ATTACHMENT 2

Town of Gawler Waste and Recycling Transfer Station

Supplementary Report on Review of Operations

October 2012

Principal Environment and Facilities Officer

1.0 Executive Summary This report provides an update on progress of Council resolutions relating to the Waste and Recycling Transfer Station (WRTS) and discusses future considerations and makes a number of recommendations relating to the facility. Visitation to the WRTS has trended downwards since October 2010 and a loss of $60,371 was incurred for 2011/12 which is similar to results from previous years. Tonnes managed by the WRTS have reduced by approximately 50% since 2004/05. Increases in the volume of green organics collected through kerbside collections may have contributed to the decline in tonnes managed. The NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre is to commence operation late November 2012 and will provide superior services, predominantly cheaper gate fees and longer trading hours compared to the WRTS. If the WRTS were to close approximately 51% of users would pay more at the NAMWA facility in the short term. A significant regulatory capital expenditure in the order of 1.4M is required to cover non-inert wastes at the WRTS. It is anticipated that increasing costs and regulatory requirements will lead to ongoing decline in tonnes managed and visitation at the WRTS over the long term. This report makes the following recommendations:

1) The Paxton Street WRTS cease operation and close effective 28 February 2013.

2) Subsidies to the value of $7,666 be provided for residents (including concession recipients) between March 1 and June 30 2013 to offset those fees that are higher at the NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre.

3) $1,666 total free waste disposal be provided to the Salvation Army, St Vincent De Paul and Lifeline between March 1 and 30 June 2013 to utilise the NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre.

4) A tailored consultation plan be developed and implemented by Council prior to

the closure advising WRTS users of the changes and reasoning for them. 2.0 Introduction In August 2011 a comprehensive review and report was completed on the WRTS. The review addressed a number of outstanding resolutions from the Governance, Strategy & Economic Sustainability Committee meeting held 1 February 2010, reported on the WRTS financial performance, identified management options and recommended a reduction in opening hours followed by full closure. A report presenting the results of the review was tabled at the Governance, Strategy & Economic Sustainability Committee meeting held 4 October 2011. The committee endorsed a number of recommendations that were later adopted by full Council at the meeting held 25 October 2011. This supplementary report provides an update on progress of each of the resolutions of Council from the 25 October 2011 meeting, discusses a number of considerations and makes a recommendation on the future of

the WRTS. 3.0 Progress of Resolutions The following section of this report provides an update on the progress of resolutions of Council endorsed at the 25 October 2011 meeting. 3.1 Council adopt a reduction in the operating hours for the Waste and

Recycling Transfer Station by 25% commencing 31st December 2011 in accordance with Option 5.2 of the report ‘Town of Gawler Waste and Recycling Transfer Station Report on Review of Operations’

The reduced opening hours came into effect on 9 January 2012. Implementation of the reduced hours was delayed from 31 December to avoid potential patron confusion as the Christmas / New Year operating hours for Council had already been advertised showing the original WRTS opening hours. The changes to the WRTS hours are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Changes to WRTS opening hours – Effective 9 January 2012

Day Old Opening Hours New Opening Hours

Monday 8am to 12pm and 1pm to 3.30pm 1pm to 3.30pm

Tuesday Closed Closed

Wednesday 8am to 12pm and 1pm to 3.30pm

10am to 12pm and 1pm to 3.30pm

Thursday Closed Closed

Friday 8am to 12pm and 1pm to 3.30pm

10am to 12pm and 1pm to 3.30pm

Saturday 8am to 12pm and 1pm to 3.30pm

8am to 12pm and 1pm to 3.30pm

Sunday 8am to 12pm and 1pm to 3.30pm

8am to 12pm and 1pm to 3.30pm

3.1.1 Effect of Reduced Opening Hours

Table 2 shows the average daily number of patrons utilising the WRTS in 6 month increments leading up to and after the revised operating hours were implemented. The results in Table 2 show a very minor decline in daily use over the period January 2012 to June 2012 compared to the prior six month period of the new opening hours. In consideration of total use it is apparent that the reduced hours have had negligible impact.

Table 2: Average daily use of the WRTS prior to and after implementation of the revised operating hours

Day Jan 2011 – June 2011

July 2011 – Dec 2011

Rev

ised

Hou

rs

Impl

emen

ted

Jan 2012 – June 2012

Monday 13.6 15.4 11.4 Wednesday 18.5 18.0 16.7

Friday 21.7 19.8 20.8 Saturday 22.1 20.8 21.2 Sunday 20.5 17.0 19.7

Combined 19.3 18.2 18.0 The results shown in Table 2 predominantly have a positive relationship with the reduction in operating hours whereby the largest reductions in use align with the largest reductions to operating hours. The combined results shown in Table 2 indicate that patrons are not moving their business from one day to another to accommodate the revised hours and that a net reduction in use is occurring. A reduction in use is supported by usage data shown in Graph 1 below that indicates a reduction in patronage has occurred since January 2012 and a downward trend in use has been occurring over the period October 2010 to August 2012.

Graph 1: Number of visits to the WRTS October 2010 to August 2012

Note: Usage data not avaible prior to October 2010 3.2 Council explore opportunities with the Northern Adelaide Waste

Management Authority to provide a substitute service for Gawler residents through the proposed Regional Material Resource Recovery and Waste Transfer Station in accordance with Option 5.4 of the report ‘Town of Gawler Waste and Recycling Transfer Station Report on Review of Operations’

A number of opportunities exist to substitute WRTS services through the NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre. Discussions with NAWMA have identified the following:

a) Subsidies off listed gate fees;

b) A number of days each year where gate prices are subsidised or reimbursed in full;

c) A system of subsidies for only those gate fees that would result in Gawler residents being worse off from using the NAWMA facility; and

d) Operation of a voucher system. Vouchers would be made available through a

booking system to redeem at the NAWMA facility. Subject to the most cost effective approach NAWMA or Council could administer the voucher system.

In all circumstances above proof of residency would be required and NAWMA would invoice Council for the balance and require cost recuperation. Section 4.7 of this report discusses subsidies in further detail. 3.3 A tailored consultation plan be developed and implemented by Council

advising Waste Transfer and Recycling Station users of the changes to operations and the reasoning for them.

To assist determine the most appropriate reduction in opening hours a survey was produced and completed by 130 users of the WRTS that sought information on load type and size, preferred day and frequency of use of the facility. The revised hours were communicated through flyers handed out at the WRTS and public notices well in advance of the implementation date. 3.4 A further report be provided to Council including: 3.4.1 An update on the proposed Northern Adelaide Waste Management

Authority Resource Recovery and Waste Transfer Station. Since the October 2011 Council resolutions a number of key activities relating to the NAWMA Regional Resource Recovery and Waste Transfer Station have been completed. These include:

a) The social enterprise firm Finding Workable Solutions were awarded the contract for the operation of the Resource Recovery Centre;

b) Presentation to NAWMA member Councils on the Regional Resource Recovery

and Waste Transfer Station have taken place; and

c) Operation of the new facility to commence late November. 3.4.2 Potential costs to Council if a subsequent service was to be provided by

the Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority Regional Resource Recovery and Waste Transfer Station.

There have been no costs to Council to establish the NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre. If Council elects to subsidise residents to use the facility Council will bear the cost of this service. The cost of the subsidy is dependent on what level of support council wish to provide. Section 4.7 of this report explores subsidies further. 3.5 If a trend emerges that has a material financial difference on operating

costs etc then Council be provided with a prompt report. Table 3 shows the financial result for the WRTS between 2007/08 and 2011/12. Income generated by the WRTS for 2011/12 is down on the previous year’s result as a result of the reduced level of use outlined in section 3.1.1. Expenditure for 2011/12 is lower than 2010/11 as a result of reduced usage, lower operating costs as a result of reduced operating hours and a short term arrangement resulting in reduced waste disposal and transport costs. Overall the WRTS, in keeping with the trend, incurred a financial loss of $60,371 for 2011/12.

Table 3: Financial performance of WRTS 2007/08 to 2011/12

Item 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Income $155,207 $181,059 $223,993 $253,337 $224,750 Expenditure $238,639 $265,750 $267,993 $318,655 $285,121 Loss -$83,432 -$84,691 -$44,000 -$65,318 -$60,371

4.0 Other Considerations Section 3 of this report has highlighted a number of key issues relating to the WRTS. In summary these are:

a) The WRTS is experiencing a decline in visitation;

b) The NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre is to commence operation late November 2012; and

c) The WRTS is trending financial losses, limited only by introduced controls in 2011/12.

A number of other factors need to be considered in relation to the future of the WRTS which are discussed in the following sections of this report. 4.1 WRTS Tonnes Managed Data supplied by NAWMA demonstrates a significant reduction of over 50% in tonnes managed by the WRTS since 2004/05 (Graph 2). It is not possible to exactly identify the cause of the decline shown in Graph 2. Any number of factors or combination of factors including rising gate fees, kerbside collections and increasing costs may have contributed to the decline observed. Regardless, this has resulted in a cycle of higher unit costs leading to higher gate fees which contributes to declining patronage. In turn this results in higher unit costs and so on.

Graph 2: WRTS – Decline in tonnes (general and green waste) managed between 2004/05 and 2011/12

4.2 Kerbside Collections Kerbside collections of green organics and recycling were examined as part of this report. The impact of kerbside collections on the reduction in tonnes managed by the WRTS between 2004/05 and 2011/12 was unknown. 4.2.1 Kerbside Green Organics NAWMA kerbside collections of green organics became available on an optional basis in 2007/08. Based on data supplied by NAWMA Graph 3 shows an increase in kilograms per service of green organics collected through kerbside collections for the period 2007/08 to 2011/12.

Graph 3: Average monthly kerbside green organics kilograms / service between 2007/08 and 2011/12

Table 4 shows the volumes of green waste managed by the WRTS over the period 2007/08 to 2011/12. The volume of green waste managed by the WRTS remained generally static over the period 2007/08 to 2009/10 followed by an increase in 2010/11 and decrease in 2011/12.

Table 4: Tonnes green waste managed by the WRTS

Year Tonnes 2007/2008 224 2008/2009 227 2009/2010 215 2010/2011 319 2011/2012 189

The upward trend of approximately 11 kilograms of green waste per service per month between 2007/08 and 2011/12 shown in Graph 3 could be part responsible for the lack of growth in the green waste tonnes managed by the WRTS. Table 5 shows the number of residents utilising the green organics service between 2007/08 and 2011/12. The number of residents utilising the service has steadily increased with the exception of 2008/09 where residents were charged for pick up. It is

logical if green organic kerbside services continue to grow the green waste managed by the WRTS will decrease. Early signs of a decline are evident in the 2011/12 result for green waste shown in Table 4 of 189 tonnes.

Table 5: Growth in use of green organic kerbside collection service

Year Services 2007/08 2,648 2008/09 1,827 2009/10 2,444 2010/11 2,880 2011/12 3,270

4.2.2 Kerbside Recycling Data on kerbside recycling and kerbside waste disposal is available from 1998/99 onwards. Since 1998/99 the monthly kilograms per service of kerbside waste has trended downwards and recycling kilograms per kerbside service has trended upwards as shown in Graph 4.

Graph 4: Average monthly kilograms of waste and recycling per service 1998/99 – 2011/12

The upward trend shown in Graph 4 in recycling kilograms per service is approximately equal to the downward trend in waste kilograms per service. This indicates that the additional weight in recycling bins is as a result of material once going into waste bins now being placed in recycling bins. Accordingly, the trends shown in Graph 4 are not responsible for the decline in tonnes managed by the WRTS between 2004/05 and 2011/12. 4.3 Waste Levy The Solid Waste Levy Review 2007 commissioned by Zero Waste SA recommends the Solid Waste Levy continuously increase to around $55 / tonne. In 2011/12 the levy was $35.00 / tonne and in 2012/13 has risen to $42 / tonne. As the levy continues to increase there will be ongoing upward pressure on gate fees over and above annual operational cost increases.

If initiatives were put in place to attract customers from regional areas to the Gawler WRTS it would be non-competitive with regional waste facilities as the non-metropolitan waste levy is $21/tonne compared to the $42/tonne for metropolitan waste transfer stations. 4.4 Covering of Non-Inert Waste Under provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1993 and the Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy 2010 it is a requirement that all non-inert waste be stored and processed in an enclosed, undercover facility. This requirement is explained in the attached EPA fact sheet (appendix 1) and has been reinforced in discussions with the EPA. The WRTS does not meet the undercover requirement with non-inert waste being stored in open bins. It is the EPA’s expectation that existing metropolitan waste facilities are to meet the same standard as new facilities which must be enclosed and purpose built. The EPA is progressively amending licence conditions to specify the undercover requirements with a typical compliance time frame of 12 months from date of renewal. The WRTS licence does not yet stipulate these conditions however the EPA advise that this condition is already an intent of existing licences and is therefore a mandatory requirement. Meeting the EPA undercover requirements would involve the construction of a semi enclosed structure over the storage and processing areas of the WRTS. Such a structure would need to be designed and costed. As a guide to potential costs an indicative price was sought to construct a semi enclosed structure over the hard stand areas of the WRTS shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: WRTS hard stand areas

The indicative cost received accounted for minimal use of posts to allow safe movement of vehicles, finished roof height to accommodate the tipping of trucks under the canopy, fire fighting equipment, natural and artificial lighting and minimisation of stormwater runoff. This estimate is $1,423,800 excluding GST and does not include concept, design, project management or accreditation. The actual costs to undertake

the works would vary subject to the final design of the structure. Zero Waste SA advise the covering of waste storage and processing areas at the WRTS would not be covered by Zero Waste SA funding programs as the works are required to meet legislative compliance. 4.5 Gate Fees For waste management facilities to remain viable they need to manage significant volumes of material to offset operational costs. The more tonnes managed results in a lower cost per tonne which is fundamental to gate fees. Models prepared by NAWMA for the Resource Recovery Centre are predicting in excess of 7000 tonnes of general waste and garden organics per annum (based on current estimated throughput into the City of Playford Andrews Road Waste Transfer Station). In recent years the Town of Gawler WRTS has averaged 1200 tonnes per annum. Table 6 compares the gate fees for the NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre and the Paxton Street WRTS. Areas shaded in dark highlight those fees at the Town of Gawler WRTS that are higher than the NAWMA facility. Areas shaded in light are those fees at the Town of Gawler WRTS that are less than those at the NAWMA facility and the fees in italics are the same at each facility.

Table 6: Gate Fees Comparison - NAWMA Material Resource Recovery Centre and WRTS

Resident Fee Comparison

Load TypeGeneral Green

Car boot $15 -Station Wagon $28 -

6x4* 7x4 6x4* 7x4Trailer Single Axle (level) $50 $25 $42 (L) $48 (L) $26 (L) $31 (L)

$52 (R) $59 (R) $31 (R) $35 (R)Trailer Single Axle (Caged) $60 $35 $61 (HS) $73 (HS) $34 (HS) $42 (HS)

$84 (FS) $97 (FS) $52 (FS) $60 (FS)7x5 8x5 7x5 8x5

Trailer Dual Axle (Level) $60 $30 $60 (L) $69 (L) $38 (L) $45 (L)$75 (R) $87 (R) $45 (R) $52 (R)

Trailer Dual Axle (Caged) $70 $40 $91 (HS) $103 (HS) $52 (HS) $58 (HS)$121 (FS) $138 (FS) $75 (FS) $86 (FS)

Trailer Larger than 8x5 (Level) $70 $35

Trailer Larger than 8x5 (Caged) $100 $45

Utes and Vans $50 $25Tray Trucks $110 $50

$108 (R)$130 (HS)

$65 (R)$74 (HS)

-

10x5 10x5

NAWMA FacilityGeneral Green

Gawler WRTS

$210 $131

$87 (L)

$174 (FS)

$55 (L)

$109 (FS)

$46* $28*

$16*$16*

-

* Concession discounts of between $6 and $11 apply. (L) = Level Load, (R) = Raised Load, (HS) = Half Stacked Load, (FS) = Full Stacked Load

Non Resident Fee Comparison Load Type

General GreenCar boot $15 -Station Wagon $28 -

6x4 7x4 6x4 7x4Trailer Single Axle (level) $50 $25 $50 (L) $59 (L) $32 (L) $38 (L)

$63 (R) $73 (R) $38 (R) $45 (R)Trailer Single Axle (Caged) $60 $35 $75 (HS) $85 (HS) $43 (HS) $48 (HS)

$101 (FS) $119 (FS) $63 (FS) $74 (FS)7x5 8x5 7x5 8x5

Trailer Dual Axle (Level) $60 $30 $74 (L) $85 (L) $47 (L) $54 (L)$91 (R) $105 (R) $55 (R) $63 (R)

Trailer Dual Axle (Caged) $70 $40 $112 (HS) $127 (HS) $63 (HS) $72 (HS)$149 (FS) $170 (FS) $92 (FS) $106 (FS)

Trailer Larger than 8x5 (Level) $70 $35

Trailer Larger than 8x5 (Caged) $100 $45

Utes and Vans $50 $25Tray Trucks $110 $50

$159 (HS)$78 (R)

$90 (HS)$132 (R)

-

NAWMA Facility Gawler WRTS

$57 $32$257 $160

10x5 10x5$106 (L) $66 (L)

$212 (FS) $132 (FS)

General Green$21 -$21

(L) = Level Load, (R) = Raised Load, (HS) = Half Stacked Load, (FS) = Full Stacked Load

The benefits of high tonnage on gate fees charged is clearly evident in Table 6 with the NAWMA facility having lower fees then the WRTS in the majority of cases. Table 6 shows several resident general waste fees and one resident green waste fee are cheaper at the WRTS than the NAWMA facility. Graph 5 outlines the predominant load types for residents and non-residents utilising the WRTS during 2011/12 (separate load type graphs for resident and non-resident are not available). It can be seen from Graph 5 that the predominant general waste load types utilising the WRTS coincide with the general waste fees that are dearer at the NAWMA facility compared to the WRTS.

Graph 5: WRTS load type by visitation 2011/12

Given the higher tonnes predicted through the NAWMA facility it is disproportionate that some gate fees charged at the WRTS are less than that of NAWMA. This outcome indicates that fees are set too low and out of kilter and should be reviewed. Additionally, the loss of over $60,000 at the WRTS for 2011/12 supports gate fees are set too low and inadequately cover costs. On the topic of gate fees, consideration must be given to declining use, increasing costs, ongoing losses and the significant capital outlay required to cover waste storage and processing at the WRTS. These factors will place considerable and escalating pressure on gate fees to push all WRTS fees over and above that charged at the NAWMA facility in the near future. 4.6 WRTS Closure Operational Impacts 4.6.1 Operations Depot Waste disposal costs are incorporated within existing budgets and therefore there are not budgetary considerations relating to disposal of operational waste as a result of closure of the WRTS. Depot Operations vehicles utilise the WRTS to dispose of waste generated through operations. Accordingly, if the WRTS were to close the site would still be utilised by Depot staff to tip Council generated waste into roll on roll off bins. If the WRTS was closed the site could be considered for divestment. Should this eventuate the cost of establishing a facility in the remaining Depot area to handle Council operational produced waste could be funded from funds from sale, thus minimal if no capital cost incurrence would be incurred. 4.6.2 Home Assistance Program The Home Assistance Program (HAP) currently utilises the WRTS for contractors to dispose of waste collected through the service. This is charged at concessional rates dependent on load type. In the 2012/13 budget there is $4,000 allocated to the HAP to dispose of waste at the WRTS. Based on 2011/12 HAP usage and load type disposed of at the WRTS the cost to dispose of waste at the NAWMA facility will be relatively unchanged.

HAP contractors are paid hourly and therefore there would be cost implications in travelling time to send them to the NAWMA facility at Edinburgh North. Based on a 45 minute return trip the additional cost would be approximately $2,500 per annum which would need to be recovered from HAP clients or additional budget provided. An alternative option is to allow HAP contractors to access the Paxton Street site similar to operations staff outlined above. This alternative would not have any impact on cost or operations of the HAP program. A process and procedure would need to be established to control access, security and insurance that the system would not be abused. Given this option does not impact on cost and preliminary discussions have identified an appropriate procedure can be put in place it is proposed that HAP contractors continue to use the Paxton Street site. 4.7 Subsidies During 2011/12 visitation to WRTS totalled 4569 (including 318 non-residents) of which 2369 loads (51.8% of the total), including concessions, were of the type that are cheaper at the WRTS compared to the NAWMA facility. This assumes these were all residents as detail by resident / non-resident status is unknown. If the 2369 loads were taken to the NAWMA facility the additional cost to users would be $23,000 annually ($1916 per month). The following community groups receive free waste disposal at the WRTS:

a) St Vinnie’s; b) Salvation Army; and c) Lifeline.

If these community groups were to take their waste material to the NAWMA facility it would be at annual cost of $5,000 ($416 per month) based on their 2011/12 usage of the WRTS. In total $28,000 ($2,333 per month) additional public cost would result and subsidies of the same amount could be budgeted for in the short term to provide transition and that no persons or groups were worse off from closure of the WRTS (based on current prices at both facilities). 4.7.1 One Off Subsidies In anticipation that all NAWMA gate fees (refer section 4.5) will ultimately be cheaper Council could consider a subsidy for the remainder of the 2012/13 financial year only. As previously stated the WRTS incurred a loss of approximately $60,000 for the 2011/12 financial year. If the WRTS were to close the facility would still incur annual costs of approximately $15,000 per year as outlined in appendix 2 until a change of use or the site was sold. This amount includes $8,546 depreciation costs. If the WRTS were to close, and subject to industrial agreements, the WRTS attendant will be redeployed and as such be budget neutral. However, plant costs would be redundant. This would result in a net annual saving to Council of approximately $45,000 (based on the 2011/12 loss). Current industrial agreements have a remuneration preservation clause that would result in employee cost savings being reduced over two years by $12,000 resulting in a net saving of $33,000 per annum after closure.

Council could consider foregoing a portion of this saving and provide a limited subsidy from 1 March to 30 June 2013. Using the subsidy amount of $2,333 per month outlined in section 4.7 Table 7 summarises the net saving to Council until 30 June 2016.

Table 7: Summary of savings

Year WRTS Closure Saving

Subsidy Value

Net Saving

1 March to 30 June 2013 $11,000* $9,332** $1,668 2013/14 $33,000 nil $33,000 2014/15 $37,000*** nil $37,000 2015/16 $45,000 nil $45,000

Total Saving $116,668 * Based on a $33,000 annual saving calculated monthly for 4 months. ** Based on $2,333 x 4 months. *** Incorporates saving based on 8 months with employee remuneration preservation and 4 without.

4.8 NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre The NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre offers a greater variety of services than the Gawler WRTS as outlined in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Comparison of waste and recycling services offered by The NAWMA facility and the Town of Gawler WRTS

Item NAWMA

Facility Town of Gawler

WRTS E-Waste Free Don’t accept Cardboard Free Free Steel/Metal Free Free Clean Plastic Free Don’t accept Waste Oil Free Free Car Batteries Free Free Polystyrene Free Free Tyres off Rim $9.50 Don’t accept Tyres on Rim $16.50 Don’t accept Single Mattress $12.00 $23 Double Mattress $16.00 $23 Gas Cylinders $12.00 Don’t accept Fluro Tubes $1.00 Don’t accept Paint Tins per litre $0.50 Don’t accept

The NAWMA facility is open 8am to 4pm Tuesday to Fridays and weekends from 9am to 3pm. This equates to a total of 48 hours compared to 24.5 hours at the Town of Gawler WRTS. The NAWMA facility also provides a Salvage and Save Shop operated by Finding Workable Solutions. The shop is open between 10am and 4pm week days and 10am to 12pm weekends. 4.9 Environment Protection Waste to Resources Policy 2010 The Environment Protection Waste to Resources Policy 2010 (EPW2RP) provides the regulatory underpinning for South Australia’s Waste Strategy and supports South Australia’s Strategic Plan 2007 target of reducing waste to landfill by 25% by 2014

(source EPA). As of 1 September 2012 the third of four staged landfill bans and new resource recovery processing requirements resulting from the EPW2RP came into effect. 4.9.1 Resource Recovery Processing Requirements As of 1 September 2012 resource recovery processing requirements came into effect where waste must not be disposed of to a landfill depot unless the waste resulted from, or has been subject to, resource recovery processes undertaken at any of the following:

a) At an appropriate licensed material recovery facility or composting depot; or b) At some other facility that has been approved by the EPA; or c) In accordance with the waste management hierarchy and to the extent

reasonably achievable. If waste management facilities want the ability to dispose of waste directly to landfill they must seek approval from the EPA to become approved facilities to undertake resource recovery in accordance with either a), b) or c) above. Facilities with EPA approval can then make a determination that waste can be disposed of to landfill without undertaking treatment or further treatment. The EPA will assess waste transfer station applications for approval and stipulate conditions based on criteria outlined in EPA guidelines relating to the resource recovery process (appendix 3 and 4). As an alternative waste management facilities that do not satisfy or do not want approval to undertake the resource recovery process can dispose of waste to another facility that does satisfy the relevant requirements of the EPW2RP and EPA guidelines. This is the current situation with waste from the WRTS being treated by NAWMA and or Sita Resource Co who hold appropriate EPA approvals to undertake the resource recovery process. Under this arrangement Council does not need to comply with the requirements outlined in appendix 3 or 4. 5.0 Recommendations This report has discussed a number of key issues relating to the WRTS that need to be considered when deciding the most effective and efficient non kerbside waste and recycling service to the community. In summary these are:

a) The WRTS has experienced a decline in visitation;

b) Superior and more diverse services provided by the NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre;

c) The NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre provides predominantly lower gates fees then the WRTS;

d) Ongoing annual losses greater than $60,000 from the WRTS;

e) A significant reduction of over 50% in the tonnes managed by the WRTS;

f) Ongoing pressure to increase gate fees as a result of continuing cost increases

likely to push all WRTS fees over and above that charged at the NAWMA facility in the near future;

g) The Environment Protection Waste to Resources Policy 2010;

h) A mandatory need for significant capital expenditure to comply with

requirements to cover non-inert waste storage and processing areas;

i) A saving of approximately $45,000 per annum will result from closure of the WRTS; and

j) The potential to provide short term subsidies to utilise the NAWMA Resource

Recovery Centre. The NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre offers residents a superior service then the WRTS including longer trading hours and free recycling of E Waste. Given the current performance of the WRTS and future considerations and influences the following recommendations are made:

1) The Paxton Street WRTS cease operation and close effective 28 February 2013.

2) Subsidies to the value of $7,666 be provided for residents (including concession recipients) between March 1 and June 30 2013 to offset those fees that are higher at the NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre.

3) $1,666 total free waste disposal be provided to the Salvation Army, St Vincent

De Paul and Lifeline between March 1 and 30 June 2013 to utilise the NAWMA Resource Recovery Centre.

4) A tailored consultation plan be developed and implemented by Council prior to

the closure advising WRTS users of the changes and reasoning for them.

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

WRTS annual ongoing after closure costs

Item Average YTD Actuals

10/11 and 11/12 Depreciation & Amortisation & Impairment Depreciation - Buildings $1,091 Depreciation – Infrastructure $7,455 Materials Contracts & Other

Asbestos Surveys / Removal $40 Contractors - Building Maintenance & Repairs $61 Hardware/ Materials $312 Electricity $763 Water/Sewerage Rates - Supply Charge $213 Water - Consumption Charges $94 Insurance - Assets $167 Fire Services $557 Electrical Expenses $578 Plumbing Expenses $35 Emergency Service Levy $942 Grounds Maintenance Assumed Employee Costs $2,000 TOTAL $14,308

Note: Costs subject to annual CPI increases. Costs are based on actual and assumed amounts. Year to year costs could vary.

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4