Late Items Agenda of Elected Members' Briefing Session

CITY OF WANNEROO Late Items Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 June, 2019 1

Late Items Agenda

Item 5 Late Reports

5.1 Adoption of Amendment No. 171 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Strata Lot 7 (20) Prindiville Drive, Wangara - Additional Use

File Ref: 36242 – 19/208457

Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Attachments: 2

Issue

To consider Amendment No. 171 to DPS2 following the public consultation period and adoption of the amendment.

Applicant	Rowe Group
Owners	Mr Kristophen Bond and Miss Hayley Saunders
Location	Strata Lot 7 (20) Prindiville Drive, Wangara
Site Area	310m²
MRS Zoning	Industrial
DPS 2 Zoning	Service Industrial

Background

On 4 September 2018, Rowe Group on behalf of the owners requested the City consider an amendment to DPS2 to allow the use class ‘Restricted Premises’ as an additional use at Unit 7/20 Prindiville Drive, Wangara to facilitate the continued operation of the existing business ‘Absolutely Adult’. This business has been trading at this location since December 2011 between 10:00am and 5:00pm Monday to Saturday and 12noon to 5:00pm on Sundays.

The amendment resulted from a compliance investigation which identified the business was operating without approval and that it is not capable of approval under the current provisions of DPS2.

Attachment 1 contains the location plan.

Council, at its meeting of 05 March 2019, considered the proposal and resolved as follows (refer Item PS04-03/19):

“That Council:-

1. Pursuant to Section 75 of Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No.171 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to allow the use class Restricted Premises as an additional use at Strata Lot 7 at 20 Prindiville Drive, Wangara and AMENDS Schedule 2 of the DPS 2 as follows:

STREET/LOCALITY

PARTICULARS OF LAND

ADDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)

A41

1-41

Prindiville Drive, Wangara

Lot 7 on Strata Plan 18103 Certificate of Title Volume 2132 Folio 388 (No.20)

Restricted Premises – ‘D’ use

Condition:

Operating hours between 10 am and 5 pm Monday to Saturday and 12 noon to 5 pm on Sundays.

and the Scheme Map accordingly;

2. Pursuant to Section 35(2) of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 171 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a Standard Amendment for the following reason:

The Amendment would not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area;

3. Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 171 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority; and

4. Subject to approval from Environmental Protection Authority:

a) NOTIFIES the Western Australian Planning Commission of its intent to advertise Amendment No. 171 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 pursuant to Regulation 47(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

b) ADVERTISES Amendment No. 171 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for a period of not less than 42 days pursuant to Regulation 47(2) and 47(4) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.”

Attachment 2 contains the proposed Scheme Amendment maps.

Detail

The proposal seeks to amend DPS2 to allow the use class Restricted Premises as an additional use on the site to enable the continued operation of ‘Absolutely Adult’ and to modify Schedule 2 of DPS2.

The front portion of the tenancy is occupied by the shop floor where products are displayed and can be purchased by retail sale. The rear of the tenancy is used for warehousing of products which are stored for distribution for online sales. The applicant has advised that the warehousing and online sales component of the business generates approximately 80% of the business, with the retail portion generating the remaining 20% with approximately five customers visiting the store each day.

The retail sale component (Restricted Premises) is currently an ‘X’ or not permitted use within the Service Industrial zone.

Consultation

In accordance with the Council’s decision, the amendment was referred to the EPA for comment. On 8 April 2019, the EPA advised the City that the scheme amendment did not warrant an environmental assessment. The WAPC’s consent to advertise was not required in this case.

A 42 day public advertising period was carried out between 30 April and 11 June 2019 by way of on-site signs, advertisement in the local newspaper, a notice in the City’s Civic Centre and website, and letters to the affected and nearby landowners. The City did not receive any submission on the proposal.

Comment

The site is located in the Service Industrial zone. Under the provisions of DPS2, the objective of the Service Industrial zone is:

“To accommodate a range of light industries, showrooms and warehouses, entertainment and recreational activities, and complementary business services which by nature would not detrimentally affect the amenity of surrounding areas.”

The proposed amendment to include Restricted Premises as an additional use for this site is considered to satisfy the objective of the Service Industrial zone. The predominant function of the premises is to warehouse and distribute the products. The retail component in principle is not dissimilar to many other businesses within the Service Industrial zone, which allow customers to purchase warehoused goods via a retail counter.

Considering the nature of the land use Restricted Premises and the objective of the Service Industrial zone, and considering that the City did not receive any submissions on the proposed amendment, it is recommended that the proposed amendment to DPS2 be adopted without modification and forwarded to the WAPC for its consideration.

Statutory Compliance

Amendment No. 171 has been processed under the provisions of Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and the Planning and Development Act 2005.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

“2 Economy

2.1 Local Jobs

2.1.2 Build capacity for businesses to grow”

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Recommendation

That Council:-

1. Pursuant to Regulation 50(3)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 SUPPORTS Amendment No. 171 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 WITHOUT MODIFICATION to allow the use class Restricted Premises as an additional use at Strata Lot 7 (20) Prindville Drive, Wangara and AMENDS Schedule 2 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 as follows:

STREET/LOCALITY

PARTICULARS OF LAND

ADDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)

A41

1-41

Prindiville Drive, Wangara

Lot 7 on Strata Plan 18103 Certificate of Title Volume 2132 Folio 388 (No.20)

Restricted Premises – ‘D’ use

Condition:

Operating hours between 10:00am and 5:00pm Monday to Saturday and 12noon to 5:00pm on Sundays.

and the Scheme Map accordingly; and

2. Pursuant to Regulation 53(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, PROVIDES the advertised amendment document to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Attachments:

1 ⇩.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan and photos	18/517177
2 ⇩.	Attachment 2 - Scheme amendment document 171 doc	18/546817

CITY OF WANNEROO Late Items Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 June, 2019 21

5.2 Three Bin Kerbside Collection System

File Ref: 1458 – 19/223225

Responsible Officer: Manager Waste Services

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Attachments: 5

Issue

To consider the Three Bin Kerbside Collection Business Case (the Business Case), in line with the Waste Services’ Service Delivery Review 2018 Transition Plan.

Background

On 21 August 2018 Council resolved, in part, the following:

“1. RECEIVES the “Waste Services Service Delivery Review 2018 – Report”;

2. ENDORSES the implementation of the Draft “Waste Services Service Delivery Review 2018 – Transition Plan” as detailed in Attachment 2;…”

Administration has been working on the development of a Business Case for Council’s consideration on how a three bin kerbside collection system, which provides for separately collected organic wastes, can be delivered within the City.

On 16 April 2019, the Waste Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) was updated on the progress of the implementation of ‘Waste Services’ Service Delivery Review Transition Plan’ and it was agreed that this will now be presented to Council for consideration.

The Business Case (Attachment 1) investigates the implications of each of the range of options available to the City on this matter, with a view of forming a recommendation which is best for the community, the environment and the City’s long term sustainability.

Detail

The City operates a two bin system to give residents the opportunity to dispose of their household waste at the kerbside.

One 240L yellow lid bin is provided for residents to dispose of co-mingled recyclable materials (e.g. hard plastics, paper, cardboard, glass bottles/ jars, cans, etc.). These bins are emptied fortnightly by the City’s side loading waste compactor trucks and delivered to a third party processing facility in South Guildford.

One 240L green lid residual bin is also provided to residents to allow the disposal of residual waste (e.g. food, nappies, grass clippings and shrub cuttings etc.) These bins are emptied weekly by the City’s side loading waste compactor trucks, and delivered routinely to either of the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) in Neerabup or Tamala Park.

The Overall Approach used to develop the Business Case is summarised as below:

Due diligence activities include:

· Inclusion of the community’s opinion in the development of options;

· Stakeholder engagement – meetings/ discussions have taken place with key internal and external stakeholders;

· Research and analysis of numerous other Australian Local Government (LG) best practices;

· Recycling and recovery options available to the City, and their respective issues and opportunities; and

· Thorough modelling of the costs, benefits and risks of the options identified.

Business Case Inclusions are:

· ‘Waste Authority Better Bins’ funding;

· An analysis of current versus future waste management, transport and collection and bin size options available to the City;

· Consideration of community expectations for levels of service delivery;

· Impacts of the impending Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) in 2020;

· Best practice considerations for the introduction and roll out of a 3rd bin;

· Risk of service changes to and of MRC and it’s member Councils;

· Issues related to service changes;

· Required marketing and advertising associated with changes to operations;

· Capital and operational costing for all options presented;

· Recommendations; and

· The next steps – detailing implementation requirements.

MRC Waste Audits

In 2017/18 MRC arranged waste audits in all seven MRC member Councils to gain an understanding of the material composition in the residual waste bin. The Southern Metropolitan Regional Council (SMRC) undertook waste audits on behalf of MRC. The audit provided overarching data in relation to recyclable (yellow lid bin waste) versus all other waste, it also broke down the data in to item descriptions.

Audit data was broken in to various item descriptions, data relating to each description and associated percentage of each stream is identified below. A full itemised list of individual descriptors can be viewed in Attachment 2.

MRC Waste Audit Data per item Description and Percentage

The graph below highlights the quantities of organic materials in each member Councils’ residual waste bins. This shows that 50%, in total, (21% food and 29% greens) of the City’s organic waste could be available for separate collection and processing in to product.

Percentage organics in residual waste bin

Organic Waste Management/ Processing Options

Two service delivery/processing options are available to the City:

· Garden Organics (GO); and

· Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO).

An assessment has been undertaken of all kerbside collection service options identified above as available to the City that can help achieve a greater diversion of waste from landfill.

These options include:

1. Do nothing - Administration will operate on a business as usual basis with no change to services or operating budget;

2. Introduce a third bin for the disposal of GO waste only and change bin lids to coincide with the Australian Standard (AS) 4123.7-2006 Mobile Waste Containers - Colours, markings and designation requirements. Only households located on plots >400m2 would eligible for the third bin; and

3. Introduce a third bin for the disposal of FOGO, bin lids to coincide with the AS 4123.7-2006 Mobile Waste Containers - Colours, markings and designation requirements.

Other Perth Metropolitan Local Authorities Three Bin Systems

The City has carried out a detailed analysis of the three bin kerbside collection systems employed by seven other Perth Metropolitan LG’s (Attachment 3 refers). These LG’s provide a GO recycling service, and were initiated prior to the release of the ‘Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2030’, earlier this year. The bin sizes offered by each can be seen in the graph below:

LG’s with a three bin garden organics system

Service/ Bin Combination Options

The following table shows the potential waste management and bin size opportunities that are available to assist the City to divert a larger fraction of its waste from landfill and meet the objectives of the Waste Strategy, the waste processing technologies that these options could be sent to, any changes to existing bins that would be required, and the number of households that would be affected by each option.

Three Bin System Options

A comprehensive list of the advantages and disadvantages of each three bin system is presented in Attachment 4.

Financial Modelling and Review

A full financial review and model has been developed which details the waste management, collection and transport and bin size options available to the City. All data has been developed in line with 2018/19 Budget and estimated 2018/19 tonnages. The model was developed and reviewed in collaboration with Strategic Finance, provides annualised costs for Business-As-Usual (BAU) versus all other options identified, and includes any potential funding that the City could expect, per model option, from the ‘Better Bins Program’, discussed above.

All costs for the implementation of each option discussed are modelled over a 10 year period and are in alignment with the LTFP for both operational and capital expenditure. The capital costs will be expended in year one, mainly for the purchase of bins and the logistical roll out costs to deliver bins to residents and change over bin lids.

The MRC gate fee figure used in the modelling is based upon data provided by the MRC and takes in to account the projected removal of tonnages by other MRC member Councils in future in their attempts to send any potential materials to alternative waste management solutions that potentially offer better resource recovery outcomes. In essence the financial modelling shows the effect of each member council removing their tonnage from MRC.

For each reduction in tonnes delivered to the MRC there is a commensurate increase in the gate fee of approximately $7.00 per tonne for each reduction of 10,000 tonnes per annum as the MRC operation is largely fixed cost.

A model has also been developed which estimates the potential kerbside collection system recycling rate for all options, including BAU. This allows a comparison to be made between each option and has been overlaid on to the financial model, discussed above, in an attempt to show which option(s) provide the best outcome for the City.

The model is based on the following waste management options and assumed industry rates for each, as researched from the market, available to the City for the treatment of residual, recycling and organic waste:

Overall Comparison (Financial vs Recycling Rate)

An overall comparison of each option compared to BAU is presented graphically, below.

The options which present the lowest forecasted cost over a ten year period and the highest recycling rate are both highlighted in yellow (assuming the upper limit processing gate fee of $100 per tonne).

10 Year Operating Costs vs Recycling Rate ($Millions) - by Waste Option

Payback Period for each proposed system’s capital rollout expenses, in years, is presented in the graph below:

Payback Period for each Waste Option (Years)

On review of all the system options, costs (disposal, transport, other, capital) and payback periods presented options 2B FOGO and 3B FOGO offer the City the most benefits in terms of operating costs and the highest diversion rate over a ten year period. The payback period is the same for both options and capital costs for option 3B are slightly higher than option 2B due to the fact that that Option 2B requires a new 140L residual bin and one lid exchange compared to option 3B where two lid exchanges are required.

By implementing a three bin FOGO system the City could anticipate savings of between $21 million to $34 million over a ten year period and an increase in kerbside recycling rates from 40% to 59% when compared to BAU.

Consultation

Consultation has occurred with several other LG’s (throughout Australia) who have also provided information and assistance in the development of the Business Case.

A community survey was undertaken over a 29 day period in May and June 2018, to assist the City in understanding what its residents, customers and stakeholders require and value in relation to the future of waste management.

89% of 1,280 people, who responded, stated that they wanted the City to separate garden and food waste, to promote greater recycling. 75% of those surveyed also confirmed their approval of the installation of an additional kerbside collection service to dispose of those of separately collected FOGO materials.

85% of respondents confirmed answered that they thought it was very important to increase recycling. Only 15% of respondents indicated that they wanted an increased size bin to deal with the ever growing volumes of recyclable packaging which they buy, however an even smaller number (5%) indicated that they wanted an additional 240L recycling bin. 59% indicated that they would prefer a weekly pick up service for yellow lid recyclables. However when those respondents were questioned upon whether they would pay any extra costs to receive a weekly service, they very strongly argued against this, and 78% now indicated that they would prefer a larger recycling bin.

MRC Administration and other member Councils’ representatives have been kept informed of the City’s Waste Management Transition Plan since the Council endorsed it in August 2018.

Comment

There are numerous green waste processors within the Perth Metro area that are able to receive any separately collected GO waste to process those materials in to compost after a three bin system is implemented in the community. Indeed this is already the case for the City’s separately collected bulk green waste and green waste which is dropped off by residents at the City’s Wangara Green Waste Recycling Facility.

The experiences/ decisions of other LG’s within WA, and wider afield, have also been reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that any potential recommendations take in to account the experience of those areas, and their residents, who are already being serviced with a three bin system.

Better Bins encourages the use of a three bin system (residual waste, commingled recycling and food organics and/ or garden organics) to support greater source separation and higher recovery. The program also encourages LG’s to provide effective education and engagement so that residents know how to use the system effectively, and requires LG’s to transition to AS bin colours. The system provides the City with the opportunity to introduce a third lime green lidded organics bin, which is made available for residents to dispose of either their GO waste or both FOGO waste.

If chosen, the GO option would only be provided to properties >400m2 due to the lack of green waste prevalent in properties below this threshold. This practice is generally accepted throughout other Australian LG’s. If the City were to install a GO system, 60,775 properties would be eligible. The remainder of households would remain with a two bin system, but the current dark green lid bin would have the lid changed to a red lid. If the City were to opt for a FOGO kerbside collection system, this would result in all households being supplied with three separate bins.

Any residual waste disposed of at the MRC’s RRF or Tamala Park Landfill will be subject to increasing annual gate fees, due to MRC having semi fixed costs. The more tonnage, which member Councils divert away from the MRC, the higher the gate fee becomes as those costs are required to be recovered. The only mechanism available to MRC to do this is to increase gate fee for the remaining tonnes. The gate fee for subsequent years’ gate fees are likely to be higher, for the reasons highlighted, as MRC member Councils send more materials to alternative recycling options to meet the objectives and targets set by the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2030.

Commingled recyclable processing worldwide has seen a shift over the past couple of years as a result of China, historically the world’s largest receiver of materials for reprocessing, refusing to admit substandard recyclables from other countries. This has caused the gate fees of processors to increase as their ability to gain other revenues from marketable processed product has diminished. Resultantly, it is very unlikely that the City will enjoy its current gate fee of $20.48 per tonne in to the future. An appropriate per tonne figure has been utilised for modelling purposes in this Business Case.

The City invited an Expression of Interest (EOI) in December 2018 for the provision of FOGO processing, in an attempt to identify what options may be available from industry, both now and in to the future. The City received six submissions from the EOI, the quality and detail of which has highlighted that the processing of these materials is possible, and could be available in the event that the City proceeds with the implementation of a FOGO processing option in future.

Financial modelling has been undertaken which seeks to account for the capital costs associated with each option, the forecasted operational costs/savings of each in comparison to business as usual and the time required to recoup the initial capital costs (from expected savings). The model produced takes into account the implications and consequences of the City’s membership of MRC; specifically the MRC gate fee used for forecasting has been amended to reflect if/ when each member Council is expected to change their service delivery models and reduce their respective quantity of waste materials disposed of at the MRC (as noted in papers accessible from each member Council).

It is noted that Administration intends to present a separate report at an appropriate time on the wider MRC implications of each member council continuing to send recyclable materials to processing solutions out with the MRC.

Any potential issues that the community could face due to the installation of a third bin have been assessed. These include, but are not limited to, bin size options, bin storage space (both in single and multi-unit dwellings), the disposal of nappies/ healthcare products, etc.

To deliver the Three Bins Kerbside Collection Project, the City would require internal resources, for the duration of the project rollout, with waste knowledge to ensure that any new system is efficiently and effectively delivered for residents. The financial model includes the estimated cost of these project specific resources.

The successful delivery of the Program also requires the implementation of a planned communication plan, which will provide the tools and framework that deliver an effective and sustainable message to encourage behavioural change in the community. Education is not just a one way distribution of information; it is about engagement and participation of all stakeholders in creating change. It may take many forms including:

· Printed materials such as brochures, flyers, posters, letters and stickers;

· Electronic resources such as websites, social media, e-newsletters and digital versions of printed communications; and phone apps;

· Media such as newspaper, City of Wanneroo community newsletter, radio and TV;

· Informal workshops and presentations, such as school education programs, community workshops and resident association presentations;

· Community events and static displays, in locations such as shopping centres and libraries; and

· Signage, including bus shelter advertising, banners and bus livery.

Subject to Council’s decision on the recommendation in the report, overarching community information will be released during July/ August to advise residents of the implementation of a three bin kerbside collection system. This will be followed by more comprehensive communications to the community from November 2019, onwards.

The Waste Hierarchy (avoidance, reuse, reprocessing, recycling, energy recovery, dispose) will continue to be advocated through waste education activities that are aligned with both the project and the City’s current Waste Education Plan.

It has been calculated that three further vehicles would be required to deliver that service due to the reduced amount of unproductive travel time that would be experienced as more bins would be emptied per truck. Analysis indicates that the implementation of an organics recycling collection service could potentially result in a 2.5% increase in carbon dioxide production due to increase transport requirements. This is a modest increase, given the scale of the size of operations involved.

Subject to the Council’s endorsement of the recommendations on the implementation of this Program, Administration proposes to invite tenders for the commissioning of a suitable contractor for the processing of the City’s FOGO wastes and commence the program rollout from 1 July 2020. At the conclusion of the tender process, around October/ November 2019, the implementation schedule and other associated details will need further refinement and consideration by Council. These details will include key milestones and dates, risk mitigation strategies, and deployment details.

It is also noted that the funding agreement with the Waste Authority to receive funding for the implementation of the Better Bins Program is also required to be finalised and agreed to by the City by 30 September 2019.

The option to introduce a third bin to divert the City’s organic waste is directly aligned to the Waste Authority’s Better Bins Kerbside Collection Program.

This report seeks Council’s:

· Approval to implement of a Three Bin Kerbside Collection System (as per Options 2B and 3B in the Business Case) in line with the Waste Authority’s Better Bins Kerbside Collection Program, that separately collects FOGO wastes for onward processing by a third party contractor in to an AS 4454 standard compliant product;

· Authorisation for administration to invite tenders for the commissioning of a suitable contractor to process the City’s FOGO waste; and

· Approval for the Chief Executive Officer to finalise and authorise the Better Bins Program Funding Agreement with Waste Authority;

Statutory Compliance

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR Act) confers on the Minister for the Environment the ability to require any local government to provide waste services to its community in line with the State Waste Strategy:

· Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2030; and

· Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery (WARR) Act 2007.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

“3 Environment (Natural)

3.3 Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Waste

3.3.3 Create and promote waste management solutions”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-021 Competitive Service Costing	High
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Community & Place	Manage

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-022 Environmental Management	High
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Planning & Sustainability	Manage

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-G09 Long Term Financial Planning	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy & Performance	Manage

The above risk/s relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic/ Corporate risk registers. Action plans have been developed to manage these risks to support existing management systems.

In preparing the Business Case a full review of risks has been undertaken as detailed in Attachment 5 and summarised below:

Three Bin System Risk Register

It is noted that actions to mitigate identified risks will be developed further and included in the further report to Council following the conclusion of the FOGO Processing tender process. The tender for the FOGO Processing will require the potential contractor to demonstrate to the City their financial capacity, planned approach to deliver the new services, operational capacity, market viability of the end product and their own risk assessment and mitigation strategies. This will be similar to the City’s recently advertised tender for the processing of comingled recycling waste.

Policy Implications

The City’s Waste Management Services Policy defines the level of waste management service to be delivered to the community. The City’s Strategic Waste Management Plan 2016 – 2022 is aligned with the State Waste Strategy.

Financial Implications

Detailed financial modelling has been undertaken to assess the impact of the various options identified for the implementation of the Better Bins Program. The modelling includes:

· Capital cost for the procurement of new bins;

· Operational resources (staff and communication plan) costs required for the program rollout;

· Operational costs for the pick-up of the third bin;

· Organic waste processing costs; and

· Impact on the other waste management costs including MRC gate fee.

It is proposed to utilise the funding in the City’s Waste Reserve, which has a balance of $8.9m, to procure the new bins. Subject to Council’s decisions, the savings generated from the implementation of the Three Bin Kerbside Collection System can be utilised to payback the Reserve funding.

Subject to the signing of the Better Bins Program funding agreement, the City is expected to receive up to $2.4 million from the Waste Authority.

Funding provisions of $320,000 for salaries for the additional internal resources for the program rollout and $250,000 for marketing and community engagement have been included in the draft 2019/20 Budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Recommendation

That Council:-

1. APPROVES the implementation of the Three Bin Kerbside Collection System (as per Options 2B and 3B in the Business Case) in line with the Waste Authority’s Better Bins program, that separately collects Food and Garden Organics wastes for onward processing by a third party contractor in to an Australian Standards 4454 standard compliant product;

2. AUTHORISES administration to invite tenders for the commissioning of a suitable contractor to process the City’s Food and Garden Organics waste;

3. SEEKS a further report following the completion of the tender process as per Recommendation 2, detailing the implementation schedule including key milestones and dates, risk mitigation strategies, and deployment details;

4. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to finalise and authorise the Better Bins Program Funding Agreement with Waste Authority; and

5. ADVISES Mindarie Regional Council of the Council’s decision.

Attachments:

1 ⇩.	Three Bin Kerbside Collection Business Case	19/236779	Confidential
2 ⇩.	SMRC Waste Audit Data	19/227835
3 ⇩.	Metro 3 Bin Systems	19/227922
4 ⇩.	Advantages and Disadvantages of Three Bin Options	19/228001
5 ⇩.	Waste Services 3 Bin System Risk Register	19/212653