minimisation established in the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Also, one of the State Waste Authority’s Waste Strategy principles is waste minimisation and waste avoidance – in which all reasonable and practicable steps should be taken to minimise the generation of waste and its discharge to landfill and the environment.

This Strategic Waste Management Plan has a primary focus of improving current waste minimisation and management activities. To this end, in the order of priority, the Strategic Waste Management Plan is focused on the following waste sources: (1) Residential Waste; (2) Commercial and Industrial Waste and (3) Construction and Demolition Waste.

3.    Vision

This vision comes about as a shared understanding of the City of Busselton and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River regarding contemporary waste management challenges, under the CAPEROC framework.

Both local governments see waste as a potential resource that shall be managed so as to reduce the environmental impact of disposal and to maximize its economic value. To that end, both local governments envision sustainable waste management practices adopted through:

·    fostering the potential of the local economy and its direct engagement in value-adding activities, by dealing with waste in a closed loop, green-economy[1] approach, turning it into a true economic resource;

·    application of best practice guidelines in developing waste services and infrastructure, in alignment with State waste avoidance, reduction and recycling targets and appropriate disposal standards;

·    direct engagement of the Community with a clear focus on information, education and participation, in order to facilitate waste avoidance, reduction and source separation towards recycling.

This Strategic Waste Management Plan (SWMP) aims at leveraging and pooling together the resources of both local governments under CAPEROC, to achieve waste management outcomes in alignment with the above stated Vision, as well as with Western Australia’s Waste Policy Framework and the Regional Priorities herein identified.


4.            Strategic Framework: National, State and Local Policies

The strategy objectives and key projects identified within this SWMP are intended to address the objects set forth in relevant legislation in regards to waste management, the objectives of Western Australian Waste Strategy and the Regional Funding Program’s Guidelines.

4.1  Waste and Resource Management at the National level

Waste policy in each Australia state and territory is founded on the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992), endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The challenge identified thereupon is to improve the efficiency with which resources are used and reduce the impact on the environment of waste disposal, and to improve the management of hazardous wastes, avoid their generation and address clean-up issues.

The National Waste Policy brings in a new approach to waste management in Australia. The policy was agreed by governments in November 2009 and endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments in August 2010. It sets Australia's waste management and resource recovery direction to 2020 and aims to reduce the amount of waste for disposal to landfill and manage waste as a resource to deliver economic, environmental and social benefits (Australian Government, Department of the Environment).

The Product Stewardship Act 2011 came into effect on 8 August 2011 and it provides the framework to effectively manage the environmental, health and safety impacts of products, and in particular those impacts associated with the disposal of products (Australian Government, Department of the Environment). The framework includes voluntary, co-regulatory and mandatory product stewardship. The passage of the legislation delivers on a key commitment by the Australian Government under the National Waste Policy.

National Packaging Covenant

Australian Environment Ministers have endorsed the Australian Packaging Covenant, which commenced on 1 July 2010. It is the third iteration of the National Packaging Covenant, which has been the leading instrument for managing the environmental impacts of packaging in Australia since 1999. It is the voluntary component of a co-regulatory arrangement based on the principle of shared responsibility, through product stewardship, between key stakeholders in the packaging supply chain and all spheres of government – Australian, State, Territory and Local.

The Australian Government's Australian Packaging Covenant Action Plan 2010 2015 outlines the activities the government will undertake to assist the Australian Packaging Covenant in achieving its objectives and goals. This document builds on activities undertaken under the previous National Packaging Covenant and aims to make government operations more sustainable and drive a culture of sustainability in Australia. Government agencies are responsible for implementing the commitments in this action plan and reporting qualitative data through a new reporting template.

The action plan outlines how the Australian Government will incorporate the principles of the covenant in its operations by:

·    implementing the covenant's Sustainable Packaging Guidelines

·    implementing recovery systems for used packaging materials and paper

·    purchasing products that include recycled materials

·    facilitating nationally effective product stewardship policies and programs relating to packaging.

National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme

The National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme involves a combination of government regulation and industry action to take responsibility for the collection and recycling of waste televisions, computers, printers and computer products. Under the Scheme, householders and small business can drop-off these items for free at designated access points, which may include permanent collection sites, take-back events or through a mail-back option (Australian Government, Department of the Environment).

4.2  Western Australia’s Waste Avoidance and Recovery Act 2007 (WARR 2007)

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act (WARR Act) builds upon work undertaken by the State Government since 1997, to progress the commitment of developing a comprehensive waste legislation.

The primary objects of this Act are to contribute to sustainability, and the protection of human health and the environment in Western Australia and the move towards a waste-free society by —

(a) promoting the most efficient use of resources, including resource recovery and waste avoidance; and

(b) reducing environmental harm, including pollution through waste; and

(c) the consideration of resource management options against the following hierarchy —

(i) avoidance of unnecessary resource consumption;

(ii) resource recovery (including reuse, reprocessing, recycling and energy recovery);

(iii) disposal.

In addition, the major new features of the WARR Act in the context of earlier public policies are the following:

-      establishing a statutory waste authority with various non-regulatory and advisory functions and powers related to waste, including strategic policy and planning, the implementation of policies, plans and programs to achieve that transition; and the administration of funds raised through the collection of the landfill levy;

-      allowing for regulations to be developed and implemented by the regulatory agency to effect waste avoidance and resource recovery in Western Australia;

-      providing powers of compliance enforcement in relation to those regulations;

-      creating and enabling the head powers for establishing extended producer responsibility schemes and product stewardship schemes, and implementation of the associated instruments for significantly reducing "priority waste";

-      consolidating certain waste provisions previously in the Environmental Protection Act 1986, the Health Act 1911, and the Environmental Protection (Landfill) Levy Act 1998.

4.3  Western Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the right environment (2012)

According to the Vision set forth in the Western Australian Waste Strategy (2012-2020): “the primary goal of sustainable waste management strategies is to reduce the environmental impact of waste and maximise conservation of natural resources through reduced overall material use and increased materials and energy recovery.”

Relevant targets within the strategy are as follows:

Municipal Solid Waste Sector Targets

·    30% diversion from landfill of material presented for collection in major regional centres by 30 June 2015 (non-metropolitan region recovery in 2009/10 was 15%);

·    50% diversion from landfill of material presented for collection in major regional centres by 30 June 2020

Busselton is a major regional centre for the purpose of Solid Waste Sector Targets above.

Construction and Demolition Waste Sector Targets

·    60% diversion from landfill of material presented for collection across the State by 30 June 2015 (Statewide recovery in 2009/10 was 29%);

·    75% diversion from landfill of material presented for collection across the State by 30 June 2020.

Commercial and Industrial Waste Sector Targets

·    55% diversion from landfill of material presented for collection across the State by 30 June 2015 (Statewide recovery in 2009/10 was 46%);

·    70% diversion from landfill of material presented for collection across the State by 30 June 2020.

 

4.4  Regional Funding Program

The objectives of the Regional Funding Program are:

·    to encourage local governments to work together to provide regional waste management solutions and increase efficiencies;

·    to facilitate improved local government waste management infrastructure and services throughout the State, with measurable progress towards meeting Waste Strategy targets;

·    to facilitate continuous improvement in waste avoidance, resource recovery and disposal for solid waste managed by local government in line with the relevant targets within the Waste Strategy.

To that end, RFP applications will be supported by a Regional Investment Plan (RIP) which will need to consider the regional strategic priorities, the contribution towards improvement in waste avoidance, resource recovery or disposal.

4.5  Local Government Act 1995

According to the Act, the general function of a local government is to provide for the good government of persons in its district, which include executive functions. In performing its executive functions the local government may provide services and facilities.

In carrying out its functions a local government is to use its best endeavours to meet the needs of current and future generations through an integration of environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity.

Also, a local government is to satisfy itself that services and facilities that it provides: (a) integrate and coordinate, so far as practicable, with any provided by the Commonwealth, the State or any public body; and (…) (c) are managed efficiently and effectively.

In other words, the general implication of the Local Government Act 1995 is that, in their decision-making, local governments are to integrate sustainability concerns and coordinate with National and State authorities as far as practicable.

4.6  Local Policies

There has been no overarching strategy defined under CAPEROC to deal with waste management services both local government members provide or to deal with sustainability and environmental protection matters in general. Relevant local policies are, therefore, specific of each member local government and can be characterized as follows.

4.6.1      City of Busselton

According to the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan (2013), Key Goal Area 5 Cared for and Enhanced Environment, includes the following objectives:

-      Our environment is cared for and enhanced for the enjoyment of the community and visitors.

-      Growth is managed sustainably and our environment is protected and enhanced as we develop.

-      Environment and climate change risks and impacts are understood and managed.

Relevant related Council strategies to support achievement of community objectives include the development and implementation of a strategy for the responsible provision of waste management services.

The City of Busselton formulated its Waste Strategy in 2013. This document is intended to provide guidance for the development of waste services into the next decade and beyond. It includes a comprehensive review of waste services and infrastructure, provides in-depth recommendations for the improvement of waste services in alignment with the State’s Waste Authority targets and provides costing figures to support long term financial planning and budgeting.

In order to work in alignment with the Waste Authority’s targets, according to the City of Busselton Waste Strategy, the Council should work towards the following major initiatives:

-      identify and reserve strategically located land for future waste infrastructure development, including reserve future landfill sites for ongoing waste disposal;

-      only landfill waste in lined landfill cells and remove recyclable materials from the waste stream;

-      invest in developing and maintaining an accurate database tracking the flow of waste materials; a combination of weighbridge data, collections data and waste processing throughput may be used to generate a working model and identify new opportunities to improve waste diversion performance;

-      ensure site operations are compliant with best practice guidelines published by the Department of Environment Regulation (DER);

-      keep abreast of the Waste authority’s current position on best practice systems for the collection and processing of waste;

-      work closely with the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River to develop future waste management infrastructure, including a new landfill site;

-      align its ongoing strategic development of waste management services with the objectives of the Western Australian Waste Strategy.

 

4.6.2      Shire of Augusta-Margaret River

According to the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River Community Strategic Plan (2013) Goal 1 Valuing the natural Environment, one of the outcomes is defined as sustainable waste management.

Major relevant related Council strategies include reducing the environmental impact of waste and maximising conservation of natural resources, reducing raw material use and increase materials and energy recovery and encouraging the community to reduce, reuse and recycle.

In April 2008 the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River has developed a Strategic Waste Management Plan which identified the vision and guiding principles for waste management activities within the Shire for the period 2008-2013. It presents a review of existing waste infrastructure and services, baseline waste information and forecasts and provides a strategic direction for waste and recycling services. It also includes sections on community engagement and education activities and a review of the recommendations of the Zero Waste Plan.

The major key principles of the Strategic Waste Management Plan include the following:

-      waste hierarchy and alignment with the State’s strategic direction.

-      sustainability with consideration to social, environmental and economic impacts of its decisions with respect to waste management.

-      integration, meaning that it addresses legislative requirements, State Government direction and is aligned with Shire policies and community outcomes.

-      polluter-pays principle, under which the generator of waste should be responsible for paying the cost of managing the waste in such a way that discourages waste production.

-      promotion of waste reduction behaviour through direct community engagement, education and social marketing programs.

-      adequate resourcing of future actions with respect to funding and staffing.

-      cooperation with neighbouring local governments and seeking partnerships that increase the efficiency and effectiveness of waste management policy.

-      ongoing monitoring and evaluation, and reviewed on a regular basis.

 

4.6.3      Regional cooperation

As the development of best practice waste management infrastructure requires a significant shift in skills, practices and costs, local governments are increasingly looking at ways to cooperate in order to share costs/pool shared resources, accrue economies of scale and possibly attract funding from State Government.

The idea of cooperation between the City of Busselton and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River on a regional basis for waste management goes back as far as 2003.

The Australian Local Government Association defines Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs) as “partnerships between groups of local government entities that agree to collaborate on matters of common interest”.

The Capes Regional Organisation of Councils (CAPEROC) is a voluntary grouping of the City of Busselton and the Shire of Augusta Margaret River, which seeks to enhance the capacity of both local governments to deliver social, economic and environmental benefits to their communities and the Capes region. CAPEROC’s mission is to oversee joint projects identified in the Capes Regional Economic Development Strategy. The vision and focus of the strategy is to build on regional and sectoral advantages that seek to promote economic growth, diversity and sustainability to enable choices in employment, business and lifestyle.

CAPEROC thus provides an appropriate forum for a regional waste management project to become a reality, drawing on the existing resources and planning for a suitable future regional cooperation framework.

The need for investigation of a regional landfill facility was identified by CAPEROC as part of the long term planning for waste services in both local authorities, as waste management has been identified by the State Government as a service area where regional and shared co-operation and facilities are encouraged.

A consultant was appointed to undertake the project on behalf of CAPEROC in December 2012. The CAPEROC Regional Landfill Study Report represents a ‘first cut’ investigation of the broad viability of undertaking a regional landfill facility. It concludes that there are inherent benefits for both local authorities in further investigating and developing a regional facility.

The study also undertook high level investigation of a number of potential sites within both Local Authorities for potential development as best practice waste landfill and reviewed a number of governance models outlining broad options for formalising a regional agreement.

CAPEROC adopted a resolution that a Regional Landfill Working Group be formed comprising key officers from both Local Governments. The group was to undertake more detailed and on-site assessment of the preferred sites identified in the CAPEROC Regional Landfill Study Report and further investigate governance, management, financial and tenure options for a Regional Landfill Facility.

CAPEROC further decided to advance a regional Strategic Waste Management Plan to address waste management priorities in line with the State’s Waste Authority targets and in response to the specific needs of the region.

The present report integrates the major strategic principles and guidelines set forth by both Councils; it applies them to a regional cooperative framework and outlines a number of strategic projects in order to support a suitable Regional Investment Plan.

4.7  Waste hierarchy, best practice standards and landfill diversion

As detailed above, the Waste Hierarchy was first introduced in WA into the Environmental Protection Act 1986 as a principle of waste minimisation. In its most practical form it states that wastes should be managed in accordance with the following order of preference (Figure 1): (a) avoidance; (b) re-use; (c) recycling; (d) recovery of energy; (e) treatment; (f) containment; and (g) disposal.

http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/About%20Us/waste_hierachy.jpg

Fig. 1 Waste hierarchy

(Source: http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/)

Within the waste hierarchy framework, best practice standards for waste infrastructure and operations were developed, for instance, by the State of Victoria (see http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ and http://www.mwmg.vic.gov.au/ ), including the following:

·    Best practice environmental management – Siting, design, operation and rehabilitation of landfills (Landfill BPEM) (publication 788)

This best practice publication is used by EPA, industry and others in relation to works approval applications and compliance activity. Applicants for a works approval or licence for a landfill must meet the objectives and required outcomes set out in the Landfill BPEM.

EPA reviewed the Landfill BPEM in 2010 to incorporate new technology and the latest understanding of improved management practices at landfills. The revisions to the document also respond to a number of the recommendations of the Victorian Ombudsman's report Brookland Greens Estate — Investigation into Methane Gas.

·    Guide to Best Practice at Resource Recovery Centres

The Guide to Best Practice at Resource Recovery Centres (2009) addresses best practice planning and siting, design and construction, operation and management and rehabilitation of resource recovery centres/transfer stations.

·    Energy from waste guideline (publication 1559)

This guideline outlines how the Environment Protection Act 1970 and associated policies and Regulations are applied to the assessment of proposals that recover energy from waste. The document provides high-level guidance for industry, government and the community on EPA’s expectations and requirements for the siting, design, construction and operation of such facilities. This is a revised version of the draft guideline (publication 1549), which was released for public comment between 6 September and 11 October 2013

The State of Victoria is credited to be quite progressive concerning waste management policy and practice and these guidelines are also used in WA to assess conformance with best practice.

While bringing about a simple, generally consensual and robust framework for waste management around the world, the waste hierarchy needs to be carefully addressed if it is to be used to set waste diversion targets and obtain sound environmental policy outcomes.

In Australia, major calls to caution concerning the risks of a simplistic approach to the waste hierarchy includes the key findings of the Australia’s Productivity Commission public inquiry on Waste Generation and Resource Efficiency (2006).

According to the Commission’s report[2], the objective of this inquiry is to identify policies that will enable Australia to address market failures and externalities associated with the generation and disposal of waste, including opportunities for resource use efficiency and recovery throughout then product life-cycle. The inquiry included consideration of:

·      economic, environmental and social benefits and costs

·      factors that impede optimal resource efficiency and recovery, and waste management

·      the adequacy of current data on material flows and relevant economic activity

·      the impact of international trade and trade agreements

·      strategies that could be adopted by government and industry to encourage optimal resource efficiency and recovery.

The Commission has also been asked to examine performance indicators, government and commercial procurement practices, and the impacts of government support to production and recovery industries.

One of the Commission’s key findings is that targets for waste diversion are virtually impossible to set at an optimal level. Broad targets do not account for regional differences in waste diversion costs or the external costs of different types of waste. Nor are they sensitive to changes in market or institutional settings.

The implications of these findings is that local governments’ strategic planning to achieve State’s waste diversion targets should consider (a) their specific geographical and socio-economic context to determine waste diversion costs; (b) the external costs (externality impacts) of different types of waste; and (c) local and regional market dynamics (including market outlets for recycling) and institutional settings.

Also, to the extent that local governments need to coordinate with State Government (in this case align with the State Government’s strategic direction and targets), they are also required by the local Government Act 1995 to integrate into their decision making, sustainability concerns. Councils are, thus, to deliver optimal social, environmental and economic outcomes to their communities. Any additional, unnecessary, costs imposed on communities through resource intensive alternative waste management, for instance, would make it significantly more difficult to meet their obligations under the Local Government Act

This regional strategic waste management plan recognises the distinct specific geographical and socio-economic differences of the region in comparison to metropolitan areas or even to other major regional centres. It considers local and regional opportunities for recycling, and it addresses local constraints to waste management activities, along with the waste hierarchy, to achieve environmentally, economically and socially sound policy outcomes.

5.    Strategic principles

The above strategic framework lays down the foundation for waste management planning for the region, along with the strategic vision. The following are the strategic principles or guidelines adopted:

·    Successful recycling and landfill diversion are ultimately dependent on commercial industry and the State Government, via the policy framework and the recycling markets (availability of processing facilities) for the vast majority of the potentially recyclable materials in society.

·    Successful (efficient and effective) waste management planning and the capacity to predict future demand for services and to best determine appropriate action strategies are ultimately dependent on the reliability of information on waste sources, generation and composition.

·    Local governments (or regional groups thereof) are capable of influencing the community in adhering to waste avoidance and source separation practices.

CAPEROC is, therefore, intent on:

·    Working with State Government and regional private partners to develop and implement waste minimisation and waste recycling initiatives:

Sourcing and maintaining end users for recyclable products; and,

Developing partnership with value-adding waste recycling operators within the region,

Providing solutions for the handling and disposal of potentially hazardous materials.

·    Providing extensive and ongoing community education programs.  The community is seen as the primary tool for minimising waste generation and maximising waste recycling.

·    Securing recycling and disposal infrastructure capacity and improvement, in line with best practice guidelines and process streamlining.

·    Concentrating on priority waste streams to improve diversion rates while considering the specific regional context and best value to rate-payers considerations (cost-effectiveness).


 

Part II: CAPES REGIONAL WASTE STRATEGY

6.    Region background information

Within the region, the community is spread amongst a number of towns and small development nodes and rural farms in both districts. The greatest concentration of population is in and around the Towns of Busselton, Dunsborough, Yallingup, Augusta, Margaret River and Cowaramup.

Major economic activities in the region include tourism-related businesses and different types of agricultural activities.

Climate in south-western Australia is Mediterranean, with hot dry summers and agriculture relying heavily on winter rain. Higher winter rainfall and sufficient ground water supplies in the South-West region allows irrigation of pastures for dairy and beef, fruit, and vineyards. Forestry has also been a major industry in the past.

According to soil science Australian research group soilquality.org, the grain producing agricultural zone of Western Australia is located in the south-west. The majority of soils in this region are relatively low in clay and soil organic matter. Consequently their inherent soil quality is naturally low[3].

This aspect, combined with important agricultural use of the soil in the region, has direct relevance to waste recycling: as a major component of municipal solid waste, organic waste does and is likely to continue to provide an important source of raw materials for soil improvement products within the region.

6.1  City of Busselton

The City of Busselton covers an area of approximately 1,454 km2 and is located approximately 220 km south of Perth. The City includes the town sites of Busselton, Dunsborough, Eagle Bay/Cape Naturaliste, Vasse and Yallingup. These towns are extremely popular holiday destinations.

The City of Busselton’s resident population exceeds 31,000 people with growth projected to continue at 4% annual rate, coupled with a high rate of economic growth. Approximately 67% of the total population is located in the town of Busselton.

Main industries in the district are agriculture, tourism, dairy farming, grazing and viticulture. Vegetable, dairy and beef production dominates the Swan Coastal Plain, with accessible groundwater used for irrigation. The dune systems of this area are particularly sandy and susceptible to nutrient leaching.

In addition, the City is committed to maintain the status of “Events capital of Regional WA”, which is apparent from the amount and diversity of events hosted each year in the district. Each of these events bring tourists to the area and due to the City’s distance to Perth, a large part of these visits convert to overnight stays.

6.2  Shire of Augusta-Margaret River

The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River is a rural municipality situated on the Indian and Southern Ocean coasts approximately 250 kilometres South of Perth in the South West of Western Australia. The Shire comprises valuable agricultural and natural resources while also being an important tourist destination.

The Shire covers an area of approximately 2,370 km2 and contains eight major town sites including Augusta, Cowaramup, Gnarabup. Gracetown, Margaret River, Prevelly Park, Rosa Brook and Witchcliffee.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the Shire’s population was estimated at 13,168 in June 2013, an increase of 3.9% on the 2012 estimate of 12,675.

The main economic activities in the region include dairy farming, beef cattle and sheep grazing, horticulture, viticulture and wine production, market gardening, fishing, cottage industries, tourism and retail trading.

6.3  Population in the Capes region

Figure 2 shows population forecast for the Capes region and for each district.

Fig. 2

An increasing population and steady economic growth are the biggest contributors to community waste generation. The socio-economic make-up of the community is expected to drive both the specific nature of the waste production and management challenge and the emergence of opportunities to deal with it in a regional setting, engaging local actors and the community at large.


 

7.    Assessment of significant waste sources, quantities and classes

According to the waste census submitted (2012/2013), both local governments have rates of diversion from landfill of material presented for collection of 26%, falling short of the 30% target applicable to major regional centres by 30 June 2015, set forth by the State’s Waste Authority.

The present section provides an overview and assessment of major waste sources and types, quantified on the basis of the existing waste streams.

Typically waste sources fall into the following major/broad categories:

-      Municipal Solid Waste (from kerbside collection, drop-off at Waste Sites and public place collections);

-      Commercial and Industrial Waste (from primary and manufacturing industries, food and tourism sectors, as well as wholesale and retail);

-      Construction and demolition waste, including inert waste (bricks and concrete);

-      Green waste (from gardening and vegetation clearing activities);

-      Sorted end of life materials (reusable materials, e-waste and white goods/scrap metal).

 

7.1  Waste production

Table 1 shows forecasted waste production tonnage for municipal solid waste (MSW), commercial and industrial waste (C&I) and construction and demolition waste (C&D). These estimates are based on assumed compounded population annual growth rates of 4.2% and 2.9% for the City of Busselton and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River, respectively, yielding an overall compounded annual growth rate of 3.8%.

Table 1: Forecasted waste tonnages per year of selected waste streams

CAPEROC Regional Group (tonnes/year)

MSW

C&I

C&D

Total

2017/18

25,835

14,740

6,504

47,079

2022/23

32,171

18,370

7,980

58,521

2027/28

40,138

22,932

9,814

72,884

2032/33

50,169

28,672

12,095

90,936

The similarity in the nature of population and commercial and industrial activities between the two districts allows a reasonable assumption that weighbridge data obtained from Dunsborough Waste Facility is indicative of the waste stream composition of the wider region. The approximate proportions of the total waste streams are 55% municipal solid waste (MSW), 30% commercial and industrial waste (C&I) and 15% construction and demolition waste (C&D).


 

Typical composition of solid waste disposed of at landfills[4] is indicated in Table 2.

Table 2: Typical composition of selected waste streams

MATERIAL

 

MSW

C&I

C&D

Food

 

35.0%

21.5%

0.0%

Paper and cardboard

 

13.0%

15.5%

3.0%

Garden and green

 

16.5%

4.0%

2.0%

Wood

 

1.0%

12.5%

6.0%

Textiles

 

1.5%

4.0%

0.0%

Sludge

 

0.0%

1.5%

0.0%

Nappies

 

4.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Rubber and leather

 

1.0%

3.5%

0.0%

Inert waste

 

28.0%

37.5%

89.0%

TOTAL

 

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Based on the typical waste composition (from Table 2) and the relative weight of each waste stream (55% MSW, 30% C&I and 15% C&D), Table 3 indicates the expected relative weight of different materials for the overall waste generated within the region.

Table 3: Expected relative weight of different materials in waste

MATERIAL

% (w/w)

Inert waste

40.0%

Food

25.7%

Paper and cardboard

12.3%

Garden and green

10.6%

Wood

5.2%

Nappies

2.2%

Textiles

2.0%

Rubber and leather

1.6%

Sludge

0.5%

TOTAL

100.0%

It is apparent that inert waste, food waste, paper and cardboard and garden and green waste make up in excess of 80% and are thus the prime targets for a suitable strategic waste management plan that addresses waste diversion as a priority.

7.1.1      Mixed Solid Waste (municipal solid waste + commercial and industrial)

Within the region, tourism is one of the main activities and the fastest-growing industry. While providing significant financial benefit to the region; however, it also adds significantly to the volume of waste generated. This additional waste, estimated as 20 to 25%[5] in the busy summer season, increases the pressure on the waste management infrastructure and services.

Table 4 shows the amounts of mixed waste produced according to the waste census information of both Councils (2012/2013). This includes mixed waste collected and transported directly to landfill or transported to landfill via a transfer station (identified as ‘general) and mixed waste delivered to drop-off facilities where residents self-haul their waste (identified as ‘drop-off’)

Table 4: Municipal solid waste (‘mixed waste’) produced according
to the waste census of both local governments (2012/2013)

Tonnes per year

General

Drop-off

Total

AMRS

5,377

6,580

11,957

CoB

12,115

2,175

14,290

Total

17,492

8,755

26,247

Table 5 shows amounts of waste recycled according to the waste census information of both Councils (2012/2013).

Table 5: Waste recycled according
to the waste census of both local governments (2012/2013)

Tonnes per year

General

Drop-off

Total

AMRS

981

3,325

4,306

CoB

2,803

2,254

5,057

Total

3,784

5,579

9,363

 

Recycling (or waste diversion) rates for both Councils are thus 26.3%, according to the latest waste census information.

7.1.2      Construction and Demolition waste

Construction and demolition (C&D) waste forms a relatively large percentage of the general waste stream (particularly by weight). This waste stream is generally collected by private contractors and the City of Busselton, representing in excess of 4,000 tonnes[6] per year in the region (2012/2013). This is a significant reduction from annual tonnages in excess of 6,000 tonnes which occurred prior to 2012.

Such a significant reduction is probably due to both an increase in the gate fee charged by the City of Busselton, driving better sorting and recycling by private contractors, as much as because of increased C&D waste shipments to other landfills further north where gates fees were kept much lower.


 

7.1.3      Organic waste

Economic activities within the region determine a fairly significant amount, albeit non-quantified, of organic waste produced; from food waste from tourism (hotels, restaurants and cafes) to green waste from vegetation clearing, gardening and agricultural activities, and grape skins and seeds from the region’s wineries and storm waste.

Green waste is one of the major forms of organic waste, along with cardboard, food waste, wood products and organic textiles. Organic waste forms a large percentage of the general waste stream.  The appropriate/alternative management of this waste stream could have a significant effect on the quantity of waste being disposed of via landfill.

Given the fact that the region comprises a large rural area, and considering the existing predominant type of household dwellings with garden areas, production of green waste/garden waste is also expected to be quite significant.

With the increased building activity in and around the developed nodes within the region, there has been a significant increase in the volume of bulk vegetation being cleared. Occasionally, storm clean-up activities will also generate significant quantities of bulk vegetation that are typically dealt with similarly.

Green waste deposited in the kerbside mobile garbage bins ends up in landfills. Although this fraction is yet to be quantified, green waste seems to be a prime target for recycling.

Over recent years both Councils have gone from a situation of selling green waste collected to paying for grinding and transport off site and paying for disposal.

According to the waste census, green waste recycled in 2012/2013 was as indicated in Table 6.

Table 6: Green waste recycled according
to the waste census of both local governments (2012/2013)

Drop-off (tonnes)

AMRS

1,020

CoB

1,188

Total

2,208

 

7.1.4      Sorted end of life materials/products

Both Councils operate reusable materials shops and provide electronic waste (e-waste), white goods and scrap metal recycling areas for residents.

Davis Rd., Rendezvous Rd. and Vidler Rd. all have second hand goods shop facility for reusable materials. Waste delivered to the facilities by ratepayers that is deemed to be suitable for reuse is stored on site and offered to the general public for purchase at a nominal fee. Typically the reusable material consists of bulky items such as furniture, beds, door frames and window frames.  There is also a range of smaller products for reuse applications, like bicycles.

It is estimated that approximately 20 tonnes of reusable material is diverted from landfill annually, equating to a fairly significant volume if disposed of to landfill.

Electronic waste, comprised of computers, computer accessories and TVs is commonly referred to as “e-waste.

Davis Rd., Rendezvous Rd. and Vidler Rd. all have an e-waste collection areas. These collected materials are disposed of as part of TechCollect scheme, which was established under the Federal Government’s National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS).

Quantity of e-waste produced in 2012/2013 was 117 tonnes (City of Busselton). This was the year Augusta-Margaret River commenced recycling e-waste.

Davis Rd., Rendezvous Rd. and Vidler Rd. all have a scrap metal recycling area. According to the waste census, scrap metal generation in 2012/2013 was as indicated in Table 7.

Table 7: Scrap metal generated according
to the waste census of both local governments (2012/2013)

Drop-off (tonnes)

AMRS

535

CoB

729

Total

1,264

 


 

8.    Review of waste management infrastructure and services

The Capes Regional Organisation of Councils is committed to incorporating best practice sustainable principles in its Strategic Waste Management Plan, while recognizing and considering the distinct, specific geographical and socio-economic regional context.

Therefore, alignment with State’s waste diversion targets shall take into consideration both the existing demographic, geographic and socio-economic context and the current waste management practices implemented.

Also, the region’s waste disposal options, in particular for waste landfills, are largely constrained by environmental protection values, including the Swan Coastal Plain and the Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park.

The present review is based on the updated information available from the City of Busselton Waste Strategy (2013) and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River Strategic Waste management Plan (2008), and provides the baseline conditions to support future improvements addressed by this regional Strategic Waste Management Plan.

8.1  Current waste infrastructure

The present section reviews existing waste infrastructure within the region in order to establish both a baseline for improvement and the foundation of future potential strategic projects and regional infrastructure.

8.1.1      City of Busselton

The City of Busselton operates staffed facilities at Rendezvous Rd. (Vasse) and Vidler Rd. (Dunsborough). While CAPEROC is intent on achieving best practice standards, none of the current facilities can be considered best practice.

The Busselton Waste Facility, also known as the Rendezvous Rd. site, has a total area of approximately 26,400 m2. The site, which was originally a Council sand pit in the 1960s, was the City’s primary landfill until it reached below-ground capacity in 2002. The City then operated the site as an above ground landfill until June 2012.

The site is currently used as a transfer station and community recycling area. It is scheduled as a Prescribed Premises and classified as Category 62 ‘Solid Waste Depot’ in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This prescribed premise classification is sufficient to cover potential future uses as a community recycling centre and transfer station.

The site includes a former putrescible landfill to the West of the access road which ceased acceptance of waste in 2012; and an older former putrescible and inert landfill area to the East of the access road, where the current transfer station and recycling area are located

The existing community recycling and waste transfer station is open for acceptance of recyclables, green waste and scrap metal.

There is a very simple reuse-shop and a community recycling area. Recyclables accepted include commingled recycling materials, cardboard and paper, glass, e-waste, white goods, waste/motor oils, gas bottles, tyres, fluorescent tubes, aluminium cans, car batteries and plastic drums (drum muster). These materials are regularly collected by contractors and shipped for recycling.

Acceptance and bulk storage of green waste occurs to the East of the main community recycling area. Users dispose of their green waste in one of a number of windrows. Processing of green waste by mulching is generally undertaken biannually.

Scrap metal is accepted and stored in a large stockpile to the South of the main community recycling area. White goods and scrap metal, and in the case of fridges degassed by a suitably qualified technician, are transferred to the light metal pile. Scrap metal is generally transferred off-site once annually, however the frequency of transfer off-site is largely dictated by the market price for scrap metal.

A mixed waste acceptance area is open for domestic waste disposal on weekends only. The mixed waste acceptance area consists of a designated drop-off area adjacent to a right-angled concrete push wall.

Once the waste volume has reached a certain size a front loader is used to transfer the waste from the ground into 30 m3 hook lift bins. Waste is then transferred off-site to the City’s waste landfill at Dunsborough Waste Facility (Vidler Rd.). A total of 2,169 tonnes of mixed domestic waste was received at the site in 2012/2013.

Dunsborough Waste Facility, also known as Vidler Rd. facility, is located approximately 5 km West of Dunsborough, on a lot totalling 40 ha and has waste disposal activities that are undertaken on the West side.

The site has been used as a landfill since 1984, with waste placed and buried to the North-West of the site in expired sand pits. It is an unlined Class II landfill licensed in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and classified as a Category 64 ‘Putrescible waste landfill’ Prescribed Premise.

It also includes a community recycling area, a liquid waste facility comprised of septage ponds (licensed as Category 61 Prescribed Premise), a green waste processing area, a light vehicle transfer area and an asbestos pit.

The existing landfill site infrastructure includes perimeter fencing, entrance and site access roads, weighbridge office and weighbridge, vehicle parking and hardstand area, ablutions, landfill plant equipment and a bunded diesel storage tank for refuelling plant and equipment.

The facility is currently used by the City of Busselton and is also open to both commercial users and the general public.

The areas for recyclables, green waste and scrap metal at Vidler Rd. accept the same materials and operate under the same procedures as the community recycling drop-off area at Busselton Waste Facility (Rendezvous Rd).

Sorted construction and demolition waste is also accepted at Vidler Rd., including concrete, bricks, tiles, ceramics and soils and stones. Segregated inert waste materials are stockpiled and kept for future resource recovery and recycling. Mixed inert waste is disposed of at the landfill.

8.1.2      Shire of Augusta-Margaret River

The Shire operates staffed facilities at Davis Rd. (Witchcliffee), Cowaramup Bay Rd. (Cowaramup) and Poole Rd. (Kudardup) and unstaffed facilities at Rosa Brook, Alexander Bridge and East Augusta. None of these facilities can be considered best-practice.

The Davis Road Waste Management Facility is the primary waste management facility within the Shire. This facility is located off Davis Road, 1 km South of Witchcliffee, within two Commonwealth Reserves vested in the Shire for the purposes of gravel extraction and waste management. It is comprised of an unlined putrescible (Class II) waste landfill with an estimated 48,000 m3 of airspace remaining at 2012/2013, a bulk and inert waste landfill, a community recycling drop-off area, a second hand goods shop, a green waste storage and processing area and a biosolids disposal facility.

Concerning the recycling/processing area the facility is able to accept several materials, separated into type for recycling or processing, including glass bottles/jars, aluminium and steel cans, paper and cardboard, plastic bottles and containers, beverage cartons, used motor oil, clean green waste, car batteries and scrap metal.

The Cowaramup Bay Road (Cowaramup) is a (non-best practice) transfer station. The facility is permanently staffed and consists of up to eight large hook-lift bins for the disposal of general waste, green waste and recyclable materials.  Used oil, paint and car batteries can also be disposed of on-site. As and when necessary, the collected materials are taken to the Davis Road waste management facility for either disposal to landfill (general waste) or for recycling.

The Kudardup (non-best practice) waste transfer station (sometimes referred to as the Poole Rd. transfer station) is located off Poole Rd., Kudardup. This facility is laid out in a similar fashion as is the Cowaramup transfer station; however, with a maximum capacity for six hook-lift bins and accepts the same waste and recyclable materials

Unstaffed transfer facilities of Rosa Brook and Alexandra Bridge simply consist of up to three large hook-lift bins for the disposal of general household waste, which is taken to the Davis Road waste management facility for disposal to landfill as and when necessary.

The Rosa Brook waste transfer station is located off Bessell Rd., Rosa Brook, approximately 25km from the Davis Road facility. There are no materials recycling services available at this facility.

The Alexandra Bridge waste transfer station is located off Beck Road, Alexandra Bridge, 20km from the Kudardup transfer station.  This facility is identical to the Rosa Brook waste transfer station; however, with the addition of a limited recycling service.

Being unstaffed and remote, these two transfer stations are frequently abused by users avoiding disposal fees, dumping commercial and prohibited waste. This creates problems in cleaning up the site, wind-blown rubbish and overfull bins. Materials often have to be manually handled or plant must be mobilised to remove rubbish dumped externally to the bins. Moreover, unstaffed sites are a potential liability and also a fire hazard.

The East Augusta waste transfer station is located in Reserve 39434 Pericles Rd., East Augusta, approximately 55km from the Kudardup transfer station.  This facility consists of two small waste bins only for domestic waste and a small Leeuwin Lions Club recycling collection point.

Currently, the vast majority of organics within the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River is received via the Cowaramup and Kudardup waste transfer stations and at the Davis Road waste management facility. The community source, separate and deposit the green waste into specially allocated collection bins or dedicated stockpile areas.

All the collected material is taken to the Davis Road waste management facility where it is consolidated and stockpiled until sufficient volume is available to justify the mobilisation of a mulching machine. The stockpiled green waste is mulched and thereafter, either used by the Shire or sold back to the local community as a garden product

8.1.3      Private infrastructure

In general, existing agricultural activities combined with poor quality coastal sandy soils provide a potentially valuable outlet for waste-derived organic products, such as mulch and organic compost.

As seen above, the City of Busselton collects green waste at both of its waste management facilities. All collected green waste is mulched and transported to a commercial composting facility nearby (Landsave), where it is further processed and recycled into a marketable product.

And in fact high quality compost production is a relevant activity in the region, with this major private manufacturer – Landsave – operating out of Vasse (Busselton), producing premium grade humified compost from a variety of organic stocks sourced from the South West.

Landsave owns a Prescribed Premise Category 67A licensed for compost manufacturing and soil blending, located 9 km by road West of the Busselton Waste Facility, at 295 Kaloorup Rd, Vasse. Its composting plant currently incorporates the total amount of green waste mulched and delivered by the City of Busselton, thus providing an important partnership in regards to waste recycling in the region.

Landsave expressed interest in continuing receiving clean green waste, either shredded or unshredded.

According to previous conversations between the City of Busselton and Landsave, the critical factors for a continued and, possibly, extended partnership in this area would be to secure a regular supply of feedstock material and the requirement to provide diligent supervision of the green waste stockpile area at the waste facilities, in order to ensure the green waste is kept free of contamination.


 

8.2  Current waste services

In addition to the waste infrastructure and services mentioned above, current waste services in both Councils include waste collection and kerbside recycling.

8.2.1      Waste collection

The City of Busselton carries out its waste collection services in-house whereas the Shire of Augusta Margaret-River contracts out its services to a local service provider. In both cases waste is collected in a standard green 240 L or 120 L mobile garbage bin (MGB) on a weekly basis. Residents present the MGBs for collection on the nominated service day.

In the City of Busselton a weekly domestic waste collection service operates within the urban and prescribed area: Busselton, Port Geographe, Wonnerup, Broadwater, Vasse, Abbey, Dunsborough, Quindalup, Yallingup, Eagle Bay and Vasse. The City undertakes MGB services for the collection of municipal solid waste from domestic premises and commercial and industrial waste from commercial premises; and collection of waste from parks, reserves and street litter bins.

All City of Busselton truck loads are weighed at the Dunsborough Waste Facility (City of Busselton).

Waste collections in the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River are undertaken in the following areas: Margaret River, Augusta, Cowaramup, Gracetown, Prevelly, Witchcliffee, Karridale and Molloy Island. In the absence of a weighbridge domestic kerbside waste collection data pertaining to the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River can only be estimated based on the number of loads deposited at the Davis Road waste facility.

8.2.2      Kerbside recycling

Perth Waste Green Recycling, based in Perth, operates the contract for kerbside recycling collection to householders in specified areas in both Councils in an arrangement that was originally designed as a regional scheme.

Under this arrangement a 240 litre Yellow Lid Bin recycling service is provided to residents and commercial premises. Recycling bins are emptied once a fortnight, on the same day as the rubbish bin.

Materials recycled include plastics (PET, HDPE and PVC), glass bottles/jars, beverage cartons, steel and aluminium cans and paper and cardboard. These materials are collected and transported to Perth Waste Green Recycling material recovery facility (MRF) located in its Perth Operations Centre, Perth.


 

9.    Assessment of options for waste reduction, management and disposal

The present section provides an assessment of the options for waste reduction, management and disposal in order for the region to progress from the current 26% diversion rates of municipal solid waste to the 30% diversion target by 2015, while also contributing towards the state-wide C&D waste diversion targets as well and to the 2020 targets related to municipal solid waste.

Table 8 presents major constituents of landfill waste (as per Table 3 above), indicating the materials that are prime targets for a strategic waste management plan aimed at improving landfill diversion, and the corresponding recycling options.

Table 8: Prime target materials for landfill diversion and corresponding recycling options

MATERIAL

Recycling options

Inert waste

-       C&D sorting and recycling

Food and/or green

-       Source separation (3 bin system)

-       Mechanical biological treatment

-       Garden composting/worm farming

Paper and cardboard

-       Sorting at tip face

The options listed can be seen either as alternatives or as clusters or bundles of technical solutions and are in addition to other non-technological options, like recycling education and promotion.

The following sections present estimated cost per tonne of different management scenarios. These estimates are based on the assumptions presented in each case. Given the technological complexity of some of the options and unknown or uncertain local and policy constraints that they may face in reality, these estimates provide only an approximate indication of the real costs, and would need to be revised accordingly if some/any of the assumptions do not hold.

9.1  C&D waste sorting and recycling

Notwithstanding the fact that this waste stream has extremely limited negative environmental impact in a landfill except to occupy space, by establishing individual state-wide targets for C&D waste the State’s Waste Strategy has identified this as a priority waste stream requiring special attention.

An appropriate/alternative management of this waste stream would have a significant effect on the quantity of waste being disposed of at the landfills.  Removing this material from the landfilled waste stream would greatly extend the life of the landfill. In addition, C&D waste being mostly an inert waste is able to be stockpiled on site without causing any environmental harm.

A recycling option would involve stockpiling of C&D waste, and ideally sorting it into different product types until a significant quantity is available to justify mobilising a crusher to process the material.  Once crushed, the material can be used for a range of applications including on-site material, landfill cover, landfill capping, sand and drainage aggregate and road base for road construction. This way the Councils themselves can change from significant contributors to this particular waste stream, to being net users of recycled construction and demolition waste-derived products manufactured from crushed waste bricks and concrete to the applicable construction specifications.

Recycling of large amounts of C&D waste can be undertaken in a fairly cost-effective way; basically at the cost of installing a storage and hardstand areas and operating a skid steer loader to sort the materials, as well as providing appropriate bins for the end products and having the materials crushed and screened as needed.

Recycling of C&D waste at CAPEROC Councils would be expected to process in excess of 6,000 tonnes of input per year. Cost drivers are presented on Table 9.

Table 9: Cost drivers of C&D waste sorting and recycling

Throughput

6,000 tonnes per year

Capital outlays

Impact crusher..................................................................................... $800,000

Excavator/with jaw crusher attachment................................................... $ 400,000

Hardstand: 3 facilities x 300 m2 each.......................................................... $ 90,000

Operating cost

Crusher utilisation (700 plant hours per year @ $150 per hour charge out rate, 8 years depreciation)................................................. $ 105,000 per year ($ 17.5 per tonne)

Crusher labour costs (700 labour hours per year @ $28 per hour) .........................................  $ 19,600 per year ($ 3.3 per tonne)

Excavator utilisation (950 plant hours per year @ $40 per hour charge out rate, 8 year depreciation) ..................................................  $ 38,000 per year ($ 6.3 per tonne)

Excavator labour costs (950 hours per year @ $28 per hour) .............................................  $ 26,600 per year ($ 4.4 per tonne)

Waste diversion

4.500 tonnes per year

Cost effectiveness

Total cost: $32/tonne (of input)

9.2  Three bin system

The environmental disadvantage of disposing of the collected organic waste to landfill is not only that the material consumes valuable airspace in the landfill but also, that it adds to the loading of the leachate generated within the landfill and to landfill gas, as part of the decomposition process.

An increasing number of local authorities around Australia are switching to the mandatory three bin system to secure source separation of organic waste. Failure of expensive alternative waste technologies to deliver cost-effective waste minimisation has led to a rethink regarding the benefits of source separation of waste.

Poor financial performance of alternative waste technologies have been compounded by high wear and tear on processing infrastructure, poor quality end products, lack of suitable markets for outputs, particularly heat energy, and high energy consumption.

In general, three bin systems can vary in scope from food and green waste basis, to green waste only. Collection can also vary from weekly to fortnightly.

In addition to cost considerations, the major challenge of this kind of system is the degree of contamination. In order to avoid significant contamination of the organics bin under a mandatory three bin systems, extensive community education and engagement is required.

Three bin systems for source separation of organics, whether or not including food waste, also require some sort of biological treatment downstream, which deals only with the organic fraction of the waste.  Therefore, while community education efforts can yield positive results in reducing contamination, there is often the need to further pre-sort the material prior to admitting it to processing at biological treatment facilities (composting or anaerobic digestion), so as to avoid process contamination.

As an alternative to the conventional mandatory systems, there are also non-mandatory three bin systems. According to the study “Performance review of a 3 bin municipal waste system” conducted in 2008 by Bowman & Associates for the Waste Authority, several user-pays voluntary three bin systems have been used in local governments in Victoria.

Based on the information presented in that study, those systems have been yielding contamination levels below 2% and significant participation rates. Table 10 summarises the performance review for those systems, updated with information from the local governments’ web sites.

Table 10: Performance review of selected voluntary 3 bin systems (all collections fortnightly)

Local government

Population

Scope

Tonnes per annum

Kg per capita (population)

Participation rates

Rates and fees

City of Glen Eira

131,000

Green waste

4,000

30

unknown

One off $55

City of Boroondara

160,000

Green waste

15,000

94

60%

One off $105

City of Monee Valley

110,000

Green waste

5,000

45

51%

$58.50 per annum pro rata

City of Tea Tree Gully

95,000

Green waste and food scraps

5,800

61

60%

$33.65 per annum

City of Whittlesea

150,000

Green waste

10,000

67

47%

$73.55 per annum

Based on these experiences, user-pays voluntary systems seem to have been successfully adopted for the population range between 100,000 and 150,000 in Victoria. Cost drivers and costs associated with three bin systems are presented in Table 11.

Table 11: Cost drivers of dedicated separate collection of organics (‘third bin’)

Throughput

10,000 tonnes per year, organics, including food waste and green waste but not paper/cardboard

Capital outlays

Side loading trucks (4 x $ 360,000)......................................................... $1,440,000

Bins................................................................................................. $ 1,100,000

Operating cost

Truck utilisation (4 x 1,700 hours per year @ $45 per hour charge out rate, 5 years depreciation).... $ 306,000 per year ($ 30.6 per tonne)

Bin depreciation (5 years) ................................  $ 220,000 per year ($ 22 per tonne)

Labour costs (4 x 1,700 hours per year @ $28 per hour) .......................................................  $ 190,400 per year ($ 19 per tonne)

Waste diversion

10,000 tonnes per year, an additional 28 percentage points of landfill diversion

Cost effectiveness

Total cost: $72/tonne

Regardless of whether it’s a voluntary or mandatory scheme, three bin systems cannot be viewed in isolation, but as a cluster of waste management technologies and practices that would necessarily include an organics processing facility as well.

This could be either an existing commercial composting facility like Landsave’s, or CAPEROC’s own facility. In that case the cost of setting up and operating a biological treatment plant for sorted organics would add up to the collection costs indicated above.

Concerning the type of biological treatment – that is, a composting plant or an anaerobic digestion plant, composting tends to be economically preferable to anaerobic digestion at scales at or below 20,000 tonnes per annum[7].

Assuming that a composting plant would be adopted as the biological treatment solution downstream of a three-bin collection system, the processing of sorted organics at a dedicated composting plant would be expected to add up around $25 to $30 per tonne[8] to the above cost.

9.3  Mechanical-biological treatment

Unsorted municipal solid waste can be separated and processed for organic recycling at a mechanical-biological treatment plant. This plant could thus process the whole throughput of around 25,000 tonnes per year of MSW. Table 12 presents the cost drivers related to an anaerobic digestion type biological system with pre-screening of inputs and refining of compost material.

Table 12: Cost drivers of mechanical-biological treatment plant

Throughput

35,000 tonnes per year of MSW, 10,000 tonnes per year of organics, including food waste and green waste but not paper/cardboard (assuming 80% yield, from 48% food and green waste from material composition of waste)

Capital outlays

Anerobic digestion plant with mechanical pre-screening of organics (including bag opener/shredder, 2 trommel screen separators, metal separators, conveyors, manual sorting platform, front loader, anaerobic reactor, aeration system, leachate treatment, densimetric separator, cyclone separator) ......................................................... $ 10,000,000

Operating cost

Plant utilisation (1,900 hours per year

@ $380 per hour charge out rate, assuming 15 years plant depreciation)............................................ $ 722,000 per year ($ 72.2 per tonne)

Labour costs (3 x 1,900 hours per year @ $28 per hour) ........................................................................  $ 159,600 per year ($ 16.0 per tonne)

Waste diversion

10,000 tonnes per year, an additional 28 percentage points of landfill diversion

Cost effectiveness

Total cost: $88/tonne (of organics)

A mechanical treatment of this type would necessarily require a 3 phase electrical connection which might not be available at all locations. If such a connection needs to be added, this might further increase the cost indicated.

The output of a mechanical-biological treatment facility could either be sold as a finished soil improvement additive or further refined and incorporated into a commercial compost product.

9.4  Waste-to-energy

Waste to energy plants constitute a practical method of energy recovery and waste diversion from landfill. The sheer reduction in the space required to dispose of the 10 percent of waste that it does produce relieves pressure on land, constituting a big saving. Waste to Energy (WTE) incinerating plants have a significant advantage that they can produce electricity which in the long run can help to reduce costs

In a waste to energy plant, 250 tonnes of waste can produce 6.5 megawatt-hours of electricity[9] and this itself can yield a significant income. Residual heat from waste-to-energy plants can also be used for heating of offices and houses in locations near the plant. In addition to reducing waste volume and related landfill airspace consumption, gas and leachate that are typically produced in landfills by waste are totally eliminated; and the waste that is produced in waste to energy plants is mostly free of any environmental risk. Some of it can be further recycled into useful products.

Conventional incinerators involve high temperature (850 -1200 °C) combustion of waste inside mass burners, in the presence of oxygen, converting thermal energy into electricity and steam. These are truly waste-powered power plants. Electricity is sold to the power grid and steam sold to neighbouring industries or hot water used in district heating systems (in colder climate countries).

Gasification or pyrolysis-based waste to energy facilities do not directly burn the waste but rather heat it to high temperatures in an air-starved chamber, generating different fuel streams (synthetic gas, synthetic fuel and char).

According to EU and US experience current waste to energy plants operate well within acceptable emission standards.

Table 13 presents the cost drivers related to a waste-to-energy plant.

Table 13: Cost drivers of waste-to energy plant[10]

Throughput

60,000 tonnes per year (capacity)

Capital outlays

Gasification plant, including pollution control systems and connections .............................................................................................. $ 34,500,000

Operating cost

Plant utilisation (1,900 hours per year

@ $1,500 per hour charge out rate, assuming 15 years plant depreciation)................................................... $ 2,850,000 per year ($ 47 per tonne)

Other operating costs......................................................... $ 5,000,000 per year ($ 82 per tonne)

Environmental compliance..................................................... $ 400,000 per year ($ 6 per tonne)

Waste diversion

54,000 tonnes per year

Plus environmental advantages of energy recovery

Cost effectiveness

Energy income: $25 to 35 per tonne

Net cost: $100 to $110/tonne

9.5  Sorting cardboard at the tip face

The environmental disadvantage of disposing of paper and cardboard collected as mixed waste to landfill is that the material consumes valuable airspace in the landfill and overtime will decompose and add to the leachate and gas being generated within the landfill.

Based on visual inspection of mixed waste loads disposed at the Vidler Rd. site, there is considerable evidence in regards to the viability of pre-sorting incoming cardboard loads.

For the long-distance transport of the collected paper and recycling, it is far more economically viable if the material is baled prior to transfer.

This will significantly reduce the transport costs per tonne of material; however, there will be an added cost for the baling activity.  This is an activity that can adequately be undertaken; however, this will involve the purchase of a suitable baler and ongoing operation thereof. Table 14 presents the cost drivers related to cardboard sorting at the tip face.

Table 14: Cost drivers of cardboard sorting at the tip face

Throughput

2,000 tonnes per year (assuming 50% yield, from 15% cardboard from material composition of waste)

Capital outlays

Three-phase power connection...................................................................................... $ 80,000

Excavator[11] grabber attachment.................................................................................... $ 50,000

Bins (2)................................................................................................................................. $ 20,000

Cardboard compactor/baler........................................................................................... $ 20,000

Shed (including concrete pad)........................................................................................ $ 15,000

 

Operating cost

Three-phase power connection depreciation (20 year) .. $ 4,000 per year ($ 2 per tonne)

Excavator utilisation (950 plant hours per year @ $40 per hour charge out rate, 8 year depreciation).................................................. $ 38,000 per year ($ 19 per tonne)

Bin depreciation (5 years) ..................................................... $ 4,000 per year ($ 2 per tonne)

Compactor/baler depreciation (5 years) ............................ $ 4,000 per year ($ 2 per tonne)

Shed depreciation (5 years) ............................................... $ 3,000 per year ($ 1.5 per tonne)

Labour costs (1 x 1,900 hours per year

@ $28 per hour) .............................................................  $ 53,200 per year ($ 26.6 per tonne)

Waste diversion

2,000 tonnes per year, an additional 6 percentage points of landfill diversion

Cost effectiveness

Total cost: $53/tonne

9.6  Garden composting/worm farming

It is in the region’s interest to actively encourage the community to divert organic waste from the general waste stream for landfill disposal, the advantages being significant volume reduction and also reduced organic loading of the waste stream.

The simplest and, possibly, more cost-effective way to divert organics from of the general waste stream is by encouraging the local community to develop composters or worm farms at home. These types of solutions do; however, require ongoing community involvement in order to maintain the success of this program.

The products of the composters, worm farms and fermentation processors can be used at home as a garden improvement product.

The advantage of waste avoidance project such as this is that it is highly flexible and can be scaled to the intended size. Table 15 presents the cost drivers related to a garden composting project comprising 3,000 households.

Table 15: Cost drivers of a garden composting project

Throughput

900 tonnes per year (assuming 30% yield, from 11% garden and green waste from material composition of waste)

Capital outlays

Garden composting bins ($20 x 15% x 20,000 region households)....................... $ 120,000

Operating cost

Bin depreciation (5 years).................................................. $ 24,000 per year ($ 27 per tonne)

Labour cost recycling/composting education (1/2 x 1,900 hours per year @ $31 per hour)................. $ 29,450 per year ($ 33 per tonne)

 

Waste diversion

900 tonnes per year, an additional 2.5 percentage points of landfill diversion

Cost effectiveness

Total cost: $60/tonne

9.7  Best practice landfill disposal

According to the consultant’s report on the CAPEROC regional landfill study[12], the combined total waste tonnage to be sent to landfill is expected to rise from 37,800 tonnes in 2012/2013 up to 90,000 tonnes in 2032/2033. According to the same report, by implementing resource recovery systems to meet the Waste Authority diversion targets, the waste volume generated in CAPEROC could be reduced by more than half by the end of 2032/2033.

The Dunsborough Waste Facility (licensed as the Vidler Rd. landfill site) currently serves the waste disposal needs of the City of Busselton. However, the existing landfill on the site is unlined and approaching its designed final capping height.

In line with current best practice for landfill design requirements and in addition to the waste avoidance and resource recovery options addressed above, both Councils recognize the need for a reliable and adequate long term solution in regards to waste disposal, justified on the basis of:

a)    The need to secure airspace at a strategic site (outside of the Swan Coastal Plain) for a reliable and environmentally sound disposal option for the residual component of municipal solid waste for the region, well into the future;

b)    The imperative to progress towards a best practice landfill facility for the region, in line with WA State policy;

c)    The opportunity to benefit from cost sharing and economies of scale arising from a long-term regional cooperation project.

The Vidler Rd. site has enough area available to be set aside as a strategic waste management site for the next 20 years. It already has some of the required infrastructure (gatehouse, fencing, roads) and has no major constraints regarding the possibility of further development as a waste landfill.

CAPEROC is, thus, considering establishing a new lined landfill to the South of the existing unlined waste placement area, comprised of Cells 1 to 5, with additional possible expansion within the lot vested with the City of Busselton.

To that end, based on modelling[13] undertaken on behalf of CAPEROC, a new (best practice, regional) landfill at that site would secure 1,367,000 tonnes capacity (or 1,977,432 m3 of airspace), with a lifetime in excess of 22 years, with capital cost of $17.4 per tonne, or a total of $ 23.71 million (including full potential extension scenario to adjoining City property and final capping).

As the initial part of the development of the new landfill, Cells 1 to 5 would secure 16 years of disposal, costing 8.5 million. Cell 1 has already been subject to a Works Approval and will have an available filling volume of 124,300 m3 and an expected lifespan of 3 years, costing an estimated $1.9 million.

According to Capes Regional Landfill Study (2013) report by Bowman & Associates regional study, the expected total cost for a regional landfill over the entire infrastructure lifespan would be between $50 to $60 per tonne[14].

The regional arrangement would thus be more efficient than two individual landfills and certainly more viable than shipping waste to landfills outside of the region that would add a minimum of $35 per tonne[15] to the cost of transferring the same amount of waste within the region, yielding a total estimated cost in excess of $80-90 per tonne, when added to a projected $45-55[16] per tonne gate fee at a neighbouring landfill.

9.8  Best practice Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station

Best practice regional transfer stations would be instrumental for the adoption of a regional landfill model and in continuing to promote recycling drop-off from residents living outside of collection prescribed areas and to promote better efficiencies in rubbish collection. Table 16 presents the cost drivers related to regional community recycling centres and waste transfer stations (2 sites).

Table 16: Cost drivers of transfer station model

Throughput

25,000 tonnes per year (assuming the need to transfer 11,000 tonnes per year from Davis Rd. and 14,000 tonnes per year from Rendezvous Rd., to the regional landfill at Vidler Rd.)

Capital outlays

Transfer station and community drop-off........................................................ 2 x $ 1,765,000

Truck and enclosed compaction bins.......................................................................... $ 500,000

Operating cost

Transfer plant charge out (15 years depreciation).................................................................. $ 380,000 per year ($ 15.2 per tonne)

Road train truck and compactor bins charge out (5 year depreciation) ...................................................... $ 120,000 per year ($ 4.8 per tonne)

Labour cost (7x1,900 hours per year @ $28 per hour)................................................................................. $ 372,400 per year ($ 14.9 per tonne)

Waste diversion

Improved recycling infrastructure. Environmental protection benefits from implementation of best practice standards.

Cost effectiveness

Total cost: $35/tonne

9.9  Assessment summary

Table 17 presents the assessment summary for all options considered, sorted on the basis of the ratio of capital expenditure per tonne as a measure of cost effectiveness.

Table 17: Assessment summary of waste management components considered

Options

MSW diversion contribution

Capital

Total cost

(tonnes/year)

(%)

($)

($/tonne)

C&D waste sorting and recycling

4,500

--

1,290,000

$ 32

Sorting cardboard at tip face

2,000

6%

105,000

$ 53

Garden composting/worm farming

900

2.5%

140,000(1)

$ 60

Three bin system

10,000

28%

2,300,000

$ 97 to $102

Mechanical-biological treatment

10,000

28%

10,000,000

$ 88

Waste to energy

54,000

100%

34,500,000

$ 100 to $110

New best practice regional landfill(2)

--

--

8,500,000(3)

$ 50 to 60(4)

Community recycling and waste transfer station(2)

25,000

--

3,900,000

$ 35

(1)    Includes composting bins and MGB audit valued at $20,000 to support project planning.

(2)    A waste landfill is not optional, but a requirement for residual waste.

(3)    Construction costs. Would be $1,990,000 for building cell 1 only, in accordance with Works Approval issued for Vidler Rd and supply and deployment of new weighbridge management system valued at $30,000.

(4)    Range of cost per tonne according to the Capes Regional Landfill Study (2013) report over the regional landfill lifespan. Includes capital and operating costs.

Based on the capital budgeting requirements and total costs per tonne, waste diversion targets for 2015 seem to be achievable by increasing cardboard sorting at the tip face alone beyond the current 26% recycling figure. Promoting garden composting would further improve landfill diversion and minimise the risk of falling short of the targets.

Sorting and recycling of C&D waste would further contribute towards the State C&D recycling targets and could be achieved in a cost-effective way with fairly low capital costs.

For long term landfill diversion targets (2020) an additional recycling system would be required.

A Capes regional best practice landfill is also expected to benefit the region via economies of scale and cost sharing, providing a more efficient solution than 2 individual landfills or shipping the waste to landfills outside the region.


 

10.  Capes Region strategic waste management plan

The present section deals with regional waste management priorities and related strategic objectives and key projects.

10.1      Regional priorities

Given the strategic vision presented above, as well as the framework previously addressed (national, state and local policies), Table 18 presents the strategic regional priorities that will, in turn, define regional objectives and key-projects.

Table 18: Correspondence between strategic vision components and regional priorities

Strategic Vision components

Regional priorities

Fostering the potential of the local economy and its direct engagement in value-adding activities, by dealing with waste in a closed loop, green-economy approach, turning it into a true economic resource

·    Adopting regional recycling and resource recovery solutions in line with sustainable waste management practices, working towards State waste recycling targets;

·    Engaging the regional economy in waste avoidance, reuse and recycling.

 

Application of best practice guidelines in developing waste services and infrastructure, in alignment with State waste avoidance, reduction and recycling targets and appropriate disposal standards

·    Implementing best practice and continuous improvement of waste management infrastructure and operations across the region.

 

Direct engagement of the Community with a clear focus on information, education and participation, in order to facilitate waste avoidance, reduction and source separation towards recycling

·    Empowering and engaging the Community in waste avoidance and recycling.

 

 

 


 

10.2      Strategic objectives

Given the regional priorities identified above for the Capes Region, Table 19 presents the corresponding strategic objectives.

Table 19: Correspondence between regional priorities and strategic objectives

Regional priorities

Strategic objectives

Adopting regional recycling and resource recovery solutions in line with sustainable waste management practices, working towards State waste recycling targets;

 

·      Improve recycling and resource recovery in line with State recycling targets and best practice guidelines, thus reducing reliance on landfill for waste disposal (waste diversion), community, C&D, green waste/organics

Engaging the regional economy in waste avoidance, reuse and recycling.

 

·      Engage local/regional recycling companies and charities in waste avoidance, reuse and recycling.

Implementing best practice and continuous improvement of waste management infrastructure and operations across the region.

·      Secure best practice waste transfer and disposal infrastructure for residual waste well into the future.

·      Improve efficiency of waste management operations, in line with intended service levels.

·      Improve waste management information for decision-making.

 

Empowering and engaging the Community in waste avoidance and recycling.

·      Improve community education, engagement and participation.

10.3      Proposed management system configuration

Given the outcome of assessment of options for reduction, management and disposal presented above, the proposed options for regional system configuration are those that are aligned with the regional priorities and strategic objectives stated above and meet the following criteria:

a)    a meaningful landfill diversion contribution in line with WA’s Waste authority targets, in the most cost-effective way;

b)    securing of airspace and a strategic site for the residual component of municipal solid waste well into the future, with best practice disposal design and management of operations.

Accordingly, the proposed regional system is to include the following general components:

(2014/2016):

1.     Construction and demolition waste recycling plant (impact crusher and jaw crusher excavator), to operate at Rendezvous Rd., Vidler Rd. and Davis Rd.

2.     Garden composting/worm farming (including mobile garbage bin audit, delivery of up to 3,000 composting bins - 1 per household, promotion and communication materials and training program for households that sign in)

3.     New best practice regional landfill (cells 1 to 5 at Vidler Rd.), including sorting workstation for target/selected materials (cardboard)

4.     Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Rendezvous Rd

5.     Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Davis Rd

The combined contribution to MSW landfill diversion (components 2 and 3) would be around 8% and would allow for an increase of the diversion rate from the current 26% to an estimated 34% by June 2015, well above the 30% target for major regional centres. Component 1 would contribute to Statewide C&D recycling targets.

Other initiatives that will contribute towards the region’s strategic objectives in the short to medium term include the following:

·    Partnership with local composting business Landsave to process all throughput of green waste recycling, including free passes for direct delivery to composting plant from neighbouring developments (within 10 km radius).

·    Recycling education and engagement programme for schools and community groups.

·    Recycling education program for commercial customers concerning cardboard recycling.

·    Recycling program and communication (public places and events).

·    Joint tender/provision of waste and recycling collection services.

 

(2016/2020):

As alternative waste treatment technology evolves and regional partnership with compost and soil improvement manufacturer Landsave further develops, and based on the outcomes of the proposed MGB waste audit, the region will look at adopting best practice cost-effective solutions to achieve the diversion target set forth for the 2020 time frame.

This will mean considering either:

a)    A regional waste-to-energy plant, yielding a diversion rate in excess of 90%;

or

b)    a mechanical-biological treatment system comprised of pre-sorting and anaerobic digestion, with product sent to commercial composting or further processed to compost on site, yielding an expected contribution to landfill diversion around 28%, and total diversion ratio of up to 62%.

In any case, landfill diversion would be well in excess the 50% target for major regional centres.

 


 

10.4      Key-projects

Given the strategic objectives and proposed regional system configuration and strategic initiatives indicated above, Table 20 presents the corresponding key projects:

Table 20: Correspondence between strategic objectives and key project components

Strategic objectives

Key project/initiative components

Improve recycling and resource recovery in line with State recycling targets and best practice guidelines, thus reducing reliance on landfill for waste disposal (waste diversion), community, C&D, green waste/organics, in accordance with cost-effective options

Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives:

“3 e. Increase capacity of reprocessing infrastructure that supports best practice collection approaches by providing financial incentives for the establishment of processing facilities.”

“3 g. Provide funding support to encourage the adoption of systems that achieve best practice outcomes.”

“3 h. Provide funding support for programs to assist with the collection of problematic wastes.”

·      Busselton Community Recycling Centre (Rendezvous Rd.), including a C&D waste sorting/recycling area.

·      Dunsborough Community Recycling Centre, including a C&D waste sorting/recycling area.

·      Davis Road Community Recycling Centre, including a C&D waste sorting/recycling area.

·      Garden composting project for households.

Engage local/regional recycling companies and charities in waste avoidance, reuse and recycling.

Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives:

“5. Communicate messages for behaviour change and

promote its adoption, and acknowledge the success of individuals and organisations that act in accord with the aims and principles in the Strategy and assist in its implementation.”

·      Contract partnership agreements with selected local charity(ies) to operate reuse sheds at some or all of the (new) four community recycling centres.

·      Contract partnership agreements with local composting and soil improvement business Landsave, to direct all green waste for composting.

Secure best practice waste transfer and disposal infrastructure for residual waste well into the future.

Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives:

“1. Initiate and maintain long-term planning for waste

and recycling processing, and enable access to suitably located land with buffers sufficient to cater for the State’s waste management needs.”

“3 g. Provide funding support to encourage the adoption of systems that achieve best practice outcomes.”

·      Develop Busselton best practice Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station.

·      Develop Davis Road best practice Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station.

·      Develop regional best practice waste landfill at Vidler Rd (progressing cell 1 in accordance with Works Approval granted).

Improve efficiency of waste management operations, in line with intended service levels.

Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives:

“3. Develop best practice guidelines, measures and

reporting frameworks and promote their adoption.”

·      Joint tender/provision of rubbish and recycling collection services.

Improve waste management information for decision-making.

Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives:

“3. Develop best practice guidelines, measures and

reporting frameworks and promote their adoption.”

·      Perform MGB waste audit to improve recycling information.

·      New weighbridge management system at Vidler Rd. regional waste facility.

Improve community education, engagement and participation.

Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives:

“5. Communicate messages for behaviour change and

promote its adoption, and acknowledge the success of individuals and organisations that act in accord with the aims and principles in the Strategy and assist in its implementation.”

·      Develop and deliver a comprehensive regional waste avoidance, reuse and recycling education programme, including schools, community groups, commercial customers, public places and events.


 

From the above listed components, proposed projects to be included in Regional Investment Plan and estimated investment costs are identified in Table 21.

Table 21: Proposed strategic projects

Strategic projects

Capital

($)

New best practice regional landfill (cells 1 to 5 at Vidler Rd.)

8,500,000[17]

Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Rendezvous Rd.

1,855,000[18]

Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Davis Rd.

1,875,000[19]

Construction and demolition waste recycling plant (impact crusher and jaw crusher excavator)

1,200,000

Garden composting/worm farming (composting bins and mobile garbage bin audit)

140,000

Cardboard sorting plant (power connection, excavator grabber attachment, baler, bins and shed)

185,000

TOTAL

13,755,000

Detailed Regional Investment Plans indicating the timeframes and funding requirements for each of the key projects will be submitted under the Regional Funding Programme (Phase II, Competitive Funding Round).

The following sections present the major features of each of the strategic projects identified.

10.4.1    Construction and demolition waste recycling plant

Sorting, crushing and screening of C&D waste will be undertaken at the following sites:

·    Busselton Community Recycling Centre (Rendezvous Rd.);

·    Dunsborough Community Recycling Centre (Vidler Rd.);

·    Davis Road Community Recycling Centre.

Major project components and capital costs are as follows:

Impact crusher................................................................................................................ $800,000

Excavator with jaw crusher attachment............................................................................ $ 400,000

 

For each of the 3 facilities a hardstand (300 m2 each) will also be required, totalling $ 90,000.

Plant will be mobilised to each of the sites as necessary to process the stockpiled materials.

10.4.2    Cardboard recycling

Cardboard sorting and recycling will be undertaken at the Dunsborough Waste Facility landfill (Vidler Rd.). Major project components and capital costs are as follows:

Excavator grabber attachment.......................................................................................... $ 50,000

Bins (2)............................................................................................................................ $ 20,000

Cardboard compactor/baler.............................................................................................. $ 20,000

Shed (including concrete pad)........................................................................................... $ 15,000

Cardboard will be sorted as it arrives in mixed waste loads. It will be stockpiled in the shed and compacted/bailed as necessary. It will then be shipped for recycling by licensed recyclers.

10.4.3    Garden composting/worm farming

Garden composting/worm farming will be undertaken by residents. Both Councils will distribute a total amount of 3,000 garden composters, covering about 15% of existing households on a voluntary basis. Residents will apply for a composting bin and, when picking it up, they will receive an information/education pack on how to do garden compost.

A follow up program will be implemented to monitor the outcomes of the project.

Major project components and capital costs are as follows:

MGB audit to support project planning and monitor outcomes........................................... $ 20,000

Garden composting bins ($20 x 15% x 20,000 region households)..................................... $ 120,000

10.4.4    New best practice regional landfill (cell 1 at Vidler Rd.)

Landfill Cell1 at Vidler Rd. will be the first development stage (within the first expansion scenario) of a best practice waste landfill for the Capes region that is expected to last for more than 20 years for the disposal of residual waste that cannot be otherwise reused or recycled. Attachment 1 presents the report titled “Dunsborough Waste Facility Future Expansion Scenarios (2014)” with the airspace modelling undertaken based on the Capes region population and waste generation forecasts. Cell 1 has been approved for construction (Works Approval) and requires an estimated capital cost of $1,960,000, and will serve both of CAPEROC’S member Councils.

A new weighbridge management system at Vidler Rd. regional waste facility, including supply of hardware, software and project deployment, has an estimated cost of $ 30,000.

10.4.5    Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Stations

Two regional Community Recycling Centres and Transfer Stations (CR&WTS) would be built at Rendezvous Rd. (Vasse) and Davis Rd. (Witchcliffe), respectively.

To ensure that the proposed Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station satisfy current and future waste management requirements, the recommended proposed activities for the sites include:

·    Office and Staff Facilities;

·    Reuse Facility;

·    Community Recycling Area;

·    Bulk Storage Areas; and

·    Multi-Tiered Drop-Off Facility.

The key design principles adopted for these projects include

·    minimise development footprints;

·    maximise the source separation of materials to maximise diversion from landfill (waste hierarchy);

·    adopt best practice design and operational standards;

·    support linkages / flows between various Site operations to improve operational efficiency

·    minimise the on Site material handling requirements;

·    allow operational flexibility for the sites;

·    allow for future planning and expansion; and

·    maximise the visual amenity.

A major component of these projects will be a multi-tier drop-off area that will streamline:

·    tipping of residential waste directly into hooklift bins to be transferred to the regional landfill;

·    compaction and transfer of waste from waste collection trucks.

The estimated overall capital expenditure for the Rendezvous Rd. Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station is around $1,855,000 including detailed engineering design, plant and works. The Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Davis Rd. is expected to cost about the same amount, plus the cost of the concept design (approximately $20,000).

10.4.6    Other initiatives

Other initiatives directed at improving recycling and the efficiency of waste management operations include:

·    Contract partnership agreements with selected local charity(ies) to operate reuse sheds at some or all of the (new) four community recycling centres.

·    Contract partnership agreements with local composting and soil improvement business Landsave, to direct all green waste for composting.

·    Joint tender/provision of rubbish and recycling collection services.

·    Develop and deliver a comprehensive regional waste avoidance, reuse and recycling education programme, including schools, community groups, commercial customers, public places and events.

These will be further detailed and developed as monitoring progresses and the CAPEROC partnership advances.


 

11.  Conclusion

This Strategic Waste Management Plan was initiated having in mind the shared need to pool the resources of both of CAPEROC’s member Councils to work towards achieving the State’s recycling targets.

Addressing the applicable strategic framework derived from the requirements set forth by National policy and regulations, as well as relevant local policies; a set of strategic principles were established to provide the foundation for the Strategic Waste Management Plan presented in this report.

A shared vision of the waste challenges, now and in the future, was established. Together with the strategic principles and an assessment of the relevant regional context in terms of demographics, waste production and review of current infrastructure and services, that Vision allowed us to formulate a set of options for waste reduction, management and disposal.

Given all that foundational background, and following the assessment of those options, the region’s strategic waste management plan was formulated, including an identification of the regional priorities and related strategic objectives and the definition of the key projects selected.

This SWMP is, thus, intended to provide the basis for each project’s Regional Investment Plan to be submitted to the State’s Waste Authority.

===

 

 

12/06/2014


Council                                                                                      187                                                                    25 June 2014

12.2           ADDENDUM TO SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES

SUBJECT INDEX:

Operations Services

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Operations Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Waste Management

REPORTING OFFICER:

Waste Coordinator - Vitor Martins

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The schedule of fees and charges for the 2014-15 financial year was approved by Council on 28 May 2014. This included new fees for domestic Sorted and Unsorted Waste at the Busselton Transfer Station and Dunsborough Waste Facility, to provide residents with a financial incentive to recycle as much of their waste as possible.  Unfortunately, fees for commercial Sorted and Unsorted Waste were omitted from the schedule.  The proposed commercial fees are presented here for Council’s consideration, in alignment with the domestic fee proposal.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act (the “Act”) states that a local government may impose and recover a fee or charge for any goods or services it provides or proposes to provide, other than a service for which a service charge is imposed.

 

Section 6.17 of the Act further states that in determining the amount of a fee or charge for goods and services, a local government is to take into consideration the following factors:

 

a)    The cost to the local government of provide the service or goods

b)    The importance of the service or goods to the community; and

c)    The price at which the service or goods could be provided by an alternative provider

 

Section 6.18 of the Act clarifies that if the amount of any fee or charge is determined under another written law, then a local government may not charge a fee that is inconsistent with that law.

 

The above matters have been considered as part of the annual fees and charges review.

 

Up to and including the 2013-14 financial year, the Council’s fees and charges for waste disposal included a fee for domestic Contaminated Green Waste (green waste mixed with other waste).  This fee was $16.00 for a small trailer of waste and $30.00 for a large trailer of waste, whereas the fee for domestic General Waste was $6.00 for a small trailer and $12.00 for a large trailer.  The purpose of the Contaminated Green Waste fee was to encourage residents to separate their green waste from other waste, and to minimise waste to landfill.

 

In practice, this amounts to incorporating both landfill airspace scarcity and the externality of the environmental impact of organics in landfill (odour, leachate and landfill gas generation) in the pricing signal associated with green waste disposal. In turn, this is in line with the widely accepted polluter-pays principle and the use of economic instruments in environmental policy and regulation to promote environmentally responsible behaviours, by incorporating external (societal) cost into private (individual) decision-making.

 

As such, in drawing up the proposed schedule of fees for 2014-15, officers recommended that the principle of the Contaminated Green Waste fee be broadened to include all recycled material in general waste, in order to give an incentive to recycle on a larger scale.  The fees for domestic General Waste of $6.00 and $12.00 have been retained but have been redefined as Sorted General Waste (i.e. waste containing no recyclable material), while new fees for Unsorted General Waste (instead of Contaminated Green Waste, and containing material which could be recycled) have been introduced, these being $20.00 for a small trailer and $40.00 for a large trailer.

 

However, these new fees, ratified by Council on 28 May 2014, are for domestic waste only.  The purpose of this report is to propose fees for commercial waste (Sorted and Unsorted) in line with the increases in domestic waste (Sorted and Unsorted).

 

It is proposed:

 

a)    to retain the fee for General Commercial Waste as $11.00 (small trailer) and $22.00 (large trailer) and

b)    to redefine the Commercial Waste fee as Sorted Commercial Waste, and

c)    to introduce new fees for Unsorted Commercial Waste, these being $25.00 (small trailer) and $50.00 (large trailer).

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Sections 6.16 – 6.19 of the Act refer to the imposition, setting the level of, and associated administrative matters pertaining to fees and charges.  The requirement to review fees and charges on an annual basis is detailed within Regulation5 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations. 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Council’s endorsed Long Term Financial Plan reflects an annual increase in Fees and Charges revenue of 4.2% (the 10 year average Local Government Cost Index).  However, these new fees for Unsorted Waste are much larger than the 4.2% increase because they represent a whole new pricing strategy approach to give financial incentives to residents and businesses to recycle their waste.  The new fees for Unsorted Waste are, in general, about three times as great as the fees for Sorted Waste (which are unchanged from last year’s fees for General Waste).

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

In terms of the Council’s currently adopted budget, revenue from fees and charges (excluding waste collection charges) equates to approximately 21% of budgeted rates revenue and 13% of total operating revenue (excluding non-operating grants).  As such, fees and charges form an integral component of the City’s overall revenue base. The previous fees for Contaminated Green Waste were applied sparingly and represented only a fraction of one per cent of the revenue accrued by waste disposal fees and charges.  At the time of writing this report it is unknown to what extent the new fees for Unsorted Waste will have on altering behaviour in the community when it comes to disposing of waste and the extent to which total revenue and average revenue per customer will change.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

The schedule of fees and charges adopted by the Council encompasses “whole of organisation” activities.  As such, all Key Goal Areas within the Council’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 are in some way impacted. More specifically however, this matter aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – “Open and Collaborative Leadership” and particularly Community Objective 6.3 – “An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community”.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

There are several risks that the Council needs to be mindful of when reviewing its schedule of fees and charges.

 

The major risk of the Council approving this proposal is that commercial operators will divert their waste streams from the City’s disposal facilities altogether.

 

Currently, revenue from charges to private operators at the waste facilities is around $1.23 million ($1.1 million at Dunsborough Waste Facility and $130,000 at Busselton Transfer Station).

 

The proposed decision may theoretically result in a net reduction in revenue. But since it will affect only waste loads transported in trailer and not high tonnage trucks, no significant revenue loss is expected.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No consultation was undertaken.

 

As part of the review process, consultation may occur with other local government authorities, in addition to a review of prices offered by alternative service providers (pursuant to Section 6.17 of the Act).

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The fees for commercial Unsorted Waste are higher than those for domestic Unsorted Waste, in keeping with the previously established fees for General (Sorted) Waste.  While still reasonable, the new fees represent a strong incentive for businesses to recycle and are, therefore, proposed for adoption.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The new fees for Sorted and Unsorted Waste are intended to reduce waste to landfill, and will send a strong signal to the community (both domestic and commercial) that it pays to recycle.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Finance Committee may determine to recommend amendments to proposed Fees and Charges as it deems appropriate, including the decision not to revise Commercial rates in accordance with this proposal, in which case commercial users disposing of unsorted waste would be favoured in comparison to domestic users.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

While the schedule of Fees and Charges passed by Council on 28 May 2014 will come into effect on 1 July 2014, a seven-day period of advertising is required in order for this new fee to take effect.  Consequently, if these new fees for commercial Sorted and Unsorted Waste are passed by Council on 25 June 2014 and they are advertised the following week, they will come into effect on 9 July 2014.

 

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

 

That the Council:

 

1.            Endorses the addenda to Fees and Charges with respect to the new fees for commercial Sorted and Unsorted Waste being introduced on 2 July 2014, as follows:

 

DESCRIPTION

ADOPTED FEE

2013/14

(Exc. GST)

DRAFT FEE

2014/15

(Exc. GST)

DRAFT FEE

2014/15

(Inc. GST)

Commercial General Waste (6x4 trailer)

$11.00

N/A

N/A

Commercial General Waste (Over 6x4)

$22.00

N/A

N/A

Commercial General Waste (Sorted and Separated, 6x4 trailer)

N/A

$10.00

$11.00

Commercial General Waste (Sorted and Separated, Over 6x4 trailer)

N/A

$20.00

$22.00

Commercial General Waste (Unsorted, Containing Recyclables, 6x4 trailer)

N/A

$22.73

$25.00

Commercial General Waste (Unsorted, Containing Recyclables, Over 6x4)

N/A

$45.45

$50.00

 


Council                                                                                      191                                                                    25 June 2014

12.3           AWARD OF TENDER RFT06/14 PROVISION OF GREEEN WASTE PROCESSING AND RECYCLING

SUBJECT INDEX:

RFT06/14

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

Environment and climate change risks and impacts are understood and managed.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Operations Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Waste Management

REPORTING OFFICER:

Waste Coordinator - Vitor Martins

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Published Under Separate Cover Tender Evaluation   

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

The Council is requested to consider the tenders received in response to Request for Tender RFT06/14 – Provision of Green Waste Processing and Recycling Services.  The purpose of this report is to obtain the Council’s consent to award Tender – RFT06/14 to Geospread in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Panel recommendation.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

RFT06/14 specified the requirements of the City and invited suitably experienced Respondents to submit bids to enter into a Contract for the Provision of Green Waste Processing within the City of Busselton for a period of five (5) years with the option of a one (1) year extension, at the absolute discretion of the City, and under the same terms and conditions as for the original term.

 

Two (2) submissions were received in response to this Request for Tender.  Submissions were received from Geospread (who are based in the City of Busselton) and Western Tree Recyclers (who are based in Perth).

 

Both submissions addressed Option A, which was compulsory, providing prices for the downsizing and grinding of green waste at the City’s waste facilities and other selected locations. 

 

The tender also provided an opportunity for submissions for the composting of green waste at the City’s waste facilities by a licensed composter (Option B), and a further option (Option C) for the processing of green waste at a licensed composting facility.  Neither Option B nor Option C was fulfilled by either submission.

 

The review process of both submissions for RFT06/14 has been completed by the Tender Evaluation Panel that comprised the following City Officers: -

·    Vitor Martins                     Waste Coordinator

·    Allan Miller                         Waste Management Officer

·    Mark Tyler                          Contracts & Tendering Officer

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Part 4 (Tenders) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 apply.  Tenders are to be publicly invited according to the requirements of the Division before a local government enters into a contract for another person to supply goods or services if the consideration under the contract is, or is expected to be, more, or worth more, than $100 000.

 


 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The following Council policies have relevance to the Tender process:

 

Policy 239 – Purchasing:

The procurement process complies with this policy.

 

Policy 049/1 – Regional Price Preference:

The Regional Price Preference was applied to this tender.

 

Policy 031 – Tender Selection Criteria:

The procurement process complies with this policy.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The cost of services within this tender are provided for in capital works and operational budgets for each financial year.  Purchasing under this contract will be in accordance with these adopted budgets.

 

In addition, the tendered price is fixed over the contract duration (2014-2019). There will be no CPI increase as the tender outlines it is a fixed price.

 

The previous tender for processing green waste at the waste facilities, from 2010-2013, was awarded to Perth-based Grass Growers, at rates of $5.00 (ex GST) to process mulch (flat rate, no CPI increase).

 

The equivalent CPI increase for 7 years (4 year since the last tender date plus 3 years to mid 2014-2019 period of the current tender, which is the appropriate time frame for the purpose of comparison with the new contract fixed price) would be:

 

$ 5.00 x (1.035)7 = $6.36 per cubic metre (ex. GST)

 

In addition, the last similar services (in March this year) were provided by Geospread at an average spot rate of $ 9.34 per cubic metre.

 

A reasonable price range for the service would, thus, be somewhere between $6.36 (long term contract) and $9.34 (spot rate).

 

Proposed unit price under the current tender is $7.00 (ex. GST), which is well within that range and, in fact, closer to the lower bound, as expected. The new tender price is thus well within the acceptable market price range.

 

In any event, application of appropriate selection criteria to the tender has contributed to ensuring that tenderers are offering the “best value” with respect to the supply of services is highlighted via the tender assessment process.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

Key Goal Area 5:                               Cared For and Enhanced Environment.

 

Community Objective 5.3:            Environment and climate change risks and impacts are understood and managed.

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The key risk identified is that the City is not able to have its green waste processed in a timely manner by Geospread (for example due to lack of inventory or in the event of the insolvency of Geospread). This could result in the City being required to retender for the supply of green waste processing, which could result in a large stockpile of green waste at the City’s waste facilities and the potential to run out of space for storing green waste while the tender process is being conducted again.

 

The risk has been categorised as an M9 risk (an unlikely risk, which could have a moderate operational consequence).  This risk has been assessed as unlikely to occur because Geospread is a well-established company with a sound financial position (which has been independently assessed by Geospread’s accountants). Geospread demonstrated in its tender that it has sufficient inventory to fulfil the requirements of the tender, that it has the financial capacity to fulfil the contract, and that the risk of insolvency is low.

 

If Geospread is unable to fulfil the requirements of the tender, there may be an opportunity to source the supply of green waste processing from an alternative supplier such as Western Tree Recyclers.

 

CONSULTATION

 

The request for tender was publicly advertised in The West Australian.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

As part of the tender evaluation process an initial compliance check was conducted to identify submissions that were non-conforming with the immediate requirements of the RFT.  This included compliance with contractual requirements and provision of requested information (clarification of mobilisation and demobilisation costs, and confirmation of the ability to process green waste within one month of being awarded the tender).  Both tender submissions were found to be compliant with the specified requirements.

 

The assessments of the tenders were based on the following Qualitative Criteria as included in the Request for Tender Document:

 

·    Relevant Experience: 10% - a review of relevant work experience, including relevant referees.

·    Key Personnel Skills and Experience: 10% - qualifications and experience of key operators.

·    Tenderer’s Resources: 10% - detailing the company’s ability to fulfil the contract requirements.

 

The Tendered price was given the following weighting and has been assessed in conjunction with the Qualitative Criteria.

 

·    Tendered Price: 70%

 

When combining the tendered price in conjunction with the qualitative criteria detailed in Part 6 – Tenderer’s Offer, the submission from Geospread represented the best value for money for the City of Busselton.

 

The summary of the tender valuation is as presented in attachment.

 

It should be noted that the Regional Price Preference broadened the gap, but did not change the outcome, between Geospread and Western Tree Recyclers  in the recommendation to award the tender to Geospread.  The financial analysis of the tender over the full five-year period of the contract resulted in Geospread (a City of Busselton-based business) being awarded the maximum deduction allowable of $50,000, thereby giving it a significant advantage over the tender offer from Western Tree Recyclers.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This report seeks the Council’s endorsement of the officer’s recommendation to award the Contract to Geospread.  The Company’s submission represents the best value for money for the City of Busselton and clearly demonstrates the Company’s ability to fulfil the contract requirements to an acceptable City standard and at a competitive industry price.

 

OPTIONS

 

The Council could decide not to award the contract, in which case green waste would have to be stockpiled until further decision. This is not recommended, as large stockpiles of green waste represent a significant fire hazard, and stockpiling capacity is now close to the limit.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

The award of the tender to the successful tenderer can be announced immediately after the Council has endorsed the officer’s recommendation. The successful tenderer will receive formal written notification within seven (7) days of the decision being handed down.  The unsuccessful tenderer will also be notified in this time.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

Award the Contract resulting from RFT06/14 – “Provision of Green Waste Processing and Recycling Services” to Geospread in accordance with the terms and conditions contained within the tender for a period of five (5) years from the date of award, with the option of a one (1) year extension.

 

  


Council                                                                                      195                                                                    25 June 2014

13.             Community and Commercial Services Report

13.1           DUNSBOROUGH FORESHORE CAFÉ AND/OR KIOSK:  STRATEGIC REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

SUBJECT INDEX:

Dunsborough Foreshore Concept Plan

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Economic and Business Development Coordinator - Jon Berry

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Summary of Public Comments

Attachment b    Proposed Containment Zone for Cafe / Kiosk  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

At its 12 March 2014 meeting, Council resolved (C1403/055) to support for the purposes of community consultation, a proposed containment zone on the Dunsborough foreshore (‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965), for potential future commercial development of a café and/or kiosk up to 150m2 plus 50m2 alfresco area. The resolution resulted from a strategic review of alternative sites for a café and/or kiosk conducted by the City of Busselton in consultation with the Dunsborough Yallingup Chamber of Commerce and the Dunsborough and Districts Progress Association.

 

Council also resolved that if the community is generally supportive of the proposed site and use that it would seek registrations of interest from the private sector to develop a café and/or kiosk that meets evaluation criteria adopted at the 12 March 2014 meeting.

 

This report outlines the results of public consultation on use of the proposed containment zone for a café and/or kiosk.  Based on the public comments received, it is recommended that the Council endorses the nominated containment zone (as shown at Attachment B) for a café and/or kiosk on the Dunsborough foreshore (‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965), with a potential building footprint of 150sqm plus an alfresco area of 50sqm.  The report also recommends Council authorise the CEO to write to the Minister for Lands requesting an amendment to the management order to provide the City with the power to lease a portion of ‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965.  It also recommends the City contiguously advertise for preliminary registrations of interest from the private sector to lease a portion of ‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965 for the purposes of establishing a commercial café and/or kiosk.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

In January 2010 (C1001/018), Council endorsed ‘in principle’, the Dunsborough Foreshore Concept Plan initiated by the Dunsborough Yallingup Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DYCCI) as a master plan for redeveloping the Dunsborough foreshore, being ‘A Class’ Reserve, (Number R22965) located at the  junction of Dunn Bay Rd and Geographe Bay Rd.  The original master plan included a café to the east of the redevelopment area at the site of the existing ablution block and car-park.

 

On 13 June 2012 (C1206/144) Council further considered the concept of establishing a café and/or kiosk  on  the  foreshore  and  unanimously  resolved  to  endorse,  in  principle,  two  sites  for  the development of a café or kiosk and to advertise for Expressions of Interest for development, prior to making any further determinations.  

 

In October 2012, an Expressions of Interest (EoI) document was issued and advertised widely for three months. The advertising resulted in no submissions for the site located at the ablution block/car park (to the east of the redevelopment area) and three submissions for a development near the junction of Dunn Bay Road and Geographe Bay Rd. All concepts were greater than 150m2 (as was initially recommended in the EoI document as a guide). Two of the respondents subsequently withdrew, citing concerns about seasonality (increasing commercial risk), building costs and commitment to their existing undertakings).  Council subsequently selected a preferred proponent to develop a concept for a café and/or kiosk.

 

In November 2013 public submissions on the preferred proponents’ concept were sought and considered by Council, with the matter being highly contentious, particularly in relation to the proposed site being within the newly turfed redevelopment area and the size of the proposal considered too large. On 27 November 2013 Council resolved (C1311/307), that there be no commercial development on any of the identified sites on the Dunsborough foreshore between Dunn Bay Road and Chester Way and that the City not proceed with any further concepts at that stage.

 

In early 2014, the City of Busselton conducted a strategic review of alternative sites to locate a café/kiosk on the Dunsborough foreshore.  The review was undertaken in consultation with the Dunsborough Yallingup Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc and the Dunsborough and Districts Progress Association Inc.  In conducting the review, the following criteria were considered in order to identify a ‘containment zone’ shown at Attachment B:

•             Adequate Space

•             Risk of Erosion  

•             Risk of Inundation

•             Impact on utility services

•             Parking availability

•             Indigenous Heritage

•             Removal of Vegetation

•             Impact on community recreational space

•             Low impact on view corridors

•             Views of the bay (likely impacts on commercial success / appeal)

 

At its 12 March 2014 meeting, Council resolved (C1403/055) to:

 

1.             Support, for the purposes of community consultation, the proposed containment zone (refer Attachment B to this Agenda report) for potential lease for commercial development of a café and/or kiosk up to 150m2 plus up to 50m2 alfresco area and seeks:

 

a.                  public comments on the containment zones for use as a commercial café and/or kiosk, and if the Council forms the opinion that the community is supportive of the site and its proposed use;

b.                 registrations of interest (RoI) from the private sector to develop a café and/or kiosk for further consideration by Council.

 

 

2.             Endorses the evaluation criteria to assess proposals received through the RoI process if undertaken as:

 

1.    Physical planning and urban design

§ The height of proposed café and/or kiosk buildings is single storey

§ Building covered area limited to 150m2 and up to 50m2 of alfresco area

§ Structures to be open and visually permeable

§ Location to be within the containment zones

§ Suitable building materials and colours that reflect the natural environment of the site

§ No walls, gates or fences dividing individual buildings or areas

§ Retains the ambience of the Dunsborough foreshore

§ Buildings/Development are ‘complementary’ and ‘sympathetic’ to Dunsborough’s heritage, history and culture

 

2.    Environmentally Sustainable Design

§ The design of buildings to incorporate mitigation measures to avoid flooding and avoid or mitigate adverse impacts from coastal erosion

§ Environmentally sustainable building principles would be viewed favourably

§ Using natural, durable materials to cope with the natural environment

§ Restrict removal of native vegetation [(e.g. WA Peppermints (Agonis flexuosa) and Rottnest Teatree (Melaleuca lanceolata)]

§ Revegetating areas (where vegetation is removed) with native vegetation

§ Consideration of the principles of sustainability

 

3.    Public interest

§ Acknowledgement that all future commercial development on the foreshore will be on a leasehold basis (not freehold), so the land remains at all times in public ownership.

§ Initial lease length for a café style building to a maximum of 20 years, with negotiation possible for a further option

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

The following statutory requirements are relevant in considering this matter.

 

Land Administration Act 1997

 

The containment zone is located on Crown land being an ‘A’ Class reserve (Reserve 22965) which is vested with the City for the purposes of ‘Camping and Recreation’, without the power to lease. The Department of Lands has previously advised that dependent upon the final size, design and impact of the proposal on the overall reserve, there may or may not be a requirement to excise land from the Reserve to facilitate a café development. A smaller scale café up to 150m2 (that has a lesser impact on the Reserve) is unlikely to require an excision of land and may be leased to a proponent upon the approval of the Minister for Lands and an amendment to the management order to afford the power to lease.

 

Local Government Act 1995

 

Section 3.58 (2) states that a local government can dispose of property to the highest bidder at public auction, or to the person at public tender. Section 3.58 (3, 4) allows for the disposal of property other than by public auction or by tender.  It requires Council to give local public notice of its intention to dispose of the property, and consider any submissions which are received within the specified period.  Should Council resolve to proceed with facilitating a café/kiosk development on the Dunsborough foreshore, any future lease of a portion of Reserve 22965 will require a separate Council report to be prepared and observation of the requirements of Section 3.58 of the Act.

 

City of Busselton Town Planning Scheme (TPS No 20)

 

Rezoning of the zone identified in this report is not necessary for compliance with TPS No 20. Should Council support the future development of a café/kiosk, the site (excised or not excised) would be leased and used for a single purpose, 'cafe' or 'kiosk'. Development requirements including any additional parking requirements would be dealt with at a later stage of the process through a development approval and / or conditions on the lease as required.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The following plans and policies are relevant in considering this matter.

 

State Planning Policy 2.6, State Coastal Planning (SPP2.6) (Western Australian Planning Commission)

 

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) State Planning Policy 2.6, State Coastal Planning (SPP2.6) provides guidance on determining setbacks. The City of Busselton has previously engaged consultants to prepare the City of Busselton Coastal Erosion and Inundation Analysis. The Consultants have modelled the coastal erosion and inundation impacts to the year 2100 based on a low, medium and high climate change scenario. This identifies those areas that may be unsuitable for increases in density or further development due to coastal erosion in combination with elevated sea levels. Areas where upgrade/modification of existing coastal protection structures/systems or new coastal protection structures/systems will be required to protect existing public infrastructure, other than boat ramps, jetties and other marine infrastructure are also identified. Based on the information supplied from the above study, the City subsequently commissioned a Coastal Engineering Assessment of the Dunsborough foreshore. The seawall and coastal works were undertaken consistent with this study and considered adequate to provide protection for an estimated time frame of approximately 20 years with regular reviews and monitoring underway. Should Council resolve to proceed with considering a café development, a formal assessment of a future endorsed concept will be sought from relevant agencies including the Department of Lands, Department of Planning and Department of Transport

 

Dunsborough Foreshore Management Plan (2009)

 

The Dunsborough Foreshore Management Plan (DFMP) documents both the  current state and values and provides generic principles and specific actions and recommendations in order to guide future management of the Dunsborough Foreshore Reserves. Should Council resolve to proceed with facilitating the café development and seek an amendment to the management plan after community consultation on a new concept, the management plan will need to be updated to reflect the new foreshore improvements at the foot of Dunn Bay Road.

 

Aboriginal Heritage Survey for the Proposed Landscape Enhancements to Dugalup  Brook, Dunsborough Foreshore and Seymour Park (2007)

 

This report identifies the area between the foreshore redevelopment area and the toilet block/car park as former campsites for the Roelands Aboriginal Mission and recommends the area be registered under Section 5(b) and 5(c) of the West Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act (1972) as sites of historical significance in association with the connection that the land has with members of the ‘stolen generation’. For this reason, any sites between the south eastern edge of the foreshore redevelopment (not landscaped) and the existing car park and toilet block were not considered as suitable in the strategic review of alternative sites.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Financial implications to the Council directly arising from this report relate to the cost of promoting the commercial opportunity through a registration of interest process, the cost of seeking public comment by advertising/displays and staff time incurred in managing and facilitating the project.  These costs are incorporated into the 2013/14 budget and draft 2014/15 budget.  Should Council elect to proceed with facilitating a café development and seek power to lease the Reserve from the Minister for Lands, negotiated revenue by a stepped lease payment from the proponent is proposed, should commercial interest materialize.  The Department of Lands has previously advised that any proceeds from the lease will be required to be reinvested into future management, maintenance and improvements to Reserve R22965, including coastal management.

 

There may be future financial implications for the City, should Council consider making improvements to public infrastructure in recognition of Dunsborough’s growth and specific demand generated by the café and/or kiosk proposal.  For example, additional car-parking bays could be built on Geographe Bay Road continuing south-east from the toilet block area, or a newly sealed, formed and extended car park could be constructed at the toilet-block site. Should this be required, the cost would be approximately $100,000 to create an additional nine (9) bays along Geographe Bay Road and formalise 16 bays at the toilet block site, without removing trees. A contribution to this cost may be sought from the proponent and/or use of the ground lease payments placed in a financial reserve specifically for this purpose and combined with municipal funds recognising broader public benefit of foreshore car-parking.

 

There are no anticipated additional costs to Council for the provision of infrastructure services (power, water, telecommunications) as a result of locating the café/kiosk within the proposed containment zone.  There may be a need to extend deep sewerage depending on the nature of the proposal.

 

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This item aligns with the following City of Busselton Key Goal Areas identified in the 2013 Strategic Community Plan:

 

             Key Goal Area 2:

Well-planned vibrant and active places: An attractive city offering great places and facilities promoting an enjoyable and enriched lifestyle.

2.1        A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, leisure facilities and Services

2.2        A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections

Key Goal Area 3:

Robust local economy: A strong local economy that sustains existing and attracts new business, industry and employment opportunities.

3.1        A strong innovative and diversified economy that attracts people to live, work, invest and visit

3.2        A City recognised for its high quality events and year round tourist offerings

3.3        A community where local business is supported

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Should Council elect to continue the facilitation of a café on the Dunsborough foreshore, the following risks have previously been identified.

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Rating

Inundation of potential future café building resulting from storm surge

Require the building floor level to elevated above the natural ground level. 

Major

Unlikely

High

Litigation against the City resulting from flooding

Transfer risk to the proponent through lease of land instrument and requirement for building insurances

Major

Unlikely

High

 

CONSULTATION

 

As a result of the 12 March 2014 Council resolution (C1403/055), public submissions were invited during the period 9 April 2014 to 30 April 2014 using the following communications to invite comment:

 

·    City of Busselton website (online survey and downloadable survey form);

·    Press releases published in local newspapers;

·    Radio interview on ABC encouraging comment;

·    Liaison and meetings with stakeholder community groups (DYCCI, DDPA and DCALC);

·    Personal correspondence to nearby residents on Geographe Bay Road;

·    Advertisements in print media using Council for the Community page;

·    Information pack for public display available at the two libraries and the City of Busselton Administration reception; and,

·    Two examples of a 150sqm building footprint were marked out on-site with pegs and tape within the proposed containment zone shown at Attachment B of this report

 

153 submissions were received and provided a direct response to the question posed …”I support a cafe/kiosk (footprint up to 150sqm with additional alfresco area up to 50sqm) in the containment zone identified”.  (The map at Attachment B of this report was used to assist respondents identify the location of the containment zone)

 

91 respondents answered ‘Yes’ and 62 respondents answered ‘No’.  This equates to 60% of respondents supporting use of the containment zone for a café/kiosk and 40% not supporting such use.

 

Some of the more dominant concerns expressed included:

 

·    Lack of parking causing congestion on Geographe Bay Road

·    the containment zone generally being low-lying and possibly subject to flooding as it is close to the beach

·    Size, some concerned 150sqm was too small for a functional café, while others didn’t want a building too large on the foreshore reserve

·    Visual amenity, there was concern expressed that an organic design is needed to fit the natural environment

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

Public submissions have demonstrated majority support for use of the containment zone shown at Attachment B as a suitable location for a café and/or kiosk of 150sqm plus 50sqm alfresco.  Although the survey resulted in majority support (60%), there remains a high level of opposition (40%).  Notwithstanding there remains opposition, many of the concerns expressed during the public consultation process relate to issues that may be dealt with by adherence to the evaluation criteria adopted by Council at the 12 March 2014 meeting (refer above).  For example, environmental issues such as the location being within a foreshore reserve subject to inundation may be dealt with by elevating any built form from the natural ground level.  Other environmental issues including removal of native vegetation may be mitigated by revegetation measures imposed as a condition of development.  It is reasonable to expect locating a café/kiosk on the Dunsborough foreshore will directly result in an increase in demand for car-parking.  Accordingly, Council may wish to consider expanding and/or improving the existing car-park and/or the number of bays on Geographe Bay road.  Moreover, a financial contribution to these works may be sought from the proponent as part of future negotiations, should Council elect to continue facilitating a café development.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This report has outlined the results of public consultation on use of a proposed containment zone on the Dunsborough foreshore (‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965), for use as a café and/or kiosk with a building footprint of 150sqm plus an alfresco area of 50sqm.  Based on the public comments received, it recommends the Council proceed to advertising for preliminary registrations of interest (RoI) from the private sector to establish a commercial café and/or kiosk using evaluation criteria for physical planning and urban design, environmentally sustainable design and public interest requirements, as outlined in this report.  Should there be commercial interest emanating from the RoI process that meets the evaluation criteria, shortlisted respondents be invited to proceed to submit more detailed proposals for Council and community consideration.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may elect:

1.    not to continue to facilitate development of a commercial café/kiosk development on the Dunsborough foreshore (‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965), and within the vicinity of the redevelopment area;

2.    Commence due diligence on an alternative location for a foreshore café, for example at Old Dunsborough in accordance with several public submissions received

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION

 

Should Council support the Officer Recommendation, staff would invite preliminary registrations of interest for a café and/or kiosk development from August 2014, contiguously seeking power to lease ‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965 from the Minister for Lands.

 

Subject to all statutory approvals being received, the City would then seek further detailed submissions from a shortlist of respondent to the RoI process and select a ‘preferred proponent’ to develop a detailed concept for further consideration by Council in late 2014.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

1.            Acknowledges public submissions received on the nominated containment zone for a café             and/or kiosk on the Dunsborough foreshore (‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965), with a                potential building footprint of 150sqm plus an alfresco area of 50sqm;

 

2.            Endorses the nominated containment zone, as shown at Attachment B, for a café and/or                kiosk on the Dunsborough foreshore (‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965), with a potential              building footprint of 150sqm plus an alfresco area of 50sqm;

 

3.            Writes to the Minister for Lands requesting an amendment to the management order to provide the City with the power to lease on the nominated containment zone (‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965), as shown at Attachment B;

 

4.            Seeks preliminary registrations of interest (RoI) from the private sector to lease a portion of        ‘A Class’ Reserve Number R22965, within the containment zone shown at Attachment B, for         a café/kiosk development, whilst contiguously seeking power to lease the Reserve in             accordance with (3) above.


Council                                                                                      223                                                                                                      25 June 2014

13.1                             DUNSBOROUGH FORESHORE CAFÉ AND/OR KIOSK:  STRATEGIC REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE SITES         

Attachment a          Summary of Public Comments

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      231                                                                                                      25 June 2014

13.1                             DUNSBOROUGH FORESHORE CAFÉ AND/OR KIOSK:  STRATEGIC REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE SITES         

Attachment b          Proposed Containment Zone for Cafe / Kiosk


Council                                                                                      231                                                                    25 June 2014

13.2           REQUEST FROM ST JOHN AMBULANCE TO LEASE A PORTION OF LOT 434 MOLLOY STREET BUSSELTON

SUBJECT INDEX:

Agreements / Contracts

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A community where people feel safe, empowered, included and enjoy a sense of good health and wellbeing.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Commercial Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER:

Economic and Business Development Coordinator - Jon Berry

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Site Proposed St John Ambulance Sub-Centre

Attachment b    Letter of Request from St John Ambulance  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

St John Ambulance Western Australia Ltd (St John) urgently requires land for a new ambulance sub-centre and first aid training facility.  St John approached the City of Busselton in mid-2013, to assist it identify a suitable site within close proximity of the Busselton CBD and has expressed interest in land adjoining Causeway Road.  More recently, St John has expressed specific interest in a portion of Lot 434 Molloy Street (cnr of Causeway Rd), which is Crown land vested with the City of Busselton with the power to lease.  St John has a long term objective to have a portion of Lot 434 Molloy Street excised to enable a Management Order to be issued directly from the Minister for Lands.

 

In 2012, the City wrote to the Public Transport Authority of Western Australia (PTAWA) seeking management control of the railway reserve on Causeway Road, however the City has only been able to secure a ‘Licence to Occupy’ agreement.  This licence enables the City to offer continuity of the reserve to accommodate community activities such as the Railway Hall, Girl Guides Hall and Scouts Hall but is not a permanent arrangement and is not conducive to significant infrastructure improvements.

 

This report recommends Council offer a peppercorn lease of a portion of Lot 434 Molloy Street, Busselton to St John to meet its need to establish a new ambulance sub-centre and in recognition of it being an important community service with an urgent need to relocate from its existing premises adjacent to the old hospital.  Further, the report recommends that the CEO continue to advocate to the Member for Vasse and the Minister for Transport for the PTAWA to relinquish management control of the surrounding railway reserves and to seek the Minister for Lands to vest these railway reserves to the City of Busselton.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The City has held discussions with St John to assist it in acquiring suitable land in Busselton for a new sub-centre and first aid training facility, including an option to lease a portion of Lot 434 (Reserve 43859) Molloy Street, Busselton (corner of Causeway Road marked by a star on Attachment A).  This land adjoins the railway corridor [Reserve 2238 (Lot 36), Reserve 2236, (Lots 37 – 41), Reserve 2237 (Lot 43), Reserve 6333 (Lots 44–48) and Reserve 3370 (Lot 435)] as shown in Attachment A, which the City is seeking the vesting of from the Minister for Lands.  Lot 434 Molloy Street is Crown land currently vested to the City of Busselton with power to lease.

 

St John has considered a number of options near the new hospital site however its activities are defined in the town planning scheme as “transport depot”.  Most of the land around the hospital including the Bussell Highway is zoned residential which does not permit this use.  Alternative options would be a site in the central business district or the industrial area which is financially challenging for St John, being a not for profit organisation.  The City of Busselton has a Management Order over Lot 434 (Reserve 43859) with designated purpose currently ‘Aquatic Centre’ (it was once the preferred location for a leisure centre which was subsequently built adjacent to Queen Elizabeth Avenue).  Discussions with St John has deemed this land suitable for the proposed sub-centre given it is strategically located to the main population centre of Busselton and has good access to Bussell Highway.  City officers are currently in discussions with the Department of Lands to have the purpose of the land changed to ‘Recreation,Emergency Services and Community Purposes’.

 

The City has indicated to St John its willingness to relinquish the management order over a portion of Reserve 43859, should it secure the management order over the nearby railway reserve land, adjacent to the City administration building.  This will allow the City to continue to promote the use of the land as a ‘community hub’ and allow for the future widening of Causeway Road.  In 2012, the City wrote to the PTAWA seeking management control of the railway reserve on Causeway Road (particularly Lots 40 and 41 as shown in Attachment A).  The PTAWA advised that as the Reserve still contains a gazetted railway line they would not be prepared to relinquish it because the decision had not been made to discontinue the use of the line.  Subsequently, the City entered into a ‘Licence to Occupy’ agreement to enable continuity of use of the reserve to accommodate community uses including the Railway Hall, Girl Guides Hall and Scouts Hall.

 

City officers continue to work with the Member for Vasse to have the PTA relinquish Reserve 2238 (Lot 36), Reserve 2236, (Lots 37 – 41), Reserve 2237 (Lot 43), Reserve 6333 (Lots 44–48) and Reserve 3370 (Lot 435) and to have the Minister for Lands issue a management order over the land directly to the City of Busselton.  Should this proposal be successful, the Council may then be in a position to relinquish the management order over a portion of Lot 434 Molloy Street, allowing St John to secure long term tenure over the land.

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

When disposing of property whether by sale, lease or other means, a Local Government is bound by the requirements of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act. However 3.58 (5) (d) provides exemptions to this process under Regulation 30 (2) (b) (i) & (ii) of the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations.

 

This section states “disposal of land to incorporated bodies with objects of benevolent, cultural, educational or similar nature and the members of which are not entitled to receive any pecuniary profit from the body transactions, are exempt from the advertising and tender requirements of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act.”  St John is an entity to which this exemption applies.

 

The land requested by St John is located on Lot 434 (Reserve 43859), Molloy Street, Busselton.  The reserve is vested with the City for the designated purpose of “Aquatic Centre” with the power to lease or licence for any term not exceeding 21 years.

 

The PTAWA is the responsible agency for Reserve 2238 (Lot 36), Reserve 2236, (Lots 37 – 41), Reserve 2237 (Lot 43), Reserve 6333 (Lots 44 – 48) and Reserve 3370 (Lot 435). All of this land is reserved for “Railway Purposes” as the land contains gazetted railway line.

 

Section 15 of the Public Transport Authority Act 2003 gives the PTAWA the powers, among other things, to grant licences in relation to Crown Land.

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

Town Planning Scheme cited as the Shire of Busselton District Town Planning Scheme No 20.


 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The rent charged to community and sporting groups for leased City land and/or buildings is $200.00 per annum (inclusive GST), as per the Council adopted 2014/15 Schedule of Fees and Charges.

 

The premises are to be built, managed and maintained at the cost of St John.  There should be no financial implications to the City in this regard.

 

St John will also be requested to meet the cost of surveys and processing fees involved in lease documentation.

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This item aligns with the following City of Busselton Key Goal Areas identified in the 2013 Strategic

Community Plan:

 

Key Goal Area 1:

Caring and inclusive community:  A welcoming, inclusive, healthy and capable community that provides accessible services for all residents.

 

1.1.1      A community where people feel safe, empowered, included and enjoy a sense of good health and wellbeing

1.1.2      A community that supports healthy, active ageing and other services to enhance quality of life as we age

 

Council has adopted specific strategies to:

§   Advocate with State and Federal Government for the adequate provision of community services to meet the needs of future population growth

§   Support and assist community organisations to provide services to the community, with special focus on the needs of seniors, young people, families and the disadvantaged

§   Work with key partners and the community to lobby for effective health and medical services for the district

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

The following risks rated ‘high’ have been identified in preparing this report.

 

Risk

Controls

Consequence

Likelihood

Risk Level

REPUTATION

If St John is unable to secure tenure of the site then they are unlikely to invest in the required infrastructure, potentially resulting in Busselton not having a fully serviced sub-station.

The City support St John in its request to lease the Molloy Street site and continues to be open to assessing alternative sites if requested by St John.

 

City officers to keep the Member for Vasse informed of the project to help gain political support for longer term arrangements

Moderate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moderate

Likely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Likely

High (H17)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High (H17)

 

CONSULTATION

 

Discussions have been held between St John, Property and Development division based in Perth, and the City of Busselton’s Planning Directorate in regards to having a portion of Lot 434 Molloy Street, Busselton, excised and returned to the State of Western Australia for a subsequent Management Order to be granted to St John for the purposes of ambulance and first aid services.

 

The Hon Troy Buswell MLA has written to the Minister for Transport the Hon Dean Nalder MLA to gain support to have the PTA relinquish its management of the overall railway reserve.

 

City officers have held initial discussions with the Department for Lands regarding the change of purpose of Lot 434 Molloy Street from Aquatic Centre to Recreation, Emergency and Community Services.  The Regional Manager has also been briefed regarding the longer term proposal to relinquish a portion of Lot 434 Molloy Street in exchange for a management order over the adjacent railway reserve to facilitate a community services precinct on Causeway Road near the CBD, and to allow for the future widening of Causeway Road.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The provision of quality emergency services, patient transfers and first-aid training facilities in Busselton is a high priority for the community and the service provider St John.  The existing building is located adjacent to the new Busselton Health Campus (currently under construction) and is an ageing facility not ideally suitable for the contemporary range of first-aid training and emergency service functions St John provide.

 

St John has written to the City of Busselton (see Attachment B) seeking to enter into a peppercorn lease of a portion (approximately 6000m2) of Lot 434 Molloy Street for a period of 21 years for the purpose of establishing a new ambulance, patient transfer and first aid service.  Moreover, St John seeks to secure this land on a more permanent basis from the State of Western Australia by way of a direct management order.  In order to facilitate this request, the City would need to relinquish its management order over a portion of Lot 434 Molloy Street.  Officers recommend Council do not relinquish its current management control (with the power to lease) of a valuable land asset, unless the State of WA provides alternative land in return for the relinquishment.  Council has previously expressed interest in securing long term tenure over the surrounding railway reserves on Causeway Road for the purposes of establishing a community services precinct and for widening of Causeway Road.  Officers are recommending a portion of Lot 434 only be relinquished in exchange for control over the surrounding railway reserves and in the interim, enter a peppercorn lease of the land.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This report recommends Council offer a peppercorn lease of a portion of Lot 434 Molloy Street to St John to meet its immediate need to establish a new ambulance sub-centre in Busselton.  It also recommends Council authorize the CEO to continue to advocate to the Member for Vasse and the Minister for Transport for the PTAWA to relinquish management control of the surrounding railway reserves and to seek the Minister for Lands to vest these railway reserves to the City of Busselton so it can create a community services hub near the City administration building and additionally, to provide land for future widening of Causeway road.  Should these negotiations be successful, it is recommended Council relinquish a portion of Lot 434 Molloy Street back to the State of WA for it to consider the issue of a management order direct to St John to give it greater security in the long term.

 

The rent charged to community and sporting groups will be $200.00 per annum inclusive of GST and would apply to the St John lease should Council support the Officer recommendation.

 

OPTIONS

 

Council may elect to:

 

·    Treat St John as it would a commercial entity and let it pursue commercial opportunities to purchase land within the City at market value.

 

·    Identify another parcel of land which is City controlled with the appropriate zoning requirements, with appropriate access and egress for ambulance traffic.

 

·    Excise a portion of Lot 434 Molloy Street and support St John to gain a direct management order from the State of WA without successfully negotiating an outcome from PTAWA to have control of the adjacent land on Causeway road.

 

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Timelines will be determined by the process involved in changes to the purpose of the land and will to an extent be controlled by external parties.  If St John accepts an offer to lease a portion of the Lot 434 Molloy Street, the purpose of the Reserve would need to be amended.  The current purpose is ‘Aquatic Centre’ and to undertake a reserve amendment (to Recreation, Emergency Services and Community Purposes) the Department of Land’s advice is that the process may take up to three months.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council:

 

1.            Subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands, authorises the CEO to enter into a lease               agreement with St John for a portion of Lot 434 Molloy Street (Reserve 43859) as indicated in             Attachment B (proposed land parcel location and dimensions to be confirmed) and subject to        the following:

 

a.      The lease shall be consistent with the City’s standard community and sporting group lease             agreement;

 

b.     St John are to survey the portion of the site it requires, at its expense, and submit to the City        of Busselton;

 

c.      The term of the lease to be 21 years, commencing on the date of execution;

 

d.     The annual rent to be $200.00 inclusive of GST with CPI rent reviews to be conducted on each anniversary date; and

 

e.     All costs for the preparation of the lease, zoning and change of titles, application and       processing fees, to be met by the Lessee

 

2.         2.            That the CEO write to the Department of Lands requesting alteration of the purpose of the                 Management Order for Lot 434 (Reserve 43859 ) Molloy Street, Busselton from the purpose         ‘Aquatic Centre’ to the purpose ‘Recreation, Emergency Services and Community Purposes’

 

1.         3.            Authorises the CEO to continue to advocate to the Member for Vasse and the Minister for             Transport for the PTAWA to relinquish management control of Reserve 2238 (Lot 36),          Reserve 2236,    (Lots 37 – 41), Reserve 2237 (Lot 43), Reserve 6333 (Lots 44 – 48) and   Reserve 3370     (Lot 435) as shown in Attachment A and to seek the Minister for Lands to    vest these reserves to the City of Busselton

 

2.         4.            Should Recommendation 3 above be successful, Council supports a portion of Lot 434     Molloy Street (Reserve 43859) to be relinquished back to the State of WA and supports the       Minister for Lands to issue a management order directly to St John to afford it greater long     term security of the land for its proposed ambulance sub-centre and first-aid training operations.

 

 


Council                                                                                      233                                                                                25 June 2014

13.2                             REQUEST FROM ST JOHN AMBULANCE TO LEASE A PORTION OF LOT 434 MOLLOY STREET BUSSELTON  

Attachment a          Site Proposed St John Ambulance Sub-Centre

PDF Creator


Council                                                                                      239                                                                                25 June 2014

13.2                             REQUEST FROM ST JOHN AMBULANCE TO LEASE A PORTION OF LOT 434 MOLLOY STREET BUSSELTON  

Attachment b          Letter of Request from St John Ambulance

PDF Creator

 


Council                                                                                      237                                                                    25 June 2014

14.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

14.1           PROPOSED DIFFERENTIAL RATES IN THE DOLLAR AND ASSOCIATED MINIMUM PAYMENTS - 2014/15 FINANCIAL YEAR

SUBJECT INDEX:

Differential Rates

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Finance and Information Technology

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Finance

REPORTING OFFICER:

A/Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Darren Whitby

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

In accordance with Section 6.36 of the Local Government Act (‘the Act’), where a local government intends to impose differential rates, or a minimum payment applying to a differential rate category, it is required to give local public notice of its intention to do so. The public notice is to invite submissions to the proposal for a period of not less than twenty one (21) days. The Council is required to consider any submissions received prior to it formally imposing the proposed differential rates in the dollar and associated minimum payments, with or without modification.

 

As it is intended that differential rates will be imposed as part of the Council’s 2014/15 annual budget, this report seeks the Council's endorsement to provide public notice of the proposed differential rates in the dollar and associated minimum payments as recommended in this report.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Pursuant to Section 6.33 of the Act, a local government may determine to impose differential rates according to a range of characteristics, including the purpose for which land is zoned, the purpose for which land is held or used, or whether the land is vacant land.  As part of its 2013/14 adopted budget, the Council imposed differential rates and associated minimum payments in line with the above characteristics. A synopsis of the currently adopted differential rating categories is provided as follows:

      

Gross Rental Value (GRV)

 

§ Industrial/ Commercial (Improved)

This differential rating category is reflective of the additional rates levied to assist in funding tourism and marketing activities throughout the district.  

 

§ Industrial/ Commercial (Vacant Land)

Whilst also contributing to the funding of tourism and marketing activities, a lower rate in the dollar applies to this category, to assist in tempering the impacts of the comparatively higher vacant land valuations (as compared to improved properties). 

 

Unimproved Valuation (UV)

 

§ UV Rural

This differential rating category acknowledges the higher comparative valuations within the unimproved land use category, and typically relates to non-income earning properties used or held for residential purposes.      

§ UV Commercial

This differential rating category is cognisant of the associated land use, which typically relates to commercial activities not defined as being of a primary production nature.

 

In addition to the above differential rates, the Council has general rates for both the GRV and UV components, which have historically been assigned to the Residential (GRV) and Primary Production (UV) categories.   

 

It is proposed that the prevailing differential and general rating categories will be maintained as part of the 2014/15 annual budget.

 

With regards to the rates in the dollar and associated minimum payments proposed to be imposed in 2014/15, these have been predicated on a general rate increase of 5.25%, coupled with a further 1% increase in the industrial/ commercial zone groups; for tourism and marketing activities. These increases are in line with the Council’s currently endorsed Long Term Financial Plan. 

 

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

 

Sections 6.25 to 6.82 of the Act refer to rates and service charges. However, this report more specifically refers to the following sections of the Act;   

 

§ Section 6.33 - Differential general rates

§ Section 6.35 - Minimum payment

§ Section 6.36 - Local government to give notice of certain rates 

 

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

 

The Council’s Rating Policy (236) states that the Council supports the use of differential rating as a tool in which to realise equitable rating.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The Council’s currently endorsed (C1306/144) Long Term Financial Plan includes a general rate increase of 5.25% in the 2014/15 financial year. In addition to a general rate increase of 3% (based on the 10 year rolling average Consumer Price Index), a further 1% is earmarked for road asset management plan funding purposes, with a further 1.25% to assist in funding loan repayments associated with the construction of the Civic and Administration Centre.

 

At its meeting of 14 May 2014, the Council supported (C1405/125) a further increase of 1% in respect of the differential rate for tourism and marketing activities.   

 

The 2014/15 draft annual budget has been developed in line with the aforementioned rating determinations.            

 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

 

This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.3 - ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT

 

Not applicable.

CONSULTATION

 

Not applicable.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

 

The differential rates in the dollar and associated minimum repayments, as recommended for endorsement for public notice purposes, have been predicated on the Council’s currently endorsed Long Term Financial Plan, with this methodology reaffirmed as part of the 2014/15 draft budget workshops. The further increase of 1% for tourism and marketing activities has also recently been supported by the Council.      

 

Whilst rate modelling has been undertaken using the above parameters, it is important to note that properties valued at unimproved value (UV) are subject to an annual valuation, whereas gross rental valuations (GRV) are conducted every three years. Accordingly, the rate increases on individual properties within the UV land use groups may vary from the general 5.25% increase; albeit the collective value of rates levied within each land use group will generally increase by this percentage.                

 

It is also worthy of noting that Section 6.33 (Differential rates) and Section 6.35 (Minimum payment) of the Act require that certain ratios be complied with in respect of, amongst others, differential rating comparatives, general minimum payments and the number of properties subject to minimum payments. These matters have also been required to be considered as part of the rates modelling process.

 

In accordance with Section 6.36 of the Act (Local government to give notice of certain rates), public notice is required to be given where a local government intends to impose differential rates, or a minimum payment applying to a differential rate category. The public notice is to invite submissions to the proposal for a period of not less than twenty one (21) days. The Council is required to consider any submissions received prior to it formally imposing the proposed differential rates in the dollar and associated minimum payments, with or without modification. As in previous years, and unless circumstances require otherwise, it is proposed that any submissions received will be presented to the Council at which time it formally considers its 2014/15 annual budget.   

 

Whilst not required to do so, it is proposed that in addition to the differential rates in the dollar and associated minimum payments, that the Council also gives public notice of the general rates in the dollar and associated minimum payments. This is simply to provide ratepayers with additional comparative data.            

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed differential rates in the dollar and associated minimum payments are analogous with related Council determinations, and as such, are recommended for endorsement for public notice purposes. Notwithstanding this however, the Council may determine to amend the advertised rates in the dollar and/or associated minimum payments at which time it formally adopts its budget, without the need for further public notice. Should this occur, the reasons for not adopting the advertised rates in the dollar and/ or associated minimum payments are required to be disclosed in the Annual Budget and also as part of the rates notice; pursuant to Regulations 23(b) and 56(4)(b) of the Local Government( Financial Management) Regulations.


 

OPTIONS

 

The Council may determine to amend the proposed differential rates in the dollar and associated minimum payments as recommended in this report. In doing so however, the Council would need to be mindful of the requirements of Sections 6.33 and 6.35 of the Act. 

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

Consequent to the Council’s determination in this matter, public notice will be given as soon as practicable thereafter.

 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council endorses the following differential rates in the dollar and associated minimum payments, and general rates in the dollar and associated minimum payments, proposed to be imposed for the 2014/15 financial year, for public notice purposes:

 

Description

Rate in the $

Minimum Payment

Differential Rates

 

 

GRV - Industrial/ Commercial (Improved)

9.9795c

$1,010

GRV - Industrial/ Commercial (Vacant Land)

9.4828c

$1,010

UV  - Rural

0.3341c

$1,010

UV  - Commercial

0.6569c

$1,010

General Rates

 

 

GRV – Residential (Improved and Vacant Land)

8.9174c

$1,010

UV – Primary Production

0.3608c

$1,010

 


Council                                                                                      243                                                                    25 June 2014

14.2           DRAFT CITY OF BUSSELTON CORPORATE BUSINESS PLAN 2014/15 - 2017/18

SUBJECT INDEX:

Corporate Business Plan

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community.

BUSINESS UNIT:

Corporate Services

ACTIVITY UNIT:

Organisational Development

REPORTING OFFICER:

Manager, Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER:

A/Director, Finance and Corporate Services - Darren Whitby

VOTING REQUIREMENT:

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment a   Draft Corporate Business Plan 2014/15 - 2017/18  

  

 

PRÉCIS

 

This report presents the attached draft City of Busselton Corporate Business Plan 2014/2015 - 2017/18 (Attachment A) and seeks Council’s approval and formal adoption of the Plan. 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

On 26 August 2012 the Minister for Local Government introduced regulations establishing new requirements for the Plan for the Future under the Local Government Act 1995.  Under these regulations, all Local Government Authorities are required to have a Strategic Community Plan spanning a minimum ten year period and a Corporate Business Plan, spanning a four year period.

 

Following a community consultation exercise the City of Busselton adopted its Strategic Community Plan 2013 on 27 February 2013, setting the strategic direction for the activities and initiatives for the next 10 years.  Adoption of the City’s first and current Corporate Business Plan for years 2013/2014 - 2016/2017 then followed, with the plan being developed following extensive consultation internally and with Council to ensure that the services we provide are adequately reflected in the plan and that the actions are those which the Council sees as a priority for the organisation in the next four years. Both the Strategic Community Plan 2013 and Corporate Business Plan 2013/2014 – 2016/2017 are supported and informed by the City’s Asset Management Plans, Long Term Financial Plan 2013/14 – 2022/2023 and Workforce Plan 2013.  Our Annual Budget is aligned to year one of the Corporate Business Plan.  This set of plans and their integration with each other is commonly referred to as integrated planning.

 

There are three standards for measuring a local government’s integrated planning performance, basic, intermediate and advanced.  The legislation requires that at the very least, the basic standard must be met.  The intermediate and advanced standards demonstrate the higher levels to which local governments should aspire as they mature and improve their planning practices.  At this point, the City of Busselton has successfully achieved the basic stan