10 November, 2005

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 14 November 2005 at 07:00PM.

Attention is directed to the statement accompanying this notice of the business proposed to be transacted at the meeting.

Yours Faithfully

 

 

Alan Travers

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           APOLOGIES

 

2.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Sheehy - 9 November 2005 to 19 November 2005 inclusive.

Councillor Bradbury - 31 October 2005 to 4 December 2005 inclusive.

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 17 October 2005.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Pecuniary Interest (The Act requires Councillors who declare a pecuniary interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

Non-Pecuniary Interest

 

5.           ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION

 

8.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

 

9.           MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

10.         URGENT REPORTS (to be dealt with in the master program to which the item relates)

 

11.         QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

12.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 14 November 2005

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

master program reports

 


 

MEETING CALENDAR

 

November 2005 - December 2005

 

 

TIME

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Ordinary Meetings

7.00 pm

21 #

5

12

Policy Review Committee

7.00 pm

14

 

 

#  Meetings at which the Management Plan quarterly reviews are presented.

 

 

 

-                 Council has two Ordinary Meetings per month where practicable.

-                 Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

-                 Policy Review Meetings are held monthly where practicable.

-                 Members of the public are invited to observe meetings of the Council. Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Executive Officer, Glenn McCarthy on 47327649.

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

 Monday 17 October 2005

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES OF THE
POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF PENRITH CITY
COUNCIL HELD IN THE PASSADENA ROOM, PENRITH ON
MONDAY 17 OCTOBER 2005 AT 7:04PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor John Thain, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, Lexie Cettolin, Greg Davies, Ross Fowler, Karen McKeown, Susan Page, Garry Rumble, Pat Sheehy AM.

APOLOGIES

PRC 61  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that apologies be received and accepted from Councillors David Bradbury, Kevin Crameri and Mark Davies.

 

leave of absence

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Steve Simat for the period 22 August to 25 October 2005 inclusive, and to Councillor Jackie Greenow for 17 October 2005.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 12 September 2005

PRC 62  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Pat Sheehy seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 12 September 2005 be confirmed with the amendment that the first sentence of the Leave of Absence section is to read, “Leave of absence was previously granted to Councillor Steve Simat for the period 22 August to 25 October 2005 inclusive, and to Councillor Jim Aitken for the period 16 August to 29 September 2005 inclusive.”

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

Leadership and Organisation

1        Code of Conduct and Promoting Better Practice                                           754/8 Part 4

The Legal Officer, Mr Stephen Britten, gave a short presentation to the meeting about the Model Code of Conduct.

PRC 63  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Garry Rumble

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on the Code of Conduct and Promoting Better Practice be received

2.      Council submit an urgent motion to the 2005 Local Government and Shires Association Annual Conference indicating that the Model Code of Conduct in its current format is unworkable and requires further consultation between Councils and the Department of Local Government.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7:45PM.

    


MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

The City as a Social Place

 

1        City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors 2986/8                                                                                                                  1

 

2        Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors 2988/15                6

 

The City In Its Environment

 

3        Domestic Waste Strategy 31/59                                                                                         15

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

4        Service Specification Program 36/35                                                                                  25

 

5        Westpool Activities  6011/38                                                                                             28

 

 



The City as a Social Place

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors 2986/8                                                                                                                  1

 

2        Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors 2988/15                6

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

14 November 2005

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

1

City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors     

2986/8

Compiled by:                Gary Dean - Facilities Operations Manager

Authorised by:             Steve Hackett - Director City Services  

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The City’s recreation and leisure facilities and services meet its needs and are optimally used.

Critical Action: Facilitate joint use of the City’s recreation and leisure facilities, including co-location of programs.

Purpose:

To provide Council with details following the eleventh Annual General Meeting of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor and Aquatic Recreation Centre Ltd.  The Chairman of the Board will make a short presentation.  The report recommends that the information be noted, that certain appointments be made to fill the vacancies and that Council agree to underwrite the company for a further period of 12 months.

 

Annual Report

This report to Council follows the Eleventh Annual General Meeting of the Company held 18 October 2005 for the trading period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005.

The Chairman of the Board will be in attendance tonight to make a short presentation.  Following are their reports extracted from the Annual Report.

Chairman’s Report

I am pleased to present the Chairman’s Report to the Eleventh Annual General Meeting of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Limited.

The 2004/2005 year again presented the Company with a number of challenges to address. The trading result has again been unsatisfactory. Patronage levels have decreased mainly in the Learn to Swim classes. However trading in the Gym is buoyant.

The Company recorded an operating loss of $316,771 (an improvement from the previous year) after providing for employee benefits of $1,777,711 and after expenditure of $76,133 on repairs and maintenance. Capital expenditure was increased from the previous year with $89,908 being expended on major plant repairs and necessary items. Penrith City Council continues to be kept fully informed with regards to the financial position of the Centre and have agreed to continue to underwrite the Centre’s operations.

Water usage is an important community issue. Water wastage is a concern, the Centre is reviewing the option available of timed/free/token-operated showers to its patrons. Introduction of this initiative is estimated to reduce water usage by 20%.

Due to changes in Workcover laws, the Hydrotherapy Centre, as an end supplier of services, suffered a downturn in income from its professional service provision this year. Efforts are already under way to refocus the service delivery to more profitable areas.

The Centre is now entering its 12th year of operation, and strategies have been developed so as to return the facility to profitability. The ongoing maintenance of the Centre is being addressed and Penrith City Council has endorsed an Occupancy Agreement for a further 5 year period. This Occupancy Agreement defines maintenance responsibility between Council and the Centre.

Meeting patrons expectations and keeping the facility attractive is to be the prime focus in the ensuing year. Planning is already underway to improve the amenity and functionality of parts of the main Centre to make it more attractive for patrons to visit.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the General Manager, Geoff Yates and his Management Team, as well as all the staff in continuing to deliver a community facility that remains as a leader in the industry. Through their commitment and positive outlook, the Centre will continue to be acknowledged for its friendly, customer focused and professional management.

I would like to thank my fellow Directors for their contributions and efforts.

Centre General Manager’s Report

The financial year ending 30th June 2005 was one that presented the Company with a number of operational matters that had a significant impact on the running of the facilities. These included:

· Dramatic increase in insurance premiums

· Major equipment / plant failures

· Patronage levels below target expectations

Patronage in total has been a concern where the focus on swimming and swimming lessons has waned. This trend is of major concern and the Centre is embarking on a major campaign to focus on the importance of learning to swim. We will be aiming at getting people to become focussed again especially as the rate of infant death by drowning is still at unacceptable levels.

A number of new initiatives are being put into place to ensure that Ripples maintains a strong competitive advantage in the industry and to ensure that we meet our community’s expectations. I will cover these more fully later.

Financial Overview

The Company posted a loss of $316,771 after providing for depreciation of $168,144 and Repairs and Maintenance of $76,133 and Capital Outlays of $89,908.

Operating Revenue was $2,726,669 representing an increase of 2.84% on last year’s revenue. Membership Subscriptions were $703,969. Total memberships have increased following the upgrading of the gym equipment in September 2004 and continue to rise with 1538 members as at 30th June 2005. Other income from professional activities was $1,484,968, an increase of 6.4% over last year’s result.

As highlighted above, a number of unbudgeted essential maintenance items caused costs, especially gas expenditure, to rise dramatically. To maintain the operations of the pools to customer expectations, this situation was unavoidable.

A conscientious effort by all staff to keep costs under control saw marked savings occur and I commend the staff for their undertakings.

Full financial details are contained in the accompanying accounts and notes to the Financial Statements.

Personnel

Staff turnover again has been a point of concern. This year saw the departure of a number of key staff in the Aquatics department. The issue still seems to be that potential staff does not see this industry as a long-term career choice. We have been fortunate to attract more high calibre staff to replace these people. I wish to particularly mention Mr Matt McDonald our new Aquatics Manager, who has already raised the standard of staff performance in the Aquatics area.

The training of staff to a higher level of competency than the industry standard will be a focus over the next 12 months. The provision of great service and programmes remains a major priority.

The Future

Ripples will be refocussing its business activities, presenting to clients a ‘one stop shop’ for fitness, recreation, rehabilitation and wellness. Ripples has the strong advantage of having all the essential facilities under one roof. This feature will be used as an essential marketing feature to attract new business.

A new Strategic Plan has been drafted which will see a much more directed enterprise, developing strong product and marketing strategies going into the future.

Hydrotherapy income was expected to produce a breakeven result this financial year. Unfortunately changes to Workcover saw a dramatic drop in patrons being referred for hydrotherapy and thus income to our centre. More promotions work is being undertaken with local hospitals, doctors and physios to gain referral business. This will be part of a major marketing strategy this year.

The year ahead will see an Asset Management programme implemented in conjunction with Penrith City Council to assess and plan for the Centre’s future maintenance. This will be an important programme that will ensure that the facility is seen as being well presented at all times. We have already renewed the flooring in the foyer by replacing the old flooring with tiles. (First impressions count.)

Acknowledgements

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Board of Directors for their support guidance and encouragement during the year. I look forward to continuing this relationship in the year ahead.

Finally, to the staff, our greatest asset! I thank them for their support and hard work in what has been a tough year for all of us. With the continuing support of the Ripples Team we will meet the future challenges and see that Ripples remains ‘First in Fun Health and Fitness Everytime’.

Board of Directors

The Articles of Association of the company provide, in part, that:

1.   To provide continuity the members of the Board shall resign on a rotating basis.  At the First Annual General Meeting, three (3) Directors (including one (1) Councillor) shall resign.  At the Second Annual General Meeting, three (3) members shall resign (including one (1) Councillor).  Thereafter, the members of the Board, except the Council officer, shall resign after they have served on the Board for three (3) years after appointment or re-appointment to the Board.

2.   All retiring Directors shall be eligible for re-appointment.

Council should note that as per the Articles of Association, Councillor John Thain resigned at the Annual General Meeting of the Company held 18 October 2005 and nominated for re-appointment.  It was resolved at the Eleventh Annual General Meeting of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd that Penrith City Council be requested to endorse the appointment of Councillor John Thain as a continuing Director of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd.

Council’s Director of City Planning, Mr Craig Butler, remains on the Board as Council’s General Manager’s representative and Company secretary. 

Councillors Fowler and Thain were elected Chairman and Deputy Chairman respectively.

Financial Accountant - Entities comment

As mentioned by both the Chairman and the General Manager the Company operated in a very difficult financial environment over the past twelve months, Learn to Swim in particular and swimming in general has seen attendance numbers fall, whilst the activities of the refurbished Gym have been very positive.

The Company recorded an operating loss of $316,771, an improvement from 2003/04 ($418,946). This was achieved through an increase in revenue from ordinary activities of 2.9% and a reduction in operating expenses of 1% despite employee costs increasing by 3.2%. Council advanced the Company $100,000 and accumulated unpaid accounts, including repayments of the advance for the Hydrotherapy centre, of $505,721 during the year to assist the Company with its cash flow.

The operation of the Hydrotherapy Centre continues to be a significant drain upon the financial operation of the facility. The Board Chairman and General Manager have met with Council officers on a number of occasions to discuss the impact of the Hydrotherapy Centre on the overall operation of the company. A further report is being prepared for Council to consider concerning the options available for the operation of the Hydrotherapy Centre.

The Board has refocused its strategic plan to better target its marketing and service delivery programs to ensure improved performance next year and subsequently.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.   The information contained in the report on City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received.

2.   Councillor John Thain be appointed to fill the vacancy that occurred at the Eleventh Annual General Meeting of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd.

3.   Council agree to underwrite the operations of the City of Penrith Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd for 12 months to the end of June 2006.

4.   Council congratulate the Board of the City of Penrith Aquatic and Recreation Centre on their success and achievements over the 12 months to the end of June 2005.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting

14 November 2005

The City as a Social Place

 

 

The City as a Social Place

 

 

2

Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors    

2988/15

Compiled by:                Gary Dean - Facilities Operations Manager

Authorised by:             Steve Hackett - Director City Services  

Strategic Program Term Achievement: The City’s recreation and leisure facilities and services meet its needs and are optimally used.

Critical Action: Facilitate joint use of the City’s recreation and leisure facilities, including co-location of programs.

Purpose:

To provide details to Council following the seventh Annual General Meeting of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd.  The Chairman and the Stadium Manager will be making a brief presentation to this meeting.  The report recommends that the information be noted, that certain Directors be re-appointed and that Council underwrite the operations of the Company for a further period of 12 months.

 

Background

Each year following the Annual General Meeting of the Company a report is presented to Council on the year’s activities, including the financial position.  That Council report also includes the Chairman and Stadium Manager’s reports which are extracted from the Company’s Annual Report. 

 

Annual Report

 

The Seventh Annual General Meeting of the Company was held on 15 September 2005 for the period ended 30 June 2005.

 

The Chairman of the Board and Stadium Manager will be in attendance tonight to make a short presentation.  Following are their reports extracted from the Annual Report.

 

Chairman’s Report

 

It gives me much pleasure to present the Chairman’s Report to the Seventh Annual General Meeting of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited.

 

The operations for the year have produced a financial result that is particularly pleasing and very encouraging for the future of the company. We continue to witness an increase in patronage particularly in whitewater rafting as well as in canoeing based activities. Revenue for the year was $2,710,059 an increase on the previous year of 11%.  The financial outcome for the year ended 30 June 2005 resulted in a surplus before depreciation, amortisation and interest of $380,449, an increase of 23% on 2004.  The venue has also benefited by a capital expenditure of $329,105. 

 

The Stadium continued to contribute to the overall Penrith economy and to the advancement of the sport of canoe slalom both locally and internationally. This was boosted this year through the venue hosting the Canoe Freestyle World Championships in January. This event injected considerable funds into the local community as athletes, coaches and families visited from throughout the world. 

 

Penrith Whitewater Stadium continues to generate a great deal of publicity both nationally and internationally, adding to its reputation as one of the world’s premier sporting facilities.  Preparations for the 2005 World Canoe Slalom Championships and the response from international teams to this event again emphasises the outstanding quality of the stadium. Throughout the year the venue has successfully hosted both international and local competitions and has continued to attract a significant number of European athletes who see the stadium as their preferred off-season training venue. Penrith City Council’s original objective of delivering a world-class recreation facility, providing training and development initiatives to all levels of athletes, continues to be successfully met.

 

Throughout the year the Penrith Whitewater Staff have shown great dedication to the business and the Manager and his management team are to be congratulated for the efficient and effective operations of the business and the manner in which the services are delivered to the public at large. This underlying enthusiasm and commitment of staff is fundamental to venue’s success.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow directors for their continuing commitment and input to the operations of Penrith Whitewater Stadium.  I particularly thank Greg Davies, who retired from the Board of Directors at the end of this financial year, for his contributions to the success of the centre.

 

Finally I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the coach and members of the Australian Canoe Slalom Team on their successes throughout the year and wish them all the best as they prepare for the 2005 ICF World Canoe Slalom Championships to be conducted at Penrith Whitewater.

 

The Stadium Manager’s Report

 

2004 – 2005 has been the most successful year of trading for Penrith Whitewater since the company’s inception. Throughout the year the operating profit of the business increased significantly achieving an increase in total revenue of 16% and an increase in expenses of only 8%. All major segments of the business have performed extremely well throughout the year cementing the stadiums place as a world leader in the provision of artificial whitewater recreation activities and sport. The targeted growth of the business for the year was 5% and it is pleasing to note that this has been significantly exceeded.

The graph below shows the increase in Operating profit achieved on a monthly basis since July 2001

 

 

The following graphs show the increase in revenue received since July 2001 by months followed by the annual increase in total revenue 2001 – 2005

 

 

 


                                                                                            04

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rafting continues to be the major revenue source of the business and has continued to operate in an efficient manner with over 30,000 clients participating in the activity throughout the year This represents a 9% increase compared to 2003-2004. The rafting fleet was also improved with the purchase of 9 new rafts throughout the year replacing the oldest craft in the fleet.  The marketing campaign for commercial rafting remained strong and obviously effective using television and a wide range of print media. All promotional brochures were reviewed and enhanced during the year. During December the television advertising campaign focused on the purchase of Gift Certificates and this proved to be very successful. Gift Certificate sales in December 2003 compared to December 2004 increased by approximately 48%. 

 

Canoe / Kayak Instruction Programs have been well attended throughout the year. General instruction grew, in revenue terms, by approx 26% and in participation hours by 7%. However the big achiever was the Development Program which is aimed at school aged participants. This program, in terms of revenue grew by 64% and in terms of participation hours by 20%.  The Development program forms a major part of the Company’s community contribution as it continues to be provided “at cost” with no commercial gain to the company.

 

The success of the development program is also shown by the results achieved by its members. Of the four classes in competition the PWS squad has three paddlers ranked as the No 1 Junior in Australia. These three paddlers also represented at the Junior Pre World Championships. Then program has maintained its links with the Western Sydney Academy of Sport and through this we allow venue and water access to their 9 members which represents a total value of approx $20,000 per annum. The squads have also competed at the National Championships, National Schools Championships, State Championships and various regional events throughout the year.

 

Canoe/kayak competition is the other major focus of the venue and this year we were hosts to the International Freestyle Committees 2005 World Championships in January. This attracted over 192 athletes from 22 nations of the world. The event was deemed extremely successful by the International Freestyle Committee and Penrith Whitewater Management. This major event was televised in Australia as well as Great Britain, Other Europe, The US and New Zealand.

Other major events conducted throughout the past 12 months included:

NSW Canoeing Inc State Slalom Championships                                  - October 2004

 

Penrith Whitewater Freestyle Classic    

(Aust National Team Selection race)                                                     -    November 2004

 

Australian Canoeing National Canoe Slalom Championships      -    January 2005

 

The Australian Youth Olympic Festival                                                  -    January 2005

 

Penrith Whitewater International Slalom Series                          -    February 2005

 

The Energy Australia national Team selection Events                  -    March 2004

 

This year the Annual International Slalom Series attracted over 120 athletes from 12 different nations. The event has grown each year since its inception in 1999 and has cemented its place on the international canoeing calendar.

The Stadium has continued to support the National Canoe / Kayak Slalom Program in partnership with the Australian Institute of Sport, The New South Wales Institute of Sport and Australian Canoeing. The stadium has supplied over 400 hours of water for team training sessions. This represents a significant sponsorship of approx $100,000 in value.

Throughout 2003 – 2004 the Whitewater Terrace Café has continued to provide quality food and service to the clients of the venue. While profits are less than the previous year the dedication of the staff has remained high. 

The Company’s Charity Program has continued to operate with over 240 Gift Certificates being distributed throughout the local area and to the wider Metropolitan area for use by various charity organisations, schools, sporting associations and local fundraising campaigns.

All staff, both permanent and casual, has continued to work in a dedicated manner and have shown a real commitment to the business and its future. I take the opportunity of thanking them for their input and dedication. Our coordinators and supervisors all require special mention as these people continually work beyond the call of duty in order to keep the venue running smoothly and operating efficiently.

As we move into the third year of our current business plan it is pleasing to report on the company’s success in not only meeting but surpassing the targets set for most aspects of the business. We now look forward to ensuring that this year is as successful and that the business continues to grow to meet our expectations.

 


Board of Directors

 

The Articles of Association of the above company provide, in part, that:

 

1.   To provide continuity the members of the Board shall resign on a rotating basis.  At the First Annual General Meeting, three (3) Directors (including one (1) Councillor) shall resign.  At the Second Annual General Meeting, three (3) members shall resign (including one (1) Councillor).  Thereafter, the members of the Board, except the Council Officer, shall resign after they have served on the Board for three (3) years after appointment or re-appointment to the Board.     

2.   All retiring Directors shall be eligible for re-appointment.

 

Council should note that as per the Articles of Association Conrad Ozog and Deborah Waugh resigned at the Seventh Annual General Meeting of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd held on 15 September 2005 and nominated for reappointment.  It was resolved at the Seventh Annual General Meeting of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited that Penrith City Council be requested to endorse the appointment of Conrad Ozog and Deborah Waugh as Directors of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd.

 

Council’s Director of City Strategy, Mr Alan Stoneham is the General Manager’s representative and Company secretary.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler was reappointed Chairman and Helen Brownlee OAM, Deputy Chairman.

 

Financial Accountant - Entities comment

 

Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd has produced a greatly improved financial result for the 2004/05 financial year. The operation of the stadium generated its second consecutive profit result after financing depreciation, amortisation and interest. With profit from ordinary activities increasing in the 2004/05 year from $1,152 (2003/04) to $ 48,738.

 

This result was achieved by increasing key revenue areas such as rafting activities (9 %), Canoe / Kayak instruction program (26%) and development program (64 %), whilst limiting increases in operating expenses to 8%. This is an excellent result for the stadium and the board and management are to be congratulated on their achievement.

 

The board’s current business plan would appear to have placed the company on a stable financial base which should allow the company to move ahead over the next few years.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.  The information contained in the report on Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received

2.  Conrad Ozog and Deborah Waugh be appointed to fill vacancies that occurred at the Seventh Annual General Meeting of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd.

3.  Council agree to underwrite the operations of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd for 12 months to the end of June 2006.

4.  Council congratulate the Board of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd on their success and achievements over the 12 months to the end of June 2005.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK


The City In Its Environment

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

3        Domestic Waste Strategy 31/59                                                                                         15

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

14 November 2005

The City in its Environment

 

 

The City in its Environment

 

 

3

Domestic Waste Strategy    

31/59

Compiled by:                Geoff Brown - Waste Services Supervisor

Authorised by:             Barry Ryan - Waste and Community Protection Manager   

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Waste to landfill and indiscriminate dumping are significantly reduced and resource recovery is optimised.

Critical Action: Develop and progressively implement a waste strategy that complements the State Government’s Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy.

        

Purpose:

To present to Council the draft Domestic Waste Strategy.  The report recommends that Council adopts a strategy with staged implementation of source separated organic collections in conjunction with improved (co-mingled) recycling services and residual waste disposal and treatment.  The report also recommends that the Waste and Community Protection Manager be authorised to develop tender documents for the services and processes as outlined in this report and that a further report be presented to Council on the development of tender documents for new waste collection, disposal and treatment services.

 

Background

The Domestic Waste Working Party has been established to progress the development of a Domestic Waste Strategy for Penrith. 

 

At the Domestic Waste Working Party Meetings of 2 November 2005, 20 July 2005 & 12 May 2005, the following issues were considered:

 

·    The strategic direction other councils were considering in relation to domestic waste management services

 

·    The NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy

 

·    Waste treatment and recycling systems

 

·    The major factors influencing a Domestic Waste Management Strategy for Penrith

 

At these meetings it was stressed that a strategy for Penrith must embody a “keep it simple” principle wherein new services can be readily introduced and understood, achieve broad support across the community, meet Council’s high value standards and practices for service provision and resource recovery, and take fully into account the occupational health and safety and industrial relations issues that Council embraces for all its business activities.

 

Strategy Development

 

NSW Strategy

The NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy’s overall objective is to achieve 66% resource recovery by 2014.  A major key outcome of the Strategy is to increase recovery and use of secondary resources. 

The strategy also requires collection systems and processes that will recover products of higher resource value; for example, the collection and processing of food and garden organics will provide a higher resource value than the collection and processing of garden organics alone.

The State Strategy’s Draft Local Government Action Plan identifies two scenarios for local government to improve current resource recovery systems with the view of achieving the 66% recovery level by 2014.  The scenarios are:

By 2008:

·    Increased garden organics diversion

·    Increased collection of recyclables

·    Treat and process mixed residual waste

and

By 2014:

·    Collect food waste with garden waste

·    Further increase collection of recyclables

·    Increase the treatment and processing of residual waste

Councils may decide to implement service and collection systems comprising the above scenarios.  However, due to local or regional waste characteristics, councils may decide to adopt other ways to increase resource recovery.  This may include full alternative waste technology (AWT) processing, for example. 

Residual Waste Processing

Council’s current resource recovery practices for domestic waste are to provide kerbside recycling with the remaining residual component going to landfill.  This process comprises a two-bin garbage and recycling service, which has been in operation since 1997.  This service is currently achieving 19% resource recovery levels and is a simplistic service, which is easily understood and managed by the community.  However, changes need to be made if Council is to achieve the targets and objectives of the State Strategy.

During the period of the Western Sydney Waste Board all Western Sydney Councils were supporting the treatment and processing of waste using the two-bin system.  Any organics found in the garbage bins would be treated and processed for re-use.  On this basis Council supported a two-bin system in lieu of introducing a third bin for organics.

Not long after the demise of the Waste Boards and the introduction of Resource NSW, Waste Service NSW was developing a waste treatment facility (UR-3R) at Eastern Creek with a projected 85% resource recovery level.  It was considered at this time that this method of treatment would achieve Council’s objectives without the introduction of additional services.  Council officers were optimistic about delivering our domestic waste to this facility.

Since the commissioning of the UR-3R Waste Treatment Facility two Councils, Blacktown and Fairfield, have negotiated short and long-term contracts for delivery and treatment of domestic waste at this facility.  This plant is still being developed and refined in order to reach the projected outcomes. 

Recent advice from WSN Environmental Solutions (previously Waste Service NSW) is that the UR-3R resource recovery level is 75%.  Council needs to be confident if contemplating the use of this type of treatment technology that the process can deliver the environmental and resource recovery outcomes that satisfy the State Strategy. 


Organics

Garden and food organics comprise approximately 50% of the total domestic waste stream (30% and 20% respectively).  Alternative waste treatment facilities, such as the UR-3R at Eastern Creek, process organic waste that is collected in the domestic waste stream.  However, the resource recovered does not have as high a resource value as that obtained from a source separated organics collection and processing service.

The State Strategy has, in the short term, targeted garden organics as a resource recovery service and identifies the inclusion of food waste in the longer term to improve resource recovery outcomes.  This, however, is subject to market and technology development in the region.  The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) advised councils in 2003 to delay the introduction of garden organics collections, as there were insufficient markets for this resource.

The introduction of garden organics and food waste collections at different stages may create confusion and logistically becomes a problem, as the service frequency needs to be increased from fortnightly to weekly because of the food waste component. 

It is therefore considered that a full organics collection service (in lieu of a garden organic service) provides greater resource recovery levels at higher resource values and is logistically easier to implement.

As part of Council’s Waste Education program, community surveys are conducted in conjunction with promotional campaigns and also by random mail-out.  These surveys include general questions in regard to the garbage and recycling service and, in more recent times, a question relating to the provision of additional services, such as garden organics, has been included. In the last 12 months 1,911 surveys were completed and the results are as follows:

·    70.31 % of residents want a kerbside garden organics collection service

·    23.45 % of residents do not want a kerbside garden organics collection service

·    48.91 % of residents are prepared to pay an additional $50 pa for a garden organics service

·    7.00 % of residents are prepared to pay an additional $75 pa for a garden organics service

·    2.9 % of residents are prepared to pay an additional $100 pa for a garden organics service

·    5.29 % of residents are prepared to pay an additional $0 for a garden organics service

The Domestic Waste Working Party has considered the implementation of a garden organics service.  However, due to the lack of available markets for composted garden organics, ease of introduction of a full organics service (rather than a two-staged approach;  i.e., introduce a green waste then a food waste service) and the development of suitable processing technologies, the Working Party agreed to delay the implementation of this service.

Recycling

Details of ten other Western Sydney Councils’ services and service contracts were presented to the Domestic Waste Working Party meeting of 20 July 2005.  Of these ten Councils, five were providing fully co-mingled recycling services and three were considering a change from split to fully co-mingled and the remaining two Councils provided a crate system.  The change from split bin recycling to fully co-mingled recycling services has been brought about by a number of reasons.  These reasons are:

·    Improved Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) processing

·    Technology development to process and re-use broken glass and glass fines

·    Logistics in dealing with split bin recyclables and co-mingled recyclables at the MRF

·    Increased resource recovery as a result of the divider being removed

·    Increased productivity in collection

 

DEC commissioned a study into preferred resource recovery practices by local councils to develop a minimum best-practice standard for collection systems and resource recovery.  The study revealed that the preferred minimum service level for the collection of dry recyclables is either separate bins for paper/cardboard and containers or a fully co-mingled recycling bin. 

 

Council’s split-bin recycling service currently produces a resource recovery rate of approximately 19% of the total domestic waste stream.  This level of recycling has been constant since 1997, even though intensive educational and promotional activities have been conducted with the view of increasing output.  Audits of our domestic garbage service have revealed that there is still approximately 15% of recyclable material being disposed of at landfill.  The removal of the divider from the bin and the truck will create more space for the placement of recyclable material and create greater productivity levels. 

 

The Working Party has considered the introduction of a co-mingled recycling service and agreed that whilst it would require an additional educational campaign, resource recovery levels are expected to climb to at least 24%.  The Working Party also agreed that it might be more practical to introduce the co-mingled service prior to the commencement of new contracts in 2007.  A further report will be presented to Council on this issue in the near future.

 

The Department of Environment and Conservation commissioned studies on the life-cycle assessment of both kerbside collection of dry recyclables (paper/cardboard, plastics, glass, cans and cartons) and kerbside collection of source separate organics (food and garden waste).  Nolan ITU conducted both studies, taking into account environmental impacts of additional collection trucks, processing, transport, and avoided landfill emissions, and found that the introduction of both dry recycling and organics recycling collections offer significant improvements to the environment.

Penrith’s Draft Domestic Waste Strategy

A draft Penrith Domestic Waste Strategy (attached) has been developed, which considers two broad strategic directions.  These directions are:

1.         Alternative Waste Technology (AWT) processing of mixed residual waste maintaining current service levels with improved (co-mingled) recycling services.

2.         Source separated organics collection in conjunction with improved (co-mingled) recycling services with residual waste disposal/treatment.

There appears to be opportunity to provide a mix of the two strategic directions, if necessary, incorporating delayed implementation to take advantage of current landfill/treatment costs and to provide time for the development of markets and processing facilities for organic waste.

From these two broad strategic directions five service options have been considered, taking into account a staged implementation.  The staged approach considers:

 

·    Our current service level

·    The introduction of co-mingled recycling with residual to landfill

·    Co-mingled recycling with split (50/50) residual to landfill and AWT

·    The introduction of organics and residual to landfill

·    Organics and residual AWT processing

 

The benefits of a staged approach is that it will improve recycling services, take advantage of current lower-priced landfill costs, allow time for the development of markets and technology for organics processing, and enable closer assessment of AWT.

These options have been evaluated against the five strategy objectives (convenience, resource recovery targets, risk, competition, and health and safety) established by the Domestic Waste Working Party for comparative and evaluation purposes.

The use of AWT in conjunction with a co-mingled recycling service as Council’s approach in this strategy has potential.  However, it appears at this stage that alternative waste technology is not achieving the high resource recovery values and sustainability principles expected by Council and the NSW Resource Recovery Strategy.  Alternative waste technologies, however, are continuing to develop and, in the short term, are able to separate low-grade recyclables for processing, generate energy and produce low-grade compost.

The alternative approach to source separate organics, improve recycling and to process residual waste appears to be the option that provides the better outcome.  This option should satisfy Council’s Strategic Plan Term Achievement, Sustainable Penrith Action Plan and the State Government’s objectives to achieve resource recovery targets with a higher resource value.

 

Approach to Tendering

 

Based on the strategy and preferred option outlined in this report it is proposed to develop tender documents for the following:

 

Collection Services

 

·    Residual collections – contract term 10 years

·    Organic collections – contract term 7 years (delayed commencement)

·    Recycling collections – contract term 10 years

In line with the Strategy, it is proposed to continue the current level of service (including co-mingled recycling) for three years prior to the implementation of organic collections.  The purpose for this is to provide opportunity for the further development of technology and/or to allow treatment processes to establish in the region. 

Organics collection services, however, may not apply or be suitable for all residential properties in the City, rural and residential flat developments being typical examples.  Single dwellings and dual occupancies in the urban areas would comprise the bulk of premises for organics collection services.

Disposal/Treatment Services

 

·    Landfilling residual waste – contract term 3 + 3 + 4 years

·    AWT processing of residual waste - contract term 3 + 3 + 4 years

·    Organics composting/processing – contract term 7 years (delayed commencement)

·    Recycling resource processing – contract term 10 years

Advice provided to the working party by Paul Howlett is that as AWT and organics technology are still emerging, any move to these services should be delayed to allow for the technologies to be tested and proven.

Whilst tenders will be called for all of these options Council has the discretion to consider or reject any option.

Industrial Relations

In developing the specifications for new contracts, consideration will be given to maintaining existing employment conditions that apply to existing waste contractors’ staff, wherever possible.  Discussions will be held with peak industry bodies including the Transport Workers’ Union in this regard.

Sustainability

Council’s Sustainability Unit confirms that the Penrith Domestic Waste Strategy is aligned to the Sustainable Penrith Action Plan.  However, the Sustainability Units also recognises that the introduction of a full organics collection and processing service is the most sustainable outcome.

Summary

The NSW Strategy for Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery has a target of 66% of resource recovery from the total waste stream by 2014.  This is an over-arching target (including commercial, industrial, demolition and domestic waste).  The criteria for the measurement of resource recovery is currently being reviewed by DEC and the outcome of this review will be reported when the details become available. DEC has advised that resource recovery levels for recycling and organics is measured based on total tonnes of resources collected less the amount of contamination.  The resource recovery levels for AWT processing is measured based on the tonnes processed compared to the tonnes of material that go to landfill. 

There appears to be two fundamental questions to be answered;  namely, what percentage of resource recovery do we want to achieve with Penrith’s domestic waste and what value is placed on the recovered resources.  These two parameters will influence the options to be taken in the collection and disposal of domestic waste and the cost of implementing such systems.

The collection and treatment of domestic waste is seen as a key sustainability issue for the City. Council’s Strategic Plan identifies, as a Term Achievement, that waste to landfill is significantly reduced and resource recovery is being optimised.

The proposed Domestic Waste Strategy will provide sustainable outcomes for the City in a staged approach that should meet the objectives including convenience, resource recovery targets, risk management, benefits from competition, and maintaining health and safety.

To meet the identified objectives and achieve high sustainability outcomes, the staged approach with the longer term introduction of organics collection and use of AWT processing for residual waste is seen as the preferred option.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Domestic Waste Strategy be received

2.     Council adopts the draft Domestic Waste Management Strategy identified in this report

3.     The Waste and Community Protection Manager be authorised to develop tender documents for the services and processes as outlined in this report

4.     A further report be presented to Council on the development of tender documents for new waste collection, disposal and treatment services.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Draft Domestic Waste Strategy

29 Pages

 Attachment

  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK


Leadership and Organisation

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

4        Service Specification Program 36/35                                                                                  25

 

5        Westpool Activities  6011/38                                                                                             28

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting

14 November 2005

Leadership and Organisation

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

 

4

Service Specification Program    

36/35

Compiled by:                Eric Shen - Service Specification Officer

Authorised by:             Ross Kingsley - Corporate Development Manager  

Strategic Program Term Achievement: Services and programs that Council provides are determined based on equity, customer requirements, community benefits and best value.

Critical Action: All services are provided to adopted service levels.

        

Purpose:

To provide Council with the draft Service Specifications for the following Services for its consideration - City Partnerships; City Marketing; Neighbourhood Facilities Management; Community Safety. The report recommends that these service specifications be adopted.

Given the size of these documents, copies have been provided separately to Councillors. Additional copies of any of these documents can be obtained on request.

 

Background

Council established the Service Specification Program in 2002-03 in order to:

 

1.   Comprehensively analyse and document all services and the present level of service provided (stage 1 of the Program)

 

2.   Enable Council in a fully informed manner to review and where appropriate adjust service levels to better meet the needs of the community and align to Council’s strategy (stage 2).

 

Documentation of Council’s 80 external and internal services is a major exercise with significant benefits to the efficient and effective management of the organisation. The program has seen the formal adoption to date of 28 Service Specifications with an additional 4 specifications presented tonight for Councils consideration. A large body of specifications is approaching completion and will be progressively reported to Council in the new year.

 

Stage 2 of the program, that is  review and adjustment of service levels has already been undertaken by Council in selected key areas. Particularly notable has been the review of the Parks Maintenance service, leading to a major enhancement of the service level in this area introduced from 2005-06. A more comprehensive review of service levels has commenced in conjunction with management’s further assessment of the requirements of Council’s new Strategic Program. This will be discussed in detail with Council early in the new year, as part of preparations for the next Management Plan.

 

 

Assessment of Draft Service Specifications

The four draft Service Specifications presented tonight for Council’s consideration are:

·    City Partnerships  (Economic Development and City Marketing Manager)

·    City Marketing  (Economic Development and City Marketing Manager)

·    Neighbourhood Facilities Management  (Facilities Operations Manager)

·    Community Safety – (Asset Manager)

 

Prior to their reporting to Council, all draft specifications undergo a rigorous process of validation and assessment, leading to approval by the Corporate Management Team. The aim is to ensure that each specification accurately communicates the existing levels of service and activities that the service provides in terms of quantity, quality and cost to Council.  Once adopted by Council the specification will be used as the basis for testing service performance and for service review, including any changes to services levels, calls for additional resourcing or for changes in priority setting within an existing service.

As previously determined by Council, all completed draft service specifications are reported to its Policy Review Committee for consideration and adoption. Where additional information or further consideration is required, resulting in a specification not being adopted at that meeting, the relevant specification would be referred to the Services Review Working Party. This working party would be scheduled to meet every quarter or as required. Recommendations from the Services Review Working Party would then be reported to the next Ordinary or Policy Review Committee meeting for adoption.

Summary of Key Information

Service Specifications are very detailed documents. By policy, full documentation is provided under separate cover to all Councillors and is available to the public on request. To assist in Council’s consideration of the draft specifications submitted tonight, executive summaries of the four service specifications are provided in the appendices to this report.

 

These summaries contain :-

·          Service Description

·          Service Objectives

·          Scope of Service

·          Key Statistics

·          Key Performance Indicators

·          Service Funding

·          Service Summary Chart

 

Please note that while all information in the draft specifications is current, in the case of Neighbourhood Facilities Management, 2004-05 budget figures are utilised, as this service is a significant income area, where the most recent year’s actual results are the most meaningful to present in the specification.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Service Specification Program be received

2.     The specification for the City Partnerships service be adopted

3.     The specification for the City Marketing service be adopted

4.     The specification for the Neighbourhood Facilities Management service be adopted

5.     The specification for the Community Safety service be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Service Specifications Executive Summaries

10 Pages

 Attachment

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting

14 November 2005

Leadership and Organisation

 

 

Leadership and Organisation

 

 

5

Westpool Activities    

 6011/38

Compiled by:                Ken Muir - Risk Management Co-ordinator

Authorised by:             Barry Husking - Chief Financial Officer  

Strategic Program Term Achievement: A contemporary system of risk management and internal control is operating.

Critical Action: Develop and implement an enterprise risk management policy and plan including integrated risk management, compliance and internal control systems that identify, assess, monitor and manage risks throughout the organisation.

        

Purpose:

To provide Council with an update on the activities and financial health of Westpool.  The report recommends that the information be received.

 

Background

Westpool provides:

·    Insurance coverage for public and professional indemnity liability

·    Comprehensive motor vehicle insurance cover

·    A forum for the management of insurance claims

·    A forum for the exchange of best practice for prevention and minimisation of risk

·    Training for member councils to help minimise risk

·    A platform to pursue legislative change.

 

Council is represented at Westpool by:

·    Councillor Ross Fowler; re-elected, at the recent AGM, as Chairman for the twelfth       consecutive time.

·    Alan Travers; Representative to the Board

·    Barry Husking; Strategic Planning Committee

·    Vicki O’Kelly; Finance Committee

·    Ken Muir; Management Committee.

Current Situation

Westpool has released its annual report for 2004/2005 and a copy has been circulated to Councillors with this Business paper. This year’s report outlines the achievements of Westpool and explains that the financial performance of the Pool is strong within an environment where claim numbers and costs are reducing. 

Liability Cover

Over the past 2 years Westpool has applied a rigid financial strategy, which has ensured that all liabilities are funded with a prudential margin of 20% and the Pool now has a healthy surplus of approximately $1M.

The Civil Liability Act and good claims management has resulted in a reduction in claims costs placing less burden on Pool funds.

Less claims payments has had the positive affect of increasing Westpool’s investment funds and along with a sound financial and investment strategy has lead to a $580,000 increase in investment income over the last 12 months.

The cost of professional indemnity/public liability insurance for 2004/05 was 8% lower than 2003 terms. In October 2005 members of Westpool and MetroPool attempted to negotiate a three year term of cover with the London underwriters. Multi year terms could not be negotiated because of external market pressures but the performance by both pools in managing liability was recognised in the form of a further reduction in premium.

 

Industrial Special Risk (Property cover)

In June, 2003 Westpool Members paid approximately $1.9M for their property insurance and it was expected premiums were due to rise 10%.  A major review was undertaken and the Property Pool established.  Westpool is now into the third year of the Property Pool and Members are insuring properties with a combined asset value 20% greater than 2003.  The insurance coverage is vastly improved with the added bonus of the engineering expertise of FM Global.  All this has been achieved at a reduced cost and there is a small surplus within the Pool.

Westpool was able to use its experience  as an ISR Pool to encourage MetroPool to contemplate a combined pool cover under the banner of United Independent Pools. As a  result, the current terms have been guaranteed for a three year period, which in light of recent worldwide losses, is a prudent decision.

Motor Vehicle Insurance Cover

Westpool continues to facilitate bulk comprehensive motor vehicle cover resulting in financial savings for its members. In October terms of cover were renewed in the marketplace resulting in a reduced premium. Council, in recognition of its positive performance, will receive a rebate from the 2004/05 premium and a reduced premium for 2005/2006.

Other Insurance Cover

The Pool has increased the package of funded insurances during the past two years to include:

·    $3M Directors & Officers Cover

·    Fidelity Guarantee

·    Corporate Travel

·    Semi Volunteers Cover

·    Personal Accident Insurance.

In the past these insurances came as an additional cost to Members but are now part of the Westpool cover.

Westpool Training Program

Westpool provided a forum for information exchange on the liabilities associated with tree management and best practice risk management as exemplified by the risk management award entries from Westpool and MetroPool in 2004.

Westpool supported participation in the Risk Management Institution of Australasia

(RMIA) national conference in Hobart  and continues to encourage professional development and networking through the NSW RMIA seminars.

 

Risk Management Award

Westpool conducts a competition to encourage and recognize initiatives in risk management. In 2004 a combined MetroPool Westpool risk management award was introduced to further encourage risk management and exchange of ideas. Members submit entries to be judged by an external expert panel and the winner is announced at the Westpool Annual General Meeting.

Penrith City Council based its entry on the implementation of Tree Inspection and Assessment Procedures that is leading to the development of a tree replacement strategy. Council was declared the winner of the Westpool Local Government Risk Management Excellence Award for 2005 and the Joint Local Government Pools (Westpool & MetroPool) Risk Management Award.

Conclusion

In conclusion, through the efforts of all involved, Westpool is operating smoothly and is now in a strong position to market its services to other Members if the opportunities arise.  Claims have levelled out at a more manageable level allowing the Members to place more emphasis on risk management strategies and implementing Enterprise Risk Management

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Westpool Activities be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Westpool 2004-2005 Annual Report

61 Pages

 Attachment

  


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:          Monday 14 November 2005

Master Program:          The City in its Environment

Issue:                            Sustainable Resource Management

Report Title:                Domestic Waste Strategy

Attachments:                Draft Domestic Waste Strategy



Policy Review Committee Meeting

14 November 2005

Attachment 1 - Draft Domestic Waste Strategy

 

 

 

 

 

Penrith City Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOMESTIC WASTE STRATEGY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wright Corporate Strategy

 

November 2005


Contents

 

 

1.         Executive Summary

 

 

2.         Current Situation and Council Objectives

2.1       Current Waste Services

2.2       Waste Reduction Agenda

2.3       Waste Industry Fluidity

2.4       Priorities and Objectives

 

3.         Strategic Directions for Council

3.1       Broad Directions

3.2       Exclusivity of Strategic Directions

3.3       Timing for Implementation

 

4.         Options for Consideration

4.1       Discounting Options

4.2       Options for Analysis and Modelling

4.3       Statistics for the Options

4.4       Option Performance and Assessment

4.5       Summary of Option Outcomes

4.6       Moving Forward

 

Attachments     1          Commentary on Alternative Waste Technologies

 

                        2          Comparative Review of AWT Options

 


1.         Executive Summary

 

Penrith City Council is positioned to make significant changes to the waste management and resource recovery services that it provides to the community.  Current service contracts are due to mature and expire within the next two years and technologies are emerging involving processing of wastes that can move the community forward on a journey of improved resource recovery, in line with broad state objectives.

 

Council determined to establish a Waste Management and Resource Recovery Strategy as the guiding framework for introducing changes in the way wastes are managed.  Development of that strategy was placed in the hands of Council’s Waste Strategy Working Party who insisted on simplicity and the need for high levels of community participation and acceptance.  To inform the process, the Working Party:

(a)        established objectives that the strategy must meet,

(b)        set the broad strategic direction that should be pursued, and

(c)        identified pathways forward that would not meet Council or community expectations.

 

The five objectives that the Working Group established were:

 

(a)     Convenience

Systems and practices that are convenient for the community to use and understand, so that the educative message is simple and clear, high levels of participation can be attained, and low contamination will be observed.

(b)     Recovery Targets

Systems and practices capable of achieving high levels of resource recovery and move Penrith forward in delivering on State targets at a pace that is consistent with the evolving markets.

(c)     Risk Exposure

Systems and practices that place technology and operating risks with service providers and provide Council with a high level of surety in service supply.

(d)     Competition

Systems and practices that maximise potential for Council to derive value for money through competitive tenders and market competition.

(e)     Health & Safety

Systems and practices that maintain high levels of public health expected by the community and maintain Council’s standards for OH&S and work practices.

 

 

These objectives would then be used to evaluate and assess options that may be put forward.

 

Under this broad guidance of objectives, strategic directions and pathways that would be unlikely to meet expectations, five options were developed and analysed:

 

Option 1 – Current – the status quo situation that represents the level of services and waste diversion that is achieved at present.  This option would be used to make relative choices between competing options.

 

Option 2 – New Recycle – this option involves changing the current kerbside recycling system from a split bin configuration to a fully co-mingled arrangement.

 

Option 3 – Disposal Choice – this option sees Council looking for financial advantage in the short term from the competition in the market for waste disposal to landfill.  Council can selectively despatch some residual waste to alternative waste technology processing, some to conventional landfill and some to bioreactor landfill in parcels that deliver on both the resource recovery objective and the competitive market situation.

 

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill – in this option, Council would introduce a full source separated organics collection and processing system involving both garden and food organics.

 

Option 5 – Organics & AWT – in this final option, Council will be seeking to extract additional recoverable resources from the residual waste stream that has been depleted of organics in Option 4 by processing the residual waste fraction.

 

The service arrangements for these five options are set out at Table 1-1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1-1    Five Options

 

Option

Recyclables

Organics

Residual

Option 1 – Current

Split 240 L MGB fortnightly

-

240 L MGB weekly to landfill

Option 2 – New Recycle

Co-mingled 240 L MGB fortnightly

-

240 L MGB weekly to landfill

Option 3 – Disposal Choice

Co-mingled 240 L MGB fortnightly

-

240 L MGB weekly to landfill & AWT

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill

Co-mingled 240 L MGB fortnightly

Green + Food 140 or 240 L MGB weekly

140 L MGB fortnightly to landfill

Option 5 – Organics & AWT

Co-mingled 240 L MGB fortnightly

Green + Food 140 or 240 L MGB weekly

140 L MGB fortnightly to AWT

 

The five options were analysed and modelled in terms of resource recovery achieved, cost to the community and delivery on the key objective areas established by the Working Group.  Table 1-2 sets out the relative resource recovery achievements and costs to the community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1-2    Option Performance on Resource Recovery and Cost

 

 

Option 1 - Current

Option 2 – New Recycle

Option 3 – Disposal Choice

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill

Option 5 – Organics & AWT

Gross Resource Recovery

19%

24%

63%[1]

57%[2]

100%

Net Resource Recovery

18%

23%

44%

51%

68%

Additional Cost per Household p.a. (relative to Option 1)

-

($3.00)[3]
(savings)

$3.00

$52.00

$54.00

 

 

Following numerical modelling, each option was assessed against the five objective areas to determine how the options were likely to deliver on Council and community expectations.  Subjective assessments were made and options were scored on a scale of 1 to 10 on how well the option met the objective area.

 

In establishing the objective areas, the Working Group determined that all should have equal weighting or ranking, and therefore a simple arithmetical average was used to develop composite ranking for the options.  The results of that analysis are presented at Table 1-3.

 

During the course of its task the Waste Strategy Working Group was seeking a way forward that would represent simple and easy to implement stepped improvements in resource recovery performance that would bring the community along with Councils strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1-3    Summary of Option Assessments

 

 

Option 1 – Current

Option 2 – New Recycle

Option 3 – Disposal Choice

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill

Option 5 – Organics & AWT

Convenience

4

6

6

5

5

Recovery Targets

3

4

5[4]

9[5]

9

Technology Risk

6

6

6

8

7

Competition

9

10

8

6

6

Health & Safety

8

8

7

7

5

Composite

6.0

6.8

6.4

7.0

6.4

 

In analysing the options that were put forward, it is informative to note that the five options analysed and modelled do not have to be seen as a set of five competing alternative options.  Rather, it is feasible to look upon them as a sequence of staged introductions of improved services leading towards higher levels of resource recovery.  On this basis, Council’s determination is less involved with “which option” as opposed to “how far” along the path of continuous improvement Council wishes to proceed.

 

Using this approach, Council can then review the status of current collection and disposal contracts and set in train a sequence of changes that progressively leads Council and the community to that goal.


2.         Current Situation and Council Objectives

 

 

2.1       Current Waste Services

 

Penrith City Council currently delivers waste disposal and kerbside recycling services to the community through services contracted out to a private sector service provider.

 

Table 2-1 sets out key statistical data for the Penrith LGA and the quantities of waste managed by Council on behalf of the community based on current Council records and the June 2004 ABS population data.

 

 

Table 2-1    Key Statistical Data for Penrith LGA

 

Population

177,554

Dwellings

58,979

 - separate houses

81%

 - semi detached townhouses

7%

 - flats/units

6%

 - other dwellings

6%

Total discards collected p.a. - residual waste

57,210

 - recyclables

13,839

 - bulky waste

2,600

Discards per person p.a.

0.415 tpa

Discards per property p.a.

1.249 tpa

 

 

The discards generated at each household are managed by Council on behalf of the community as follows:

-     residual wastes are collected weekly and hauled to landfill for disposal;

-     source separated recyclables are collected separately on a fortnightly basis and despatched to a materials recovery facility in the region where valuable resources can be recovered; and

-     bulky waste is collected periodically and disposed of at non-putrescible landfills.

 

Table 2-2 sets out the service arrangements that are currently in place.

 

 

Table  2-2   Current Service Arrangements

 

Service

Current Service Delivery Arrangements

Contract Expiry

Fate of Materials

Comments

Residual Waste

Weekly 240 litre MGB

Jun 06

Collection and disposal at Eastern Creek

·      Contract to be extended in 12-months optional increments to align with recyclables

·      Next contract could split collection and disposal/processing

Recyclables

Fortnightly 240 litre split MGB

Oct 07

Collection and processing at Visy MRF Blacktown

·      Next contract could split collection and processing

Bulky Waste

On call, limit of 4 p.a., kerbside set-out

n.a.

Collection and disposal at non Class 1 landfills

·      Next contract could look for resource recovery and inert landfill disposal

Garden Waste

None

n.a.

n.a.

·      Trial run in mid 1990’s with mixed results

 

 

 

2.2       Waste Reduction Agenda

 

Council is acutely aware of community interest in improving the environment and recognise that waste is a key area where the community can make a direct and significant contribution.

 

In addition, Council is desirous on making significant steps towards achieving the State Government targets for resource recovery of 66% by the year 2014.

 

In respect of this resource recovery target, Council currently delivers some 13,839 tonnes per annum from kerbside recycling, representing approximately a 19 percent diversion achievement.  To achieve resource recovery in line with the State Government’s target of 66%, a further 34,800 tonnes will need to be removed from the waste stream and diverted for beneficial processing.

 

In order to move forward on additional resource recovery Council has embarked on an initiative to develop a Waste Management and Resource Recovery Strategy that can guide Council decisions in both the short and medium term in respect of the services that it might introduce and the nature of the contracts that Council might tender out for delivery of those services.  This document outlines the foundation for that Strategy.

 

 

2.3       Waste Industry Fluidity

 

The current waste disposal and resource recovery markets are quite dynamic and present multiple alternative options for directions in which Council may move.  And there is every likelihood that this fluidity in market conditions may pertain for some years to come as waste processing technologies mature and markets for recovered resources evolve and stabilise.

 

In the first instance there is serious competition for waste destined for landfill disposal in the Sydney market.  This has resulted in current disposal prices being offered to Councils that are well below the long-run sustainable cost for landfill-based disposal.  In the short to medium term, Council is well positioned to look at this competitive situation and question how Council and the community might financially benefit from this competitive situation, while still following a strategy leading to resource recovery and achievement of the State target.

 

On another front, there is growing interest from various providers to introduce options for processing wastes, both source separated streamed wastes and mixed residual wastes.  These technologies, generically known by the acronym AWT, for Alternative Waste Technologies, are at various stages of development and implementation.  For example, processing of dry kerbside collectables and garden waste are well recognised and are widely applied across the country; while processing of mixed residual waste is operational at a limited number of sites in three states.  Processing of mixed residual waste would best be described as problematic at this stage of its implementation and remains to go through a maturing phase.  At Attachment 1 a number of tables present various aspects of the competing AWT systems currently on the market and expected to emerge in the near future.

 

Both of these dynamic issues provide Council with both technology and timing options when developing a strategy for waste management.

 

To this end, Council is seeking a strategy that delivers high on the resource recovery expectations, and levels of flexibility without placing Council at unwarranted risk.

 

 

2.4       Priorities and Objectives

 

To inform the process of developing the strategy, Council’s Waste Strategy Working Party stressed the desire for a strategy that embodies the “keep it simple” principle, with particular reference to the imposition on the community.  Council is seeking a waste management strategy that can be readily introduced and understood and will achieve broad supported across the diversity of the Penrith LGA.

 

In addition, the Working Party took the view that the strategy should involve waste management and resource recovery systems and practices that meet Council’s high value standards, and take fully into account the strong position on issues of occupational health and safety and industrial relations that Council holds for all of Council’s business and facilities.

 

The Working Party considered a range of issues that can be displayed in two dimensions – namely,

(a)  the commonly accepted sustainable development areas of social, environmental and financial impact, and

(b) the relative importance that Council places on the issues on a three-level scale of high, medium, and low.

 

Table 2-3 sets out this two dimensional arrangement of issues for Council.

 

 

Table 2-3    Priority and Sustainability

 

 

Social

Environmental

Financial

High

-    Education and understanding

-    Convenience to achieve good community participation

-    OH&S and IR implications that are consistent with Council practice

-    Convenience to reduce contamination

-    Achieving high levels of resource recovery

-    Maintaining public health objectives and standards

-    Minimising technology and operating risks post collection

-    Seeking maximum benefit from competitive markets

-    Maintaining certainty of supply

Medium

-    Impact on local amenity

-    Delivering on the community’s expectations in waste management

-    Reducing vehicle movements to minimise emissions

-    Speed in moving towards State targets

-    Cost impact on waste services charge

-    Value in the products recovered from processing operations

Low

-    Enforcement systems to achieve compliance

-    Minimising incentive for illegal dumping

 

 

 

Based on this tabulation of key issues that are important to Council, the Working Party established a set of objectives that would form the guiding basis for Council when making relative decisions between competing options that might form part of the preferred strategy.

 

Table 2-4 sets out the summary objectives and explains each in terms of what Council seeks to deliver in that objective area.

 

 

Table 2-4    Objectives in a Waste Strategy

 

Objective

Explanation

(f)      Convenience

Systems and practices that are convenient for the community to use and understand, so that the educative message is simple and clear, high levels of participation can be attained, and low contamination will be observed.

(g)     Recovery Targets

Systems and practices capable of achieving high levels of resource recovery and move Penrith forward in delivering on State targets at a pace that is consistent with the evolving markets.

(h)     Risk Exposure

Systems and practices that place technology and operating risks with service providers and provide Council with a high level of surety in service supply.

(i)      Competition

Systems and practices that maximise potential for Council to derive value for money through competitive tenders and market competition.

(j)      Health & Safety

Systems and practices that maintain high levels of public health expected by the community and maintain Council’s standards for OH&S and work practices.

 

 

As mentioned above, in the current fluid market Council will be faced with alternatives that might be included in the strategy in terms of technology opportunities, competitive market opportunities and timing opportunities.  If required, these objectives can then be used as the basis for making relative decisions between competing alternatives.
3.         Strategic Directions for Council

 

 

3.1       Broad Directions

 

Two broad strategic directions are available for substantially improved resource recovery beyond the current kerbside recycling system, these are:

a)   all mixed residual waste to be processed at an AWT facility, inclusive of organics, and

b)   introduction of a separate collection and processing route for organic wastes, and AWT processing of the organics-depleted mixed residual waste.

 

The first broad strategic direction introduces AWT facilities to process mixed residual waste and recover various valuable fractions.  Typically these technologies target the hard recyclables (glass, metals and plastics) and the organic fractions (food, garden waste, paper and timber) to extract marketable products that include energy and soil condition-enhancing materials.

 

In the second broad strategic direction a high level of reliance is placed on the community to diligently separate recoverable materials at the household, such as recyclables, garden and food waste.  The community would be required to place the separated resources in dedicated containers in a clean and uncontaminated form.  These source-separated materials would then be separately collected and transported to dedicated processing facilities for streamed resources.

 

The two broad strategic directions are described at Table 3-1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3-1    Two Broad Strategic Directions

 

Strategic Direction

Description

Implications

1.     AWT processing of mixed residual waste

-     continuation of existing fortnightly recycling service with 240 litre bin,

-     continuation of existing weekly services for residual waste with a 240 litre MGB,

-     diversion of collected residual waste to AWT facilities in lieu of landfill disposal.

This option allows for:

·      short-term capture of immediate price benefits in the landfill disposal market,

·      flexibility in timing the introduction of improved resource recovery through mixed residual waste AWT,

·      minimum demand on households for source separation and bin/container management,

·      tolerance for contamination and non-compliance.

2.     AWT processing of source-separated organic waste

-     continuation of existing fortnightly recycling service with 240 litre bin,

-     introduction of a weekly service for source separated organic waste with a 240 litre MGB,

-     fortnightly service for residual waste but with a reduction in the size of the bin to 140 litres per week.

This option allows for:

·      staged introduction of improved resource recovery,

·      committing to proven technologies and systems for early initiatives,

·      future addition of source-separated food waste to the organics MGB and collection on a weekly basis,

·      a reduction on the service frequency for residual waste to fortnightly,

·      AWT processing of organic-depleted residual waste.

 

 

3.2       Exclusivity of Strategic Directions

 

A mix of these strategic directions may be possible based on demographics and expected performance outcomes for different sections of the community – i.e. they are not mutually exclusive across the whole of the LGA.

 

However, once the direction for full mixed residual waste processing by AWT is selected for part or all of the LGA, subsequent separate collection and processing of organic waste would be unlikely in that area, as the mixed waste AWT contract would most likely include obligatory inclusion of organic materials (garden and food waste) to the processing facility.  Alternatively the AWT contract might impose a financial penalty if the organics are removed.

 

Converse to this, if the source separation and separate collection of organic waste is the preferred direction, it is possible that new emerging AWT technologies might mature that cater for processing of mixed residual waste that is depleted of organic fractions.  This would allow for an initial choice to be made in favour of organic waste services, followed at a later date by AWT processing of the organic-depleted residual fraction.

 

 

3.3       Timing for Implementation

 

Timing for the introduction of initiatives for the strategy is another critical issue for Council.  Initially Council is keen to consider the emerging completion of existing contract arrangements for residual waste and kerbside recyclables, and then to consider the implications of introducing new initiatives during the course of the new contracts.

 

A choice of timing will be available to Council with either of the above broad strategic directions.  Some of the issues involved are set out and discussed at Tables 3-2 and 3-3.

 

 

 

Table 3-2    Timing Issues – Full AWT Processing of Residual Waste

 

 

Comments

Positives

Negatives

Immediate implementation of strategic direction 1

(Full AWT processing of residual waste)

-     Can be independent of current contract for residual waste

-     Can be incorporated/linked in with future contract for collection of residual waste

-     Council would make a major step forward in delivering on resource recovery targets

-     No added cost of introducing garden waste collections as all organics would remain in the mixed residual waste stream

-     Council must be confident in the capability of the technology to deliver on resource recovery expectations

-     Limited choices are available today in metropolitan Sydney which will restrict options for competitive tenders

Delayed implementation of strategic direction 1

(Full AWT processing of residual waste)

-     No changes within current contract for residual waste

-     Next contract for residual waste can be split, separating collection from disposal and retaining flexibility on disposal options

-     Short-term competitive market conditions could deliver financial benefits to Council

-     As more AWT choices become available, competition increases and potential diversion rates may increase

-     Community may become impatient for change to higher levels of resource recovery

-     Council likely to be pressured by State Government to speed up introduction of resource recovery initiatives

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3-3    Timing Issues – Source Separated Wastes

 

 

Comments

Positives

Negatives

Immediate implementation of strategic direction 2

(AWT processing of source separated garden and food organics)

-     Can be independent of current contract for residual waste

-     Service would be weekly with a 140 or 240 litre MGB

-     Residual waste service would become fortnightly with a 140 or 240 litre MGB

-     Increases community participation in source separation and resource recovery

-     An immediate move forward in resource recovery

-     Source separated materials will deliver higher yields in terms of quantity and quality of products from AWT plant

-     Savings in reduced residual waste volumes collected will not be reflected during the term of the current collection contract

-     Introduction of a three-bin system

Delayed implementation of strategic direction 2

(AWT processing of source separated garden and food organics)

-     Can be integrated with next contract for residual waste collection

-     Delay could be timed to suit full organics (green and food) service

-     Council will see savings in residual waste contract for reduced waste volumes

-     Community may become impatient for change to higher levels of resource recovery

-     Council likely to be pressured by State Government to speed up introduction of resource recovery initiatives


4.         Options for Consideration

 

 

4.1       Discounting Options

 

The Waste Strategy Working Group of Council has been very instrumental in identifying the types of options that Council might be inclined to pursue, and in determining the objectives that the options must meet if Council and the community are to be satisfied with the outcome.

 

During the course of discussions and reviews of the various options available to Council a number of “apparently obvious” options were discounted, and a limited set of likely acceptable options put forward for modelling and analysis.  This process of discounting possible options is as important as that of determining which options might be further developed for review and analysis.  Three of the options that were discounted from further consideration are set out at Table 4-1

 

 

Table 4-1    Options Discounted

 

Option

Comments

On-Going Landfill

-     It was the view of the Working Group that the status quo situation would not be acceptable either to Council or the community, and would certainly not progress the Council forward in terms of the State resource recovery objectives.

-     The status quo position was only included in the option assessment that follows to provide a “base case” against which proposed options could be compared.

Single Bin AWT

-     This was not considered to represent good resource recovery practice and is not consistent with current State Government objectives.

Garden Service

-     This was considered to be an intermediate and undesirable option between the status quo and a full organics service.

 

4.2       Options for Analysis and Modelling

 

From the deliberations of the Working Group, five possible options have been identified that embody a mix of the opportunities that are presented to Council in terms of market competition, completion of existing contracts, timing possibilities and emerging technologies.  These are:

 

Option 1 – Current – the status quo situation that represents the level of services and waste diversion that is achieved at present.  This option could be continued if Council determined not to make any significant changes to the current arrangements.  This option also provides a benchmark against which relative delivery on the objectives that Council determined would be used to make relative choices between competing options.

 

Option 2 – New Recycle – this option involves changing the current kerbside recycling system from a split bin configuration to a fully co-mingled arrangement.  The fully co-mingled system is currently considered to deliver superior results than that for the split bin, particularly in terms of community participation, maintenance of glass integrity in collection vehicles and in the productivity achieved in collection vehicles.  In addition, with the current arrangements for receiving and processing recyclables at MRFs (material recovery facilities), there appears to be no enduring advantage in terms of sorting cost or sorting efficiency by maintaining the split bin arrangement.

 

Option 3 – Disposal Choice – this option sees the new recycling introduced in Option 2 continued and Council looking for financial advantage in the short term from the competition in the market for waste disposal to landfill.  Council can selectively despatch some residual waste to AWT processing, some to conventional landfill and some to bioreactor landfill in parcels that deliver on both the resource recovery objective and the competitive market situation.  This option would allow Council to “test the waters” with mixed waste AWT processing, without exposing Council to the full risk of adopting this technology in its early days of development and proof.

 

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill – in this option, the new recycling introduced in Option 2 continued and Council would introduce a full source separated organics collection and processing system involving both garden and food organics.  The processing technology is reasonable well-defined and practiced elsewhere and markets are available for the high quality products that can be manufactured.  The organic-depleted mixed residual waste would be despatched to landfill at the best possible gate price.

 

Option 5 – Organics & AWT – in this final option, the new recycling introduced in Option 2 is continued along with the source separated organics collection of Option 4.  Beyond this, Council will be seeking to extract additional recoverable resources from the residual waste stream that has been depleted of organics through the separate collection of garden and food wastes.  Development of these systems is still to be demonstrated and this option would appear to be one for future years once the technology is proven.

 

In reviewing these five options it is informative to note that rather than representing competing options, it is possible to view them as a strategic sequence of successive options, and Council decision-making will therefore involve determining at what stage optimum value is delivered to Council against the earlier established objectives.

 

The collection ramifications, residual waste management and timing possibilities for these five options are set out at Table 4-2.

 


 

Table 4-2    Options Considered

 

Option

Recyclables

Organics

Residual

Equivalent Bin Capacity

Possible Timing

Option 1 – Current

Split 240 L MGB

Fortnightly

-

240 L MGB

Weekly

Landfill

360 litres per h/hold per week

Current

Option 2 – New Recycle

Co-mingled 240 L MGB

Fortnightly

-

240 L MGB

Weekly

Landfill

360 litres per h/hold per week

Immediate

Option 3 – Disposal Choice

Co-mingled 240 L MGB

Fortnightly

-

240 L MGB

Weekly

Landfill & AWT

360 litres per h/hold per week

Immediate

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill

Co-mingled 240 L MGB

Fortnightly

Green + Food 140 or 240 L MGB

Weekly

140 L MGB

Fortnightly

Landfill

330 or 430 litres per h/hold per week

June 2007

 ± 2 to 3 Years

Option 5 – Organics & AWT

Co-mingled 240 L MGB

Fortnightly

Green + Food 140 or 240 L MGB

Weekly

140 L MGB

Fortnightly

AWT

330 or 430 litres per h/hold per week

June 2007

 ± 4 to 6 Years

 

 

4.3       Statistics for the Options

 

Numerical data relating to each option represents one of the bases for evaluating relative performance.  Table 4-3 summarises the key numerical data.

 

 

Table 4-3    Data Relating to Each Option Considered

 

 

Option 1 - Current

Option 2 – New Recycle

Option 3 – Disposal Choice

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill

Option 5 – Organics & AWT

Tonnes Managed by Council p.a.

73,649

73,649

73,649

82,496

82,496

Tonnes of Recyclables Collected p.a.

13,839

17,376

19,859

21,100

22,341

Tonnes of Organics Collected p.a.

0

0

0

25,611

33,402[6]

Tonnes to AWT Processing p.a.

0

0

26,895

0

26,753

Tonnes to Landfill p.a.

59,810

56,273

26,895

35,785

0

Gross Resource recovery

19%

24%

63%[7]

57%[8]

100%

Net Resource Recovery

18%

23%

44%

51%

68%

Additional Cost per Household p.a. (relative to Option 1)

-

($3.00)[9]
(savings)

$3.00

$52.00

$54.00

Additional Cost per Household per Week (relative to Option 1)

-

($0.06)
(savings)

$0.06

$1.00

$1.04

 

 

 

 

 

Percent Net Resource Recovery Achieved

 
At Figure 4-1, the relative outcomes from each option are presented for the gross diversion achieved, compared with the current situation (Option 1) along with an estimate of additional cost per household per annum relative to the current situation (Option 1).

Figure 4-1 – Cost and Diversion Outcomes

 
 



4.4       Option Performance and Assessment

 


Five objective areas were established by the Waste Strategy Working Party.  These represent the key areas where the strategy is expected to deliver for Council and the community.  In the following sections, each of the options is discussed in terms of delivery against these five objective areas.

 

Whilst each objective area may at first glance appear relatively exclusive of the others, there will, on deeper analysis, arise issues that overlap.  One example of this is described below in respect of introduction of the organics collections proposed in Options 4 and 5.  Here, serious consideration will need to be given to the size of bin selected for the organic waste.  Whilst the collection frequency for the organic wastes is suggested to be weekly, the corresponding reduction in bin size and extension of collection frequency for residual waste will put pressure on residents to diligently manage the three bins and the material consigned to each.  Thus there is tension between convenience and recovery targets that Council will need to consider.

 

In the following paragraphs and tables, comments and discussion are presented for each of the five options against the five objective areas.  Included in the evaluation is an initial assessment of the degree of delivery for each option against each objective area using a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 representing high-level deliver on an objective area.

 

These assessments draw from and add to the pictorial and numerical presentations at Figure 4-1 and Table 4-3

 


4.4.1    Convenience – this objective relates to the degree of acceptance by the community, and thus the level and quality of their performance in terms of placing materials in the correct containers.  Table 4-4-1 sets out the relative performance of the five options against this objective area accompanied by some relevant discussion.

 

 

Table 4-4-1            Option Outcomes – Convenience

 

Option

Outcome (scale 1 to 10)

Comments and Discussion

Option 1 – Current

4

§ The community are very familiar with the current system.

§ The split configuration limits flexibility for the community.

§ Both the quality and quantity of recyclables set out can be expected to remain much as at present.

Option 2 – New Recycle

6

§ This option requires little or no change from the current system (Option 1).

§ Greater flexibility in the mix of recyclables is possible without the split.

§ Lower likelihood of disposing of residual waste in a co-mingled recycling bin.

Option 3 – Disposal Choice

6

§ As for Option 2.

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill

5

§ This option involves three bins requiring more decision-making and storage for bins.

§ Two bins set-out each week, with residual waste and recyclables alternating fortnightly.

§ With a 140 Litre residual waste bin collected fortnightly there will be risk that excess waste will be discarded to either or both the recyclables or organics bins.

Option 5 – Organics & AWT

5

§ As for Option 4.

 

 

 

 

 

4.4.2    Recovery Targets – this objective relates to progress towards the State Government’s targets on waste diversion.

 

Table 4-4-2 sets out the relative performance of the five options against this objective area accompanied by some relevant discussion.

 

Table 4-4-2            Option Outcomes – Recovery Targets

 

Option

Diversion
(Gross %)

Diversion
(Net %)

Outcome (scale 1 to 10)

Comments and Discussion

Option 1 – Current

19 %

18%

3

§ Without a sustained education initiative, both the quality and quantity of recyclables set out can be expected to remain much as at present.

Option 2 – New Recycle

24 %

23%

4

§ Improved recovery is expected, with lower contamination.

§ This option requires little or no change from the current system (Option 1).

§ Greater flexibility in the mix of recyclables is possible without the split.

Option 3 – Disposal Choice

63 %

44%

5

§ Routing some of the residual waste to AWT will achieve improved resource recovery.

§ Product quality and quantity from mixed waste AWT may not be optimal.

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill

57 %

51%

9

§ With all residual waste going to landfill, there will be a drop in gross resource recovery relative to Option 3.

§ Product quality and quantity from source-separated organics will be high.

§ Contamination will be a major concern and influence recovery.

Option 5 – Organics & AWT

100 %

68%

9

§ As for Option 4, with marginally improved outcomes in terms of products.

 

 

4.4.3    Technology Risk – this objective relates to the level of risk exposure that Council might face in committing to a particular service provider for processing and/or disposal.

 

Table 4-4-3 sets out the relative performance of the five options against this objective area accompanied by some relevant discussion.

 

 

Table 4-4-3            Option Outcomes – Technology Risk

 

Option

Outcome (scale 1 to 10)

Comments and Discussion

Option 1 – Current

6

§ The is very little risk associated with the current system

§ However, continuing use of landfill-based disposal may present reputation and cost risk to Council.

Option 2 – New Recycle

6

§ As per Option 1

Option 3 – Disposal Choice

6

§ Principal risk will be reputation risk to Council if technology fails.

§ Council may only allocate part of the waste stream to AWT and/or bioreactor landfill, limiting risk.

§ This is seen as a short-term option.

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill

8

§ Organic waste processing technologies are well demonstrated, presenting Council with little risk.

Option 5 – Organics & AWT

7

§ As for Option 4.

§ AWT processing of organic-depleted residual waste has not yet been demonstrated.

 

 

4.4.4    Competition – this objective relates to the relative cost impact that Council and the community will face if a specific option is adopted.

 

Table 4-4-4 sets out the relative performance of the five options against this objective area accompanied by some relevant discussion, tabulating the cost differential between the current situation (Option 1) and each other option in terms of dollar cost per household per annum.

 

 

Table 4-4-4            Option Outcomes – Competition

 

Option

Relative Cost (p.a.)

Outcome (scale 1 to 10)

Comments and Discussion

Option 1 – Current

Nil

9

§ No change.

Option 2 – New Recycle

-$3.00

10

§ Using the current per household cost for collection and processing of recyclables, extra recycling involves no additional cost to the community with a reduction in landfill disposal costs more than off-setting additional costs for education and community support.

Option 3 – Disposal Choice

+$3.00

8

§ Diverting 50% of residual waste to AWT processing involves additional cost for processing over landfill disposal costs.

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill

+$50.00

6

§ Introducing full source separated organics collection and processing commits Council and the community to a moderate annual increase in cost.

Option 5 – Organics & AWT

+$52.00

6

§ Costs for this option are assessed to be marginally greater than for Option 4 to allow for AWT processing of the residual waste fraction.

 

 

 

 

4.4.5    Health & Safety – this objective relates to the maintenance of both public health and the health and safety of workers engaged in the waste management activities adopted by Council.

 

Table 4-4-5 sets out the relative performance of the five options against this objective area accompanied by some relevant discussion.

 

Table 4-4-5            Option Outcomes – Health & Safety

 

Option

Outcome (scale 1 to 10)

Comments and Discussion

Option 1 – Current

8

§ There is very little risk associated with the current system.

Option 2 – New Recycle

8

§ As per Option 1

Option 3 – Disposal Choice

7

§ As per Option 1 for collections.

§ Depending on the AWT(s) selected, there may be increased risk exposure of workers associated with the facility.  While the facility operator will manage these, Council may still be presented with some increase in reputation risk.

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill

7

§ Dedicated organics collection bins remain to be fully proven and demonstrated not to present community nuisance and/or difficulties with leachate and vermin.

§ Council will need to monitor trials in various LGAs to determine risk levels with collection systems and mitigation options.

Option 5 – Organics & AWT

5

§ As for Option 4.

§ AWT processing of organic-depleted residual waste has not yet been demonstrated and health and safety risks for workers of such facilities remain unknown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.5       Summary of Option Outcomes

 

 

The Waste Strategy Working Group established the objective areas as a tool for assessing how various options met Council and community requirements on several fronts.  In developing and discussing the five objective areas, the Working Group determined that all warranted equal weighting, when it came to developing a composite view of each option.

 

At Table 4-5, a summary of the delivery of each option is presented against the five objective areas, and a composite calculated on the basis of simple numerical average.

 

 

Table 4-5    Summary of Option Outcomes

 

 

Option 1 – Current

Option 2 – New Recycle

Option 3 – Disposal Choice

Option 4 – Organics & Landfill

Option 5 – Organics & AWT

Convenience

4

6

6

5

5

Recovery Targets

3

4

5[10]

9[11]

9

Technology Risk

6

6

6

8

7

Competition

9

10

8

6

6

Health & Safety

8

8

7

7

5

Composite

6.0

6.8

6.4

7.0

6.4

 

 

4.6       Moving Forward

 

During the course of its task the Waste Strategy Working Group was seeking a way forward that would represent simple and easy to implement stepped improvements in resource recovery performance that would bring the community along with Councils strategy.

 

In analysing the options that were put forward, it is informative to note that the five options analysed and modelled do not have to be seen as a set of five competing alternative options.  Rather, it is feasible to look upon them as a sequence of staged introductions of improved services leading towards higher levels of resource recovery.  On this basis, Council’s determination is less involved with “which option” as opposed to “how far” along the path of continuous improvement Council wishes to proceed.

 

Instead of using the performance assessment tool in the previous section to “pick a winner” Council can use the summary to decide where a limit to increasing value may reasonably be reached, and therefore the option Council may seek to identify as the medium to long-term goal.

 

Using this approach, Council can then review the status of current collection and disposal contracts and set in train a sequence of changes that progressively leads Council and the community to that goal.

 


Attachment 1    Commentary on Alternative Waste Technologies

 

The following notes set out commentary on the three current technologies of AWT for mixed residual waste that are in operation in the market.  These are presented in the following tabulations:

 

§ Att. 1-1      EWT Bedminster Projects

§ Att. 1-2      Bio-reactor Landfill Projects

§ Att. 1-3      GRL UR3R Project

 

Att.1-1                      EWT Bedminster Projects

 

Project

Raymond Terrace

Cairns

South Perth

Commencement

1999

2003

2003

Nominal feed stock capacity

35,000 tpa mixed residual waste, plus 2,000 tpa biosolids

90,000 tpa mixed residual waste

109,200 tpa mixed residual waste

Capital cost

$12 million (1999)

$40 million (2001)

$35 million (2001)

Gate price

These are dedicated facilities for client councils and generally not available for casual drop-off.  Therefore conventional gate fees are not applicable.

The current contract fee the Raymond Terrace facility is thought to be in the vicinity of $95 per tonne.

South Perth is a wholly owned and operated facility of SMRC – the alliance of councils responsible for the project – and thus gate fees are not applicable.

Gate fees for the Cairns facility are not known, and with the changing contractual situation, possibly no longer relevant.

Products

Recyclable plastics and metals, soil conditioner/compost

Product quantities

Approaching Australian Standards for compost

Compost to Australian Standards

Compost to Australian Standards

Application of products

Rehabilitation of degraded land – mine sites and landfills

Application trials at sugar cane farms and for broad acre crops

Extensive application to regional farms and vineyards

Disposal of residuals

Landfill – quantity unknown

Landfill – quantity unknown

Landfill – quantity unknown

Self-haul streams

Generally not applicable unless loads contain reasonable percentage of green waste and special small vehicle tipping facilities are provided.

Commercial considerations

Clear risk allocation between the parties for issues such as feed stock quantity and quality, product quality and quantity, marketing of product and disposal arrangements for residuals.  Also with ownership transfer, as at Cairns and South Perth, responsibilities relating to technology obsolescence, upgrades and support will be essential

Inherent risks for Councils

See Table 4-2 for general discussion on risks relating to composting systems using organic wastes sourced from mixed residual waste.

 


Att.1-2             Bio-Reactor Landfill Projects

 

Project

Collex - Woodlawn

Collex/Richards – Ti Tree BioEnergy

Commencement

2004

2003

Nominal feed stock capacity

400,000 tpa by licence condition – total site capacity exceeds 25 million cubic metres

Unrestricted – total site capacity 27 million cubic metres

Capital cost

Rumoured to exceed $200 million

Unknown

Gate price

In the order of $95 per tonne inclusive of waste levy.  This gate fee also covers transfer and rail transport to site

 

Products

Electricity

Product quantities

25 MW p.a. at full capacity

Variable - dependent on waste input rates

Application of products

Sale to national electricity grid

Disposal of residuals

Bio-reactor landfills are a disposal-based system, with all residual waste remaining in the landfill void.  There are no solid products from this technology.  Mass reduction in waste quantities is achieved through biodegradation of organic fractions.

Self-haul streams

Very suitable.

Commercial considerations

These are landfill-based operations, so commercial conditions similar to those for other landfill-based disposal arrangements would apply.

Inherent risks for Councils

See Table 4-2 for generic a summary of generic risks associated with this technology.


 

Att. 1-3            GRL UR3R Project

 

Project

UR3R – Eastern Creek, NSW

Commencement

2004

Nominal feed stock capacity

175,000 tpa mixed residual waste

Capital cost

$70 million (2001)

Gate price

This facility is under contract operation to WSN Environmental Services, who establish and charge the gate price to local councils according to market conditions.  The current gate price is understood to be in the order of $95 per tonne.

It is understood that mixed residual waste with depleted organics content (i.e. where a council has a green waste collection system) would attract a premium on the gate price, possibly up to $30 per tonne.

Products

Recyclable plastics and metals, electricity, compost products and emission reduction credits.

Product quantities

17,000 tpa recyclate

17,000 MwHrs of electricity p.a.

60,000 tpa compost products

Application of products

Recycling, energy, and soil conditioning markets

Disposal of residuals

Landfill

Self-haul streams

Generally not applicable unless loads contain reasonable percentage of green waste and special small vehicle tipping facilities are provided

Commercial considerations

Clear risk allocation between the parties for issues such as feed stock quantity and quality, product quality and quantity, marketing of product and disposal arrangements for residuals

Inherent risks for Councils

Generic risks associated with anaerobic digestion process technology using mixed residual waste as the feed stock.


Attachment 2    Comparative Review of AWT Options

 

As indicated in the main report, AWT encompasses technologies that include beneficial processing of both source separated wastes and mixed residual wastes.  In considering various options for introducing AWT, it is productive to compare the different systems from a number of perspectives such as value, risk, resource recovery and likelihood of delivery.

 

The following tables provide a basic summary of some of these key comparative aspects:

§ Att. 2-1      Indicative Cost and Value Summary

§ Att. 2-2      Technology Risk Profile

§ Att. 2-3      Likely Contenders and Technology Offerings

 

 


Att. 2-1                     Indicative Cost and Value Summary[12]

 

Technology

Outputs

Potential Products

Product[13] Amount

Market Demand

Landfill Disposal

Indicative Price/tonne

Conventional landfill

-    Nil

-     Nil

NA

NA

100

$70 - $90

Bioreactor landfill

-    Landfill gas

-     Electricity

1.5-2

8

100

$80 - $100

Mechanical pre-treatment, aerobic composting of mixed residual waste

-    Stable organic material

-    Metals

-    Mixed plastics

-           ADC or compost[14]

-           Scrap metal

-           Polymer

3

1

1

3

9

5

20 - 30

$90 - $120

Mechanical pre-treatment, anaerobic digestion, aerobic composting of mixed residual waste

-    Biogas

-    Organic digestate

-    Stable organic material

-    Metals

-    Mixed plastics

-     Electricity

-     Quality compost

-           ADC or compost

-           Scrap metal

-     Polymer

3

1

2

1

1

8

6

4

9

5

20 - 30

$100 - $130

Anaerobic digestion of source separated organics

-    Biogas

-    Organic digestate

-     Electricity

-           Quality compost

5

2

8

6

5 - 15

$80 - $95

Enclosed composting of source separated organics

-    Stable organic material

-     Quality compost

9

8

0 - 10

$70 - $85

Covered composting of source separated organics

-    Stable organic material

-     Quality compost

9

8

0 - 10

$55 - $75

Open windrow composting of source separated green

-    Stable organic material

-     Quality compost

9

8

0 - 10

$30 - $50

 

 

 


 

Att. 2-2         Technology Risk Profile[15]

 

Technology

Risk (Reliability) Issue

Probability Level of Adverse Event

Consequence Level of Adverse Event

Conventional landfill

-     Environmental management – leachate, litter, odour, gas

-   Very low

-     High

Bioreactor landfill

-     Operating systems – leachate recirculation, gas capture

-     Energy recovery – significantly greater than conventional

-     Environmental management – leachate, litter, odour, gas

-   Moderate to low

-   Moderate

-   Low

-     High

-     Moderate

-     High

Open windrow composting of source separated organics

-     Environmental management – leachate, odour, wind-blown debris

-   Low to moderate

-     Low to moderate

Enclosed/covered composting of source separated organics

-     Commissioning delays

-     Environment management during maturation – surface water, odour, wind-blown debris

-   Low

-   Moderate

-     Low to moderate

-     Low

Anaerobic digestion of source separated organics

-     Commissioning delays

-     Managing contamination

-     Energy recovery

-     Product quality and application

-     Environment management – odour

-   Moderate

-   Moderate to high

-   Moderate

-   Moderate

-   Moderate to high

-     High

-     Moderate to high

-     Moderate to high

-     Moderate

-     Moderate

Composting of organics from mixed residual waste

-     Commissioning delays

-     Achieving effective separation of organics

-     Managing contamination

-     Product quality and application

-     Environment management – odour

-   Moderate

-   Moderate to high

-   Moderate to high

-   Moderate

-   Moderate to high

-     High

-     High

-     High

-     High

-     Moderate

Anaerobic digestion of organics from mixed residual waste

-     Commissioning delays

-     Achieving effective separation of organics

-     Managing contamination

-     Energy recovery

-     Product quality and application

-     Environment management – odour

-   Moderate to high

-   Moderate to high

-   Moderate to high

-   Moderate

-   Moderate

-   Moderate to high

-     High

-     High

-     High

-     Moderate to high

-     High

-     Moderate

 


Att. 2-3         Likely Contenders and Possible Technology Offerings[16]

 

Company

Technology & Reference Sites

WSN

·      UR3R – commissioning near completion at Eastern Creek (NSW)

 

·      ArrowBio – demonstration plant in Israel; technology currently under assessment for SW Sydney (NSW)

 

·      Conventional landfill – major landfills at Eastern Creek, Jacks Gully and Lucas Heights (NSW)

Collex

·      Bioreactor landfill – Woodlawn (NSW); Ti Tree Bioenergy a joint venture with JJ Richards (Ipswich, SEQ)

 

·      Mixed waste AWT – mechanical pre-treatment + aerobic composting – EIS in preparation for facilities at Woodlawn and Sydney (NSW)

SITA

·      SAWT – mechanical pre-treatment + aerobic composting – EIS completed, awaiting planning approval, Sydney (NSW)

 

·      BioWise – open windrow co-composting  - operational site with WAWA outside Perth (WA)

EWT

·      Bedminster – mechanical pre-treatment + aerobic composting – three facilities operating at Raymond Terrace (NSW), Cairns (Qld), South Perth (WA)

ANL

·      Organic waste composting – open windrow composting at several local government sites (NSW)

Thiess Services

·      Bioreactor landfill – Swanbank (SEQ)

EarthPower

·      Organic waste digestion – digestion of source separated organic waste – Camellia (NSW)

Remondis

·      Organic waste composting – tunnel composting for Hastings Shire Council (NSW)

Atlas Group

·      Mixed waste AWT – mechanical pre-treatment + aerobic composting – plant in partial operation in Perth (WA)

BiomassSolutions