organic waste collection proposal

8/20/2019 Organic waste collection proposal

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/organic-waste-collection-proposal 1/21

Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016

PAGE 107

5. SUSTAINABILITY

5.1 PROPOSED KERBSIDE ORGANICS SERVICE FOR URBANRESIDENTS OF BENDIGO AND MARONG

Document Information

Authors Bridgette McDougall, Organics Project OfficerDarren Fuzzard, Director Presentation and Assets

Responsible Darren Fuzzard, Director Presentation and Assets Director

Summary/Purpose

This report explores options to deliver on Council’s commitment in the Waste &Resource Management Strategy 2014 to stop household organics from going to landfill.It recommends that Council introduces a fortnightly kerbside organics service for urbanresidents in Bendigo and Marong.

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference:

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2015-2016 Update):

Theme: 1 Leadership and Good Governance

Strategic Objective 1 Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meetfuture needs and challenges.

Strategic Objective 4 Continuous improvement methods are used to ensure thestandard of service delivery is excellent.

Challenges and

Opportunities

Council has a strategic leadership role in setting priorities

and making decisions that will enhance the wellbeing of ourcommunities and enable effective planning for the future.

Challenges andOpportunities

People increasingly want to take an active part inconsultation about each phase of the development of newCouncil initiatives, strategies, masterplans and servicereviews.

Theme: 5 Sustainability

Challenges andOpportunities

Reducing waste to landfill has become a very importantpriority because of the increasing costs and environmentalobligations associated with waste disposal.

Strategy 5.5 The level of waste to landfill is reduced and residual waste ismanaged responsibly, to deliver the adopted waste




PAGE 108

management targets.

Action 5.5.1 Implement the Waste Management Strategy includingcreating a solution to managing kerbside organics.

Strategy Reference (include weblink as applicable):

City of Greater Bendigo Waste & Resource Management Strategy

The development of a solution to stop household organics (food and green) from going tolandfill is a key action in Council’s Waste and Resource Management Strategy 2014-2019.

Background Information

In 2014 the Greater Bendigo City Council adopted its Waste and Resource Management

Strategy (the strategy).

A major initiative of the strategy is the removal of household generated organic material(both food and green) from the waste stream. In doing so, the strategy recognised thatthe Greater Bendigo community was ranked 73 out of 79 Victorian Local Government Areas for its performance in recycling/reuse of kerbside waste from residents. Thisreflected a ‘diversion’ (from landfill) rate of 26% compared with a Statewide average of44%.

The strategy identified that approximately 1/3 of the average residential waste bin ismade up of food waste and between 17 and 36 percent (subject to seasonal variation) is

green (garden) waste. Together these were estimated to total between 12,000 and17,000 tonnes per year of organic material going to landfill.

The strategy identified that, in 2014 dollars, a kerbside solution could be introduced toremove and recycle organic material in our residential waste bins at an additional cost ofaround $70 per household.

Since Council’s adoption of the strategy, the State Government has adopted theStatewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan 2015-44 (the plan). As itsfirst goal, the plan states “landfills will only be for receiving and treating waste streamsfrom which all materials that can be viably recovered have been extracted”.

The plan continues that within five years “material streams….will be diverted fromlandfills if it is economically viable and if it can improve community, environment andpublic health impacts”. The plan further indicates that “planning of new landfill airspacewill be based on the volume of residual waste streams remaining after all materials thatcan be recovered viably have been extracted”.

According to the plan, “the major cause of greenhouse gas emissions from the wasteand resource recovery sector arise from the breakdown of putrescible waste (ie.biodegradable material such as food, green waste and paper) in landfills. When thesematerials break down they generate by-products, one of which is methane. Methane gasis at least 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is estimated to account foraround 86% of the total greenhouse gases from the waste sector”.




PAGE 109

At Eaglehawk landfill, despite methane gas being extracted and converted to power, anestimated 24,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent gas was emitted in 2014/15. Thisrepresents more than half of the City’s total reported emissions.

Commencing in December 2014 and concluding in March 2015, Councillors participatedin three workshops facilitated by City of Greater Bendigo staff to explore and analyseoptions for a residential kerbside organic collection service.

As part of the workshops, a series of research papers (the papers) were prepared bystaff that identified 27 other Councils in South Australia and New South Wales where akerbside organic service (including both food and green waste) had been introduced. Inalmost all instances, the organic service was being provided on a fortnightly basis andthe residual waste on a weekly basis. The predominant reasons for doing this being:

Concerns about odour by changing the residual waste from a weekly to a fortnightly

collection; particularly in relation to nappies; and

Making one service change at a time to allow the community the opportunity to firstbecome comfortable with the new service.

The papers further identified that around 40 percent of the cost of providing a kerbsideservice relates to the bins being picked up by the truck. Hence, from an affordabilityperspective, it noted that the less frequent the service is, the cheaper it would be forresidents. Specifically, the papers predicted an additional annual cost of around$35/household if a fortnightly residual waste/fortnightly organic bin service is providedand around $63/household/year extra if one of those services is undertaken on a weekly

basis and the other fortnightly. These costs are based on an amortised cost of kitchencaddies and new wheelie bins, bin liners, kerbside collection, transport of material to theprocessing plant and processing of material. Due to the diversion and reduction ofwaste, it is predicted to save $23 in landfill levy costs if a weekly residual serviceremains, or $51 if a fortnightly service is adopted based on a reduction of the landfill levyand reduced collection costs.

The paper also referenced a trial undertaken in South Australia by 10 Councils whichfound that while a fortnightly residual waste service was problematic in some instances(due to odour), a higher diversion of organic material into the organic bin was achieved.

In consideration of the above, the majority of Councillors indicated a preference topursue fortnightly kerbside collection services for residual waste and organic material. Indoing so, Councillors endorsed the development of a large scale trial to test theappropriateness of such an approach before a decision would be made on the finalservice to be implemented.

Councillors also considered the merits of providing kitchen caddies, organic binliners/bags, an exemption process, a dedicated project officer and an education packageto support the initiative. All of these initiatives were requested to be included in the trial.

Prior to commencing the trial, it was considered important to verify that a genuine

processor (recycler) of food and green organics existed and that it could cost-effectivelyservice Greater Bendigo. Consequently, Councillors endorsed an expression of interest




PAGE 110

and tender process for the bulk transport and processing of organic material that led toCouncil awarding Contract CT000161 to Biomix in October 2015.

The contract was awarded on the basis of the transport and processing required for theproposed trial (only). Continuation of the contract thereafter is conditional upon Council’sdecision to go to full implementation of the residential kerbside organic service. If theservice proceeds, this contract will be in place for five years.

To establish an appropriate trial area that could readily be implemented an analysis ofthe demographic and land/building mix on current waste service routes was undertaken. A combination of the Thursday morning pickups in the Strathdale/Kennington and WhiteHills/East Bendigo/North Bendigo areas were found to best mimic the average mix of thewhole city and resulted in a trial comprising 2,671 households. To assure the bestpossible understanding of the community response to such a service, participation in thetrial was made mandatory.

In the lead up to the trial, participating households were provided with a 240L organicswheelie bin, a kitchen caddy and a roll of 150 compostable caddy liners. Educationmaterial outlining how to use these and an explanation for the trial was also included.Contact details of the support officer dedicated to assisting participants were providedand a major media launch was undertaken to promote this.

The trial commenced on 10 September 2015 and remains in place. As at early February2016, there has been 12 organic collections with over 350 tonnes of organic materialrecovered. On a pro-rata basis, this would equate to a predicted recovery of more than12,000 tonnes from almost 42,000 households.

Although the contamination rate of the organic material collected has varied over the12 weeks, this rate has consistently remained within acceptable levels for the processor.The first collection had a contamination rate of 1.36% and contamination peaked at4.65%. The most common contaminants have included plastic bags, bottles, foodpackaging, nappies and clothing.

Commencing on 27 November and closing on 11 December 2015, an extensive surveywas mailed to 2,671 households within the trial area. In all, 1,198 responses werereceived and represented an unprecedented response rate of 45%.

‘Bin audits’ were conducted on 12 and 19 November 2015 at 50 randomly selected

properties from each of the two service areas in the trial. These audits occurred inconsecutive weeks on first the residual waste bins and then the organics bins.

The survey results and the bin audits have been made available to the public on the Cityof Greater Bendigo website at:-

https://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/Services/Rubbish_and_Recycling/Organics_collection#.VsFOSbfou70

All Councillors have been issued with an electronic copy of these results and a hard copywas placed in the Councillor’s Room.




PAGE 111

In summary, the survey results indicated that 1,080 (or 92% of) respondents are usingthe organics bin. The remaining 96 (or 8% of) respondents indicated that they are notusing the organics bin because they have home composting/worm farm/chickens, use aprivate contractor for their garden waste and/or feel that they do not have sufficient wasteto warrant the use of the service.Other key findings of the survey were:

875 (or 78% of) respondents indicated that the fortnightly collection of the organicsbin suits their household’s needs. 246 (or 22%) said that it did not.

772 (or 67% of) respondents indicated that the fortnightly collection of the residualwaste bin suits their household’s needs. 378 (or 33%) said that it did not. Of thosenot satisfied by the fortnightly service, 161 referred to concerns about odour;particularly in relation to nappies and pet waste.

24 (or 2% of) respondents had on average an ‘overfull’ organics bin.

157 (or 14% of) respondents had on average an ‘overfull’ residual waste bin.

832 (or 75% of) respondents found the organics system very or extremely easy touse. 89 (or 8% of) respondents found it slightly or not at all easy to use.

Key findings of the bin audits were:

On average, the organics bin weighed 13.1kg and comprised 81.2% gardenorganics, 14.1% food organics and 4.7% residual waste (contaminants)

On average, the residual waste bin weighed 12kg and comprised 79.7% residualwaste, 13.1% food organics and 7.2% garden organics.

Overall, on average, 83% of organic material was being diverted from landfill throughthe organics bin.

On average, food waste is being disposed of almost evenly between the organicsand residual waste bins.

The initial 30 question survey of residents was conducted to obtain critical feedbackabout the suitability of the fortnightly kerbside organic and residual waste services. The

survey purposely excluded reference to the cost of service at that time. To obtain aninsight from participants about how they judge cost versus level of service (havingexperienced almost a full summer), a follow-up survey was conducted from 4 to 12February 2016. At the time of writing this report, responses to the survey continue to bereceived and a media release encouraging further responses by 18 February 2016 wasissued on 12 February 2016.

As at 22 February 2016, 717 responses have been received and the results are:

365 (or 51% of) respondents favour a fortnightly organic and fortnightly residualwaste bin service at an additional cost of $35 per annum.

301 (or 42% of) respondents favour a fortnightly organic and weekly residual wastebin service at an additional cost of $63 per annum.




PAGE 112

51 (or 7% of) respondents favour a weekly organic and fortnightly residual waste binservice at an additional cost of $63 per annum.

31 households in the trial area returned the survey and indicated that they do notsupport the introduction of any kerbside organic service.

A further bin audit was conducted on 4 and 11 February 2016. Key findings of this auditwere:

Average 10.3kg of organics per household.

25% food organics in organics bin.

Average 11kg material in residual waste bin.

27% food organics in residual waste bin.

A further workshop was held with Councillors on 22 February 2016 to discuss thefeedback from the two questionnaires and the data collected on the trial. At thisworkshop, an additional variation to the proposed services was raised being an optionalfortnight collection of the residual waste rather than weekly collection.

Discussion

The trial of a fortnightly organics bin and fortnightly residual waste bin service to almost2,700 households has been invaluable to testing and determining how a kerbsideorganics collection service could best be introduced to Greater Bendigo. In particular:

The need for an exemption process

As previously noted, the trial service was introduced to participants on a ‘mandatory’basis. While feedback obtained from the survey indicates that some households wereupset by this, it is considered that doing so has given the greatest opportunity for Councilto understand the full range of attitudes toward an organics collection service.

During earlier workshops, Councillors expressed a strong view that an exemptionprocess is required to allow households (within the final service area) to demonstrate thatthey do not need the kerbside organics service to sustainably manage their food and

garden organics. This approach is reinforced by Council’s commitment in the Waste &Resource Management Strategy to encourage household level solutions such as wormfarms and composting.

Of the 2,671 households involved in the trial, 16 requested and were granted anexemption for this reason. In doing so, they created the basis on which a proposedexemption process could be offered. See Attachment 1.

As has been experienced in the trial, it is critical to make clear to those seeking anexemption that their household level organics system must genuinely manage allorganics and that it is an ongoing commitment.




PAGE 113

The challenge for Council then becomes to what extent this effort is rewarded financiallythrough an altered waste services fee.

Based on financial modelling, it is predicted that the gross annual cost of introducing thekerbside organic service on a fortnightly basis is $86 per household (in 2016 figures).

To ensure that any exemption granted is genuinely achieving diversion of organics fromthe kerbside waste stream requires an approval and monitoring process. The workrequired to maintain the exemption process would be accommodated in the educationofficer role that is recommended for the first two years of the service.

On balance, in recognition of Council’s objective in the Waste & Resource RecoveryStrategy to support household –level solutions, it is considered that an exemption processwith a fee reduction recognising the avoided direct cost of service nominated above isthe most appropriate approach.

Council also wished to explore the option or need to provide an exemption for multi-unitdevelopments. I.E. To permit residents in such circumstances to ‘share’ bins rather thaneach have their own. This need or desire was tested in the trial survey and of the 157respondents living in units or flats, 80 percent indicated that they did not wish to share abin. In the comments provided however, it was evident that some participants foundstorage of the additional 240L bin a challenge.

On balance, the most appropriate response to multi-unit development situations isconsidered to be to provide individual bins with an option to reduce these to 140L in size.

Provision of kitchen caddies and liners to support the service

As indicated to Councillors in earlier working papers, studies conducted internationallyand in Australia suggest that the greatest recovery of organic waste occurs when akitchen caddy and compostable bags are provided to residents.

On this basis, two caddy types and liners were trialled. Overall the survey resultsindicated that 873 (or 78% of) respondents found the kitchen caddy and liners easy touse.

Of the 245 (or 22% of) respondents who found the system not easy to use, commoncomments regarding the caddy included that it was too big or too small or was unsightly

on the kitchen bench.

The caddy used in the Strathdale/Kennington area was found to be better liked than thatin the White Hills/East Bendigo/North Bendigo area. The Strathdale/Kennington caddywas also half the cost of the other. It is proposed that the Strathdale/Kennington caddywould be rolled out in the full scale service.

A larger number of comments relate to the bags provided. Many of these commentssuggest to the authors that more upfront education in how to use the bags effectively andthen ongoing familiarity with them will assist over time. One structural change proposedis to increase the size of the bags so that they can be tied off effectively and a print willbe added to indicate where and how to open them.




PAGE 114

970 (or 91% of) respondents indicated that they occasionally or never experiencedoffensive odour with the use of the caddies in the house. Again, ongoing familiarity withusing the system and larger bags that can be tied off is expected to improve this further.

The survey found that 921 (or 89% of) respondents used four or less compostable bagsper week. Therefore, a roll of 150 compostable bags is likely to meet the needs of mostresidents per year. Again to assist in the successful rollout of the service, it isconsidered beneficial to provide each household with a roll of compostable bags and tomake further rolls available on an as-needed basis throughout the year. Further, duringthe initial years of the new service at least, it is proposed that an annual allocation ofbags to households occurs.

The Role of Education and Compliance Activities

Large scale behaviour change processes (such as stopping organic material going fromour homes into landfill) is an immense task that takes considerable time and effort to

achieve. The kerbside recycling service implemented by Council decades ago providesa highly relevant and strong example of this. Despite years of recycling promotionthrough many avenues, the Bendigo community continues to discard between 9 and 12percent of ‘traditional’ recyclables in our household waste bins.

During early Councillor workshops, the need for and value of an education plan wasdiscussed in detail and the attached communication and education plan which utilises avariety of media and communication mechanisms was developed. Refer Attachment 2.

As part of the trial, many of the activities nominated in the plan were implemented andtested. 770 (or 65% of) survey respondents indicated that they were aware the trial was

taking place before their bin arrived. 660 (or 74% of) respondents indicated that theylearnt this from the introductory letter sent to their home and 314 (or 35% of)respondents saw it advertised in the newspaper.

797 (or 68% of) respondents found the educational material provided with the bin very orextremely informative. 99 (or 8.5% of) respondents found it either slightly or not at allinformative. In a separate question 1,056 (or 91% of) respondents indicated that they didnot find any part of the educational material confusing.

While overall the communication and education material offered appears to have beenwell received and effective, comments provided will enable this to be further improved as

part of the broader rollout. Results of the bin audits also suggest that ongoinginvestment in education about the purpose of each bin and the importance of using thesecorrectly will be needed.

Survey responses also suggest that the following improvements to information providedcould be made:

A magnetised collection calendar.

A sticker listing what can go in the organics bin be placed on top of the kitchencaddy.

Advice regarding how to obtain a new roll of caddy liners.




PAGE 115

Better guidance on where animal droppings and cat litter go.

Clarify which cardboard can go in the organics bin and which should go in therecycling bin.

Clarify which bin old clothing and material should be placed in.

Greater assurance that items such as bones and fruit seeds are acceptable to put inthe organics bin.

An update on the communication plan and education material in consideration of thefeedback and experience during the trial will be provided to Council as part of rolling outthe broader service.

While positive and long lasting behaviour change is recognised by leading authors suchas Daniel Goleman to be most effectively influenced by adopting a positive andconstructive approach, it is also acknowledged that in some instances strongermeasures are needed.

On 1 October 2014, Council adopted its updated approach to compliance andenforcement. See Attachment 3.

This policy supports the three step approach of educate, inform and then enforce ifnecessary.

Consistency with the adopted approach in regard to the organics initiative is consideredappropriate.

Frequency of service and cost

Based on feedback in the first survey of participants about the service standard offered inthe trial, three options appeared to warrant further participant feedback:

1. A fortnightly organic and fortnightly residual waste service at an annual additionalcost per household (in 2016 dollars) of $35.

2. A weekly residual waste service and fortnightly organic service at an annualadditional cost per household (in 2016 dollars) of $63.

3. A weekly organic service and fortnightly residual waste service at an annualadditional cost per household (in 2016 dollars) of $63.

As at 22 February, 2016 feedback from the second survey conducted in Februaryindicated that, when offered the opportunity to consider both level of service andassociated price together, 42% of respondents would prefer the residual waste service toremain weekly compared with 33% in the initial survey (where only level of service wasconsidered).




PAGE 116

Each option offers different benefits and creates different challenges for people indifferent circumstances in our community. The challenge for Council is determiningwhich option best meets the majority of community needs while giving fair considerationto the ability of all households to pay. At the same time the evidence shows thatleadership is needed if we are to improve our collective environmental performance andto reduce the long term cost of our household waste.

A further and critical consideration must be the need to ensure that the option chosen willengender a strong and enduring positive commitment from the vast majority of thecommunity toward our ultimate objectives. To do this, the proposal must be widely seenas a practical, fair and logical step. Sustainability Victoria’s short term horizon forchange (nominated in the Statewide Waste & Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan) offive years and full realisation of its objectives at 30 years is instructional.

In this regard, while 67% of trial respondents initially indicated that fortnightly residualwaste collections have been meeting their household needs, support for this option

dropped to 51% in the second survey when participants were provided information on thecost of each service. At full rollout, this could translate to around 20,000 householdsbeing dissatisfied with the service and still be made to pay $35 more than they currentlydo.

Again, change management most effectively occurs when a positive attitude toward thechange is created and then builds momentum.

It is considered that, as has been found in many other Local Government areas,changing the residual waste collection frequency from a weekly to a fortnightly service isa significant challenge in itself and the second survey has indicated that 50% of residents

are prepared to pay more to retain a weekly service. Hence, introducing a newfortnightly organic service at the same time creates the potential for considerableresistance to be developed against both initiatives.

While acknowledging that retaining the current weekly residual waste service (andadding a fortnightly organics bin) would mean an annual increase of $63 to households,doing so would ensure that all households continue to have a primary service that meetstheir needs while they become positively engaged in removing organic waste from ourlandfills.

In addition, by retaining a weekly residual waste bin, the risk of contamination in the

organics bin with residual waste is substantially reduced. In turn this will reduce the riskof paying higher processing fees due to excess contamination.

That said, it is recognised that the first two options do not create the encouragement todivert organics from landfill the way that the third option (with a weekly organic serviceand fortnightly residual waste service) would. Again however, the third option suffersfrom a similar risk of the broad resistance noted for the first option. Added to this, is aneven higher cost than option one which in turn is likely to further elevate the level ofdissatisfaction. The significant lack of support for this option demonstrated by the secondsurvey of trial participants clearly suggests that this option is not currently appropriate topursue in Greater Bendigo.




PAGE 117

Across urban areas of Greater Bendigo, 2,539 businesses currently utilise the weekly‘household’ waste service. These businesses sit outside the ‘CBD’ service (wherededicated trucks make it possible to provide an individually ‘catered’ service at a higherfee) and therefore any change to the existing weekly service would impact on thesebusinesses.

On balance, it is therefore considered that retention of the existing weekly kerbsideresidual waste service and the addition of a fortnightly organics service, offers the bestoverall next step in our collective progress toward minimising the resource that currentlygoes to landfill as waste.

Further to this, the suggestion at the 22 February 2016 Councillor workshop to considerintroducing an ‘option’ to have a fortnightly residual waste service (in lieu of the currentand proposed weekly service) has been assessed and is not recommended.

The maximum saving predicted of moving all 42,000 urban households from a weekly to

fortnightly residual waste collection service is $28 per year per household. However,when this is done on an ‘optional’ basis the predicted savings are reduced considerablydue to the systems and processes required to ensure that households only receive theservice that they are paying for. At its simplest this would involve the additional cost ofindividual identification of each bin’s level of paid service and assessment by the wastetruck driver of whether each bin is due to be picked up. In doing so, the efficiency of eachtruck is reduced (compared to the current approach where no such assessment isrequired).

Further, in such a scenario the need to continue to drive every street every week is notdiminished and, given that 40 percent of the total service cost relates to this activity, the

savings able to be passed on become very small.

It is suggested that the current option to allow households the choice to downsize theirbin is a more suitable approach from an overall service efficiency perspective and henceoffers better value to all ratepayers.

In the February 2016 workshop, Councillors also expressed a strong desire to ensurethat the opportunity to build on this initial step is not hampered by long term contractualcommitments for the collection service. In doing so, Council asked that any proposedcontract for collection of organics allow for a review of the adopted kerbside collectionfrequencies within two years of the service being introduced. Accordingly, should Council

adopt the recommendation, the collection service advertised will seek prices to enable anassessment of costs associated with both a two year and (traditional) 7 year contractperiod.

Service Area

During workshop discussions, Councillors expressed a desire to roll out the organicsservice to as great a number of households as possible within ‘urban’ areas. Councilindicated that this should include urban areas in Bendigo and Marong initially, with afurther stage to roll out the service to Heathcote and other small towns. This wouldequate to around 40,600 households as part of the initial roll out in 2016/17 and a further1,500 households in 17/18. A map detailing the proposed limits of the organics servicefor the initial rollout is included as Attachment 4.




PAGE 118

Timelines

The time required to implement a new service is dependent upon the service option thatCouncil determines. However, it is suggested that the key time for the service to beoperational is at the start of the 2016 Spring season. While some options will result inlonger lead times than others, it is predicted that all options can be ready to commenceat the start of Spring.

Risk Analysis

The major risk associated with the introduction of any new service and/or change to anexisting service is its acceptance by the broader community. The trial of fortnightlykerbside collection services in almost 2,700 households during the hotter months of theyear has provided an immense amount of information to better understand this risk. Theconclusions and recommendations in this report have been strongly influenced by this

information together with research on the experiences of other Councils who havesought such changes.

Other Implications

As Council is aware, private contractor Greenaway currently provides a fortnightlykerbside green organics collection service to approximately 2,500 households in GreaterBendigo.

Introduction of the proposed compulsory (with exemptions) kerbside organics service canbe anticipated to impact on this existing business in two ways. Should Council elect to

introduce a fortnightly/fortnightly combination of collection services, then (as has beenthe case in the trial area) this can be accommodated by the City’s existing collectionresources. Households wishing to remain with Greenaway could do so but would berequired to demonstrate through the exemption process that all organic material is beingmanaged.

Alternatively, should Council retain the existing weekly residual waste collection serviceand introduce a fortnightly organics service, the organics collection would becompetitively tendered. This would then create the opportunity for Greenaway andothers to win a contract to service around 40,000 households. Should Greenaway not besuccessful in this process, households would again retain the ability to seek an

exemption and remain with Greenaway.

Consultation/Communication

External Consultation:

Community consultation on the organics initiative began with the development of theWaste and Resource Management Strategy that was adopted in 2014. As the mostsignificant change initiative in the strategy, it received considerable media attention andpromotion. Extensive consultation occurred in the development of the strategy. This was

overseen by a reference committee chaired by a Councillor and made up predominantlyof community members.




PAGE 119

Following Council’s decision to conduct an organics trial, the position of Organics ProjectOfficer was created.

Four listening posts were held prior to the commencement of the trial at Lake Weeroona,White Hills shopping precinct, IGA Strath Village and Coles McIvor Highway.

A launch of the trial occurred through all local media outlets and the City’s owncommunication mechanisms in August 2015.

Contact details of the Organics Project Officer were provided to all participatinghouseholds for enquiries. To date, 191 calls have been received. The City’s customerservice team has also logged 45 requests on behalf of residents from within and outsideof the trial area.

Ongoing media releases and the City’s website are being used to keep the generalpublic informed of findings during the trial.

The Organics Project Officer gave a presentation to Strathdale Probus Club in August2015 and to the Rotary Club of Bendigo Sandhurst in December 2015.

An extensive survey of 2,671 participants in the trial areas was mailed out in November2015. The survey was also available in an online version. A response rate of 45% wasachieved and has significantly contributed to the recommendations of this report.

A kerbside waste audit was undertaken by Wastemin over two weeks in November toassess the contents of the general waste, recycling and organics bins in the trial areas. A follow up audit was conducted in February 2016.

A second survey of participants was undertaken in February 2016.

Resource Implications

In line with State Government policy, Greater Bendigo City Council attempts to ensurethat the cost of waste management services are fully funded by the waste-related feesand charges adopted each year in the budget.

The previously described costs associated with the three options for introducing akerbside organic service to the residual waste service represent the net additional annualcharges that would be applied to household waste fees if adopted. The following fullyear fees for individual services would apply (as adjusted on a pro-rata basis for timing tointroduce organics service) subject to the service option adopted by Council:




PAGE 120

Service Frequency Full Year GrossCost (2015/16)

Full Year GrossCost (2016/17)

Urban Organics140L or 240L

Fortnightly n/a 86

Urban ResidualWaste 140L Fortnightly n/a 91

Urban ResidualWaste 140L

Weekly 138 119


Fortnightly n/a 194


Weekly 238 222

Rural ResidualWaste 140L

Weekly 138 142

Rural Residual

Waste 240L

Weekly 238 245

RecyclingAll Service Areas

Fortnightly 64.50 66.50

Notes:

‘Urban’ refers to the areas nominated to receive a mandatory kerbside organics service in this report.

‘Rural’ refers to all other areas in Greater Bendigo including smaller townships not nominated in the‘Urban’ areas.

The figures in 2016/17 have been increased by 3 percent to reflect normal price increases due towage, plant operating and contractual costs.

Budget Allocation in the Current Financial Year:

The trial is funded from the 2015/16 operating budget at an estimated cost of $65,000. Acapital works budget provision has also been made to purchase the requiredinfrastructure for full implementation.

External Funding Sources:

A $500,000 grant from Sustainability Victoria has been received for the implementationof a kerbside organics collection service.

Conclusion

Following adoption of Council’s Waste and Resource Management Strategy in 2014,extensive work has occurred to determine what an appropriate kerbside organic (foodand garden waste) collection service for urban households would be.

Finding a balance between what level of service the community expects and what it isprepared to pay is challenging. So too, considerable leadership is required to raise ourcollective performance on diversion from landfill and to position us well for the strategic

direction of the State Government with respect to managing organic material.




PAGE 121

On balance, the best option to respond to these challenges is considered to be theintroduction of a mandatory fortnightly organic collection service in nominated urbanareas in addition to the existing weekly residual waste collection service.

That said, there is a clear desire of Councillors to consider further steps to removeorganics from the kerbside waste collection through expansion of the organics collectionservice to Heathcote and other small towns, along with a further review of the frequencyof kerbside services within two years of the full service being rolled out.

Attachments

1. Kerbside Organics Exemption Policy

2. Compliance Policy

3. Proposed Service Area

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:

1. Introduce in 2016/17 a compulsory fortnightly kerbside organic collection service toall households in urban Bendigo and Marong as generally described in this reportand at a net additional annual cost (in 2016 figures) of $63 to these households.

2. Include an exemption process for those properties where it can be demonstrated thatall organic material is being managed within the property and waive the annual

organic collection fee of $86 (based on full year charge for 2016/17) for suchproperties.

3. Support the ongoing funding of activities nominated in the attached communicationand education plan (updated from time to time) including funding for a further twoyears (from commencement of the full roll out) the position of Organics ProjectOfficer.

4. Where necessary, support undertaking compliance activities in accordance withCouncil’s adopted compliance policy to eliminate organics from the kerbside residualwaste stream.

5. Acknowledge the significant role that the residents in the trial areas have played inshaping this major initiative for Greater Bendigo’s waste services.




PAGE 122

KERBSIDE ORGANICS EXEMPTION POLICY

1. PURPOSE

This policy provides a rationale and framework for an equitable, transparent and consistentapproach to exemptions from the Kerbside Organics Collection Service undertaken by the City ofGreater Bendigo ('City'), so the community can be assured that standards are met.

2. SCOPE

This policy applies to those residents within the City of Greater Bendigo organics collection zone.

3. INTRODUCTION

Counci l Vision

‘Greater Bendigo – Working together to be Australia’s most liveable regional city.’

Counci l Values

‘Council wants the community to have reason to be proud of the city and will do this through:

Transparency – Information about Council decisions is readily available and easilyunderstood;

City of Greater Bend igo Counc il Plan 2014-2017:-

Theme 1: Leadership and Goo d Governance

Strategic Object ives:

1. Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions and uses good governance principles toguide decision-making.

4. Continuous improvement methods are used to ensure the standard of service delivery isexcellent.

Theme 5: Sustainabi l i ty

Approval Date:

Review Date:

Author Bridgette McDougall, Organics Project Officer

Responsible Director: Darren Fuzzard, Presentation & Assets




PAGE 123

Strategic Object ive:

5. The level of waste to landfill is reduced and residual waste is managed responsibly, todeliver the adopted waste management targets.

4. POLICY

Key Principles

This policy and procedure recognises that whilst the Kerbside Organics Collection Service will berolled out as a mandatory service to all residential properties who receive a kerbside collection inthe nominated areas, an exemption process is required to cater for residents who can suitablymanage all organic material on-site.

Kerbside Organics Collection Exemption

An exemption from the kerbside organics collection service may be granted in the following

circumstance:

Residents, from the time of the collection service being implemented and continuingthereafter, demonstrating that all organic material is effectively managed on the property.

Procedure

The following outlines the process in which an exemption must be made and considered:-

1. An application must be made using the appropriate form and attaching supportingdocumentation. Note: Applications must be made by the resident or by a person acting onbehalf of the resident, where the resident is unable to make an application for medicalreasons.

2. The application must be submitted to the City of Greater Bendigo - Waste Services Unit forconsideration.

3. A City of Greater Bendigo representative will assess the application and make a time to visitthe property to assess onsite the property process for dealing with food organics and gardenorganics waste.

4. Determination of whether an exemption will be granted. This will be based on the applicantdemonstrating that they have current and on-going alternative arrangements for the

treatment of food organics and garden organics waste.

5. Notification to property owner in writing.

6. Notification to the Rating & Valuation Services Unit.

Note:- Routine audits of receptacles of exempted properties will be conducted periodically.




PAGE 124

COMPLIANCE POLICY

1. Purpose

This policy provides a rationale and framework for an equitable, transparent and consistentapproach to compliance activities undertaken by the City of Greater Bendigo (“City”), so thecommunity can be assured that standards are met.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all employees undertaking compliance activities on behalf of the City ofGreater Bendigo.

3. Introduction

Counci l Vision

‘Greater Bendigo – Working together to be Australia’s most liveable regional city.’

Counci l Values

‘Council wants the community to have reason to be proud of the city and will do this through:

Transparency – Information about Council decisions is readily available and easilyunderstood;

City of Greater Bend igo Counc il Plan 2013-2017

Theme 1: Leadership and Good Governance - Strategic Object ive

Approval Date: 1 October 2014

Review Date: 1 October 2017

AuthorCaroline Grylls, Coordinator Public Health &Environment

Responsible Director: Prue Mansfield, Planning & Development




PAGE 125

1. Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions and uses good governance principles to guide decision-making.

Regulation and associated compliance activities play a critical role in maintaining minimumstandards of civic behaviour particularly at the points where the behaviour and actions of

individuals intersects with, and impacts with others and the environment.

To be able to achieve minimum standards of civic behaviour, ensure public health and safety andprovide for the protection of the environment, compliance activities are a legislated andnecessary function of Local Government. Frequently Local Governments are required bylegislation to enforce acts and regulations established by State Government. The City’s ownLocal Laws form a minor proportion of the total requirement of assurance and enforcementactivities.

In the absence of policy, compliance activities may be seen to be inconsistent and open to

influence. To satisfy the City of Greater Bendigo’s regulatory compliance requirements in anequitable, transparent and consistent way this policy has been developed to assist all employeesinvolved in compliance activities; and to advise community members of the approach that will betaken.

The current compliance and enforcement policy was adopted by Council in March 2012. Regularreview of the policy is essential to ensure that it reflects contemporary views and supports theequitable, transparent and consistent approach to compliance activities that is its purpose.

4. Policy

Key Principles

All compliance activities undertaken by the City of Greater Bendigo will:

be outcome based rather than punitive; i.e. fix the problem rather than issue a fine;

where appropriate, provide opportunity for timely and appropriate corrective action to betaken;

The City of Greater Bendigo will act in the following order - inform, educate and provide warningsbefore undertaking enforcement.

Compliance Priorities

Compliance activities can be classified as either proactive or reactive.

Proact ive Compliance

Proactive compliance activities are usually a consequence of programmed inspections,scheduled audits or experience.




PAGE 126

Reactive Comp liance

Reactive compliance activities are usually a consequence of a complaint raised by a resident,employee observations, or a Councillor on behalf of a resident.

While the origins of compliance priorities may vary, it is intended that the risk assessmentprocess will be applied consistently, without regard of the source.

Response

All compliance enforcement activities (i.e. prosecution or a fine) initiated by the City of GreaterBendigo must be appropriately considered and be based on the key principles.

Only where it can be demonstrated that insufficient or untimely corrective action has been takenby an offender will the City of Greater Bendigo initiate compliance enforcement activities.

Compliance enforcement activities will generally not be initiated unless:

all other means of achieving compliance have been exhausted;

there is sufficient evidence available to achieve successful prosecution;

legislation, regulation or risk requires enforcement activity be initiated

The City of Greater Bendigo will follow up or monitor the outcome.

Exemptions

A number of exemptions have been provided that allow for the City of Greater Bendigo to initiatethe most serious of compliance enforcement activities immediately. This includes, but is notlimited to:

immediate or likely life threatening situations;

permanent or irreversible damage to the natural or build environment;

immediate risk to public health, safety or wellbeing;

persons where a pattern/repeated instances of behaviour and failure to adequately fix theproblem, has been established;

parking infringements (which has its own policy for appeal and review);

debt collection (which has its own policy for appeal and review).

organic waste collection proposal

Documents