PALMERSTON NORTH CITY
COUNCIL
Memorandum
TO: Finance and Performance Committee
MEETING DATE: 19 April 2017
TITLE: Ashhurst Domain Riverbank Erosion
DATE: 10 April 2017
AUTHOR/S: Ray
Swadel, General Manager - City Networks, City Networks
|
RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council
1. That
the Committee note any bank protection works fronting the Ashhurst Domain
fall outside of the Lower Manawatu River Management Scheme and therefore
require majority funding from either the Palmerston North City Council and/or
the New Zealand Transport Agency.
2. That
the Committee note river bank protection design options and costings fronting
the Ashhurst Doman and interfacing with the State Highway bridge are being
reviewed, in order to prepare a proposed tri-party agreement between Horizons
Regional Council, Palmerston North City Council and the New Zealand Transport
Agency as to responsibilities and obligations for these protection works, for
consideration at the Committee’s June 2017 meeting.
|
1. ISSUE
1.1 The
right bank of the Manawatu River, fronting the Ashhurst Domain, has been
subjected to erosion following the major June 2015 flood event. Erosion continues
even during modest river flows and there clearly is a need to establish bank
protection works as soon as possible.
1.2 While one of Horizons Regional Council’s core functions is
river management, their funding policy is largely centred around targeted rate
funding. The reach of the Manawatu River adjacent to Ashhurst Domain
falls outside their river management scheme boundaries and that therefore,
under that policy, limits their mandate for involvement in this issue.
1.3 Accordingly there is an expectation that those benefitting from the
bank protection works will primarily fund the construction costs. In this case,
Palmerston North City Council who owns the land being eroded namely the
Ashhurst Domain and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) given that their
State Highway bridge immediately downstream is vulnerable to losing its western
approach if the bank erosion continues unhindered.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Horizons’ River
Engineering Staff have investigated a number of bank protection options ranging
from a series of willow tree groynes anchored with railway irons and wire rope
ties estimated to cost $260,000, through to rip rap rock lining of the exposed
bank estimated to cost $800,000.
2.2 They recommend proceeding
with the rock lining option, as this represents the most robust solution, but
understand the difficulties this may pose regarding funding.
2.3 In regard to the lower cost
groynes option, Horizons note this will require more regular monitoring and
inspection and is likely to require a greater level of maintenance /
modification in the future given that projects of this type have inherent risks
primarily relating to river characteristics and flow conditions, particularly
during the 12 month period following construction.
2.4 In this regard,
Horizons’ advise that while they will continue to provide technical
advice and support they cannot guarantee funding or service commitment to
maintenance/modification works because bank protection works in this location
are outside of their river protection schemes and will not be a Horizons
infrastructural asset. Any future requests for physical
maintenance/modification works assistance would be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
2.5 That said, Horizons at the
last meeting of the triennium resolved to increase funding of its Regional-wide
Environmental Grants Budget relating to river works, primarily to enable it to
make a contribution to the cost of bank protection works for the Ashhurst
Domain. Arising from those deliberations Horizons resolved that in addition to
meeting the costs to design the bank protection works and supervise their
construction they will also fund 30% of the capital costs, capped at $80,000.
2.6 Acceptance of that Horizons
contribution still leaves Palmerston North City Council and/or NZTA with
funding the 70% balance of the capital works. Based on the earlier estimates
this represents a PNCC/NZTA contribution of $182,000 for the lower cost groynes
option or $720,000 for the rock lining option. Plus either PNCC or NZTA needs
to accept ownership of the new asset, with an associated commitment to its
ongoing maintenance and renewal.
2.7 The capital costings may be
summarised as follows:
|
Option
|
Estimated
Total Cost
|
Horizons Contribution
|
PNCC / NZTA Contribution
|
|
Groynes
|
$260k
|
$78k
|
$182k
|
|
Rock Lining
|
$800k
|
$80k
|
$720k
|
2.8 Discussions were held with
all three parties (Horizons, PNCC & NZTA) late last year to consider a
partnership approach to attending to bank protection works at this location
along with the associated funding contributions.
2.9 Horizons provided an initial
risk assessment of the State Highway bridge approaches if the eroded bank was
to be left unattended. Having received that assessment NZTA were of a view that
there was no immediate threat to the bridge and its approaches that would
warrant them having to contribute to bank protection works at this time.
3. DISCUSSION
3.1 While Horizons have made
their position clear on issues concerning erosion of the river bank fronting
the Ashhurst Domain, such as engineering protection options, ownership and
funding contributions, however there are still broader implications for PNCC
and possibly NZTA.
3.2 There remains the issue of
river management and how the active river channel has deposited material
mid-stream, forcing the river flow into the bank and in turn eroding it. This
impacts on the extent of future maintenance / modification works to parties
other than Horizons.
3.3 There are still questions as
to why the 700m section of the Manawatu River from its confluence with the
Pohangina River downstream to the State Highway bridge is excluded from the
Lower Manawatu River Management Scheme.
3.4 Notwithstanding these
considerations, the local Community is expecting action regardless of which
authority has jurisdiction over this matter. Their voice has been strong on
this matter since the 2015 flooding and was heightened by the heavy rain event
during the first week of April 2017, which resulted in further substantial
erosion to this section of the bank.
3.5 This further erosion has
extended much closer to the western abutment of the State Highway bridge, to
the extent that NZTA have acknowledged a need to review their previous decision
not to financially contribute to bank protection works.
3.6 Unfortunately the continued
erosion since Horizons Staff undertook their investigation of protection
options, means there is a need to review those designs and costings. Horizons
have agreed to update this information, in order for an agreement to be reached
between the three parties as to permanent works that will be constructed to
protect this section of the Manawatu River bank.
3.7 Furthermore Horizons have
advised that even if an agreement is reached and funding commitments made, the
opportunity to work on the site has now been lost until the lower river flows
in spring of 2017 (anticipated to be September 2017 at the earliest).
3.8 Time required to undertake
the work is estimated to be around four weeks for the groyne option and up to
six weeks for the rock lining option, subject to availability of material from
the quarry.
3.9 Horizons do not believe
there are any interim works that can be undertaken to arrest the current
erosion.
4. NEXT STEPS
4.1 Following
a review of the bank protection design options and costings by Horizons River
Engineering Staff, efforts will be directed to preparing a proposed tri-party
agreement between Horizons, PNCC and NZTA as to responsibilities and
obligations for these works along the right bank of the Manawatu River fronting
the Ashhurst Domain and interfacing with the State Highway bridge.
4.2 Once
a proposed tri-party agreement has been drafted, this will then be presented to
the respective “governance arms” of each party for consideration
and approval.
4.3 Council
may wish to consider support for the more expensive rock lining option, with a
view to negotiating its subsequent inclusion into the Lower Manawatu River
Management Scheme. Such an arrangement has not been discussed with Horizons
Staff at this stage.
4.4 It
is expected that this matter will be reported back to the Committee at its June
2017 meeting.
Attachments
Nil
|
Ray Swadel
General Manager - City Networks
|
|
|
PALMERSTON NORTH CITY
COUNCIL
Memorandum
TO: Finance and Performance Committee
MEETING DATE: 19 April 2017
TITLE: Treasury Report for 9 months ended 31 March 2017
DATE: 4 April 2017
AUTHOR/S: Steve
Paterson, Strategy Manager Finance, City Corporate
|
RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Finance and Performance Committee
1. That the performance of the treasury activity for the 9 months
ending 31 March 2017 be noted.
2. That it be noted that as at 31 March 2017 the treasury policy
targets were complied with, except for the three to five year fixed rate
maturity profile band target of 15% to 60% and that it is intended that full
policy compliance will be achieved by 30 June 2017.
|
1. ISSUE
To
provide an update on the performance of the Investment Fund (“the
Fund”) and the Council’s Term Debt portfolio for the 9 months ended
31 March 2017.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Investment
Fund
In November 2008 Council endorsed an orderly exit strategy for the
Long Term Investment Fund which embraced holding the investments in bonds to
maturity or when they could be sold without realising a loss (ie if the yields
fall below the purchase price).
This strategy has
been encapsulated in subsequent 10 Year and Annual Plans and the realisation
process is nearing an end.
The bond portfolio
is managed directly by the Council with the assistance of MCA Ltd as investment
advisors.
2.2 Term
Debt
The Council’s
Annual Plan for 2016/17 forecast additional debt of $13.5m would need to be
raised during the year to fund the $28.9m of new capital expenditure programmes
(including assumed carry forwards from 2015/16). In June 2016 the Council
resolved to specifically authorise the raising of up to $14m of additional
debt.
Council’s
Financial Strategy (updated version adopted 24 June 2015) contains the
following ratios which the Council has determined to be prudent maxima:
• Net
debt as a percentage of total assets not exceeding 20%
• Net
debt as a percentage of total revenue not exceeding 175%
• Net
interest as a percentage of total revenue not exceeding 15%
• Net
interest as a percentage of annual rates income not exceeding 20%
The Treasury Policy
(embracing the Liability Management and Investment Policy) also contains a
number of other criteria regarding debt management.
3. Performance
3.1 Investment
Fund
Fund performance is monitored and reviewed
by Council’s investment advisor and Council’s own staff. Attached
as schedule 4 is a consolidated report prepared by Council’s
investment advisor covering the period 1 July 2016 – 31 March 2017.
The overall market value of the Fund is summarised in the following table:
|
|
Market Value at
1 Jul 16
$m
|
Market Value at
30 Sep 16
$m
|
Market Value at
31 Dec 16
$m
|
Market Value at
31 Mar 17
$m
|
|
NZ Bonds
|
$5.59
|
$5.64
|
$4.64 #
|
$4.65 #
|
# - a $1 million bond investment matured in
October 2016 and was repaid to the Council
Realised Fund
earnings from interest and dividends for the 9 months totalled $122k and there
were also unrealised gains of $57k. $1.122m was distributed back to the
Council during the period including $1m of maturing investments.
3.2 Term
Debt
Schedule 1 attached shows the details of Council’s debt as at 31
March 2017. Debt levels were within the policy parameters outlined
in clause 2.2. of this report.
The summarised gross
term debt movements are shown in the following table:
|
|
Annual Plan for year (2016/17)
$000
|
Actual – 3 months (2016/17)
$000
|
Actual – 6 months (2016/17)
$000
|
Actual – 9 months (2016/17)
$000
|
|
Opening Debt Balance at 1 July 2016
New Debt #
Debt repayments #
|
101,530
13,516
|
101,275
5,000
(4,495)
|
101,275
5,000
(8,635)
|
101,275
5,000
(9,275)
|
|
Closing Balance
Comprising:
Bank advance (on call)
Commercial paper
LGFA & Council stock
|
115,046
|
101,780
4,780
0
97,000
|
97,640
640
0
97,000
|
97,000
0
0
97,000
|
# A portion of the Council’s debt is drawn on a
daily basis – daily drawdowns & repayments are not included in these
figures but the net draw or repayment for the year to date is shown as part of
new debt or debt repayment as appropriate.
Net debt at 31
March 2017 was $91.451m (ie gross $97m less investment fund of $4.649m less
call investment of $0.9m) compared with $95.684m at 1 July 2016 (ie. gross
$101.275m less investment fund of $5.591m). Movements in recent years are shown
in the following graph:
Actual finance costs incurred
during the 9 months (including interest, line fees & the effects of swaps)
amounted to $4.617m compared with the annual plan budget for the year of
$6.288m.
The Council has entered a number of
financial instruments related to its debt portfolio utilising swap trading
lines established with Westpac and ANZ. The details of these are shown in
Schedule 2 attached.
The value of these instruments is
measured in terms of its “mark-to-market” ie the difference between
the value at which the interest rate was fixed and the current market value of
the transaction. Each of these transactions was valued at the date they
were fixed and again at balance date. Financial reporting standards
require the movement in values to be recorded through the Council’s
Statement of Comprehensive Income (Profit & Loss Account). They have
been revalued as at 31 March 2017 and show a decrease in book value of $110k
for the quarter and an increase of $4.45m for the 9 months.
The
Council’s Treasury Policy contains guidelines regarding the measurement
of treasury risk as follows:
a. Interest rate risk is managed by the Council
maintaining the ratio of debt that is subject to floating versus fixed interest
rates within pre-set limits.
b. Funding and liquidity risk is managed by the
Council maintaining a pre-set portion of its debt in a range of maturity
periods eg < 1 year, 1 – 3 years, 5 years +.
The position
compared to the policy is illustrated in the graphs in Schedule 3.
The overall ratio of fixed v floating interest rate debt is based on the
assessed level of total debt in 12 months’ time. For most of this
year we have assumed a forecast overall debt, for the purposes of this policy,
of $112m. In this report that forecast is retained. However, given
the outcomes of the latest financial review as at 31 March we are proposing,
for the purpose of this policy assessment, to reduce the forecast position to
$105m. If this forecast was used at 31 March then 91% of the forecast
debt would be fixed compared with 86% using the $112m forecast. 91% is
marginally above the policy maximum of 90%.
As at 31 March
2017 all of the other policy targets except one had been met. The policy
requires 15% to 60% of debt within the three to five year maturity band to be
fixed. Only 10% within this band was fixed.
The policy bands
are considered still to be appropriate so options are being considered to ensure
that all of the policy parameters are met by 30 June 2017.
Council’s credit lines with
the banks include a $25m four year credit facility with Westpac Bank (maturing
31 July 2020) and a revolving $25m three year facility with ANZ Bank (maturing
31 March 2019).
4. CONCLUSION
& NEXT STEPS
Realised interest
and dividends returns for the 9 months from the Investment Fund of $122k was
close to budget. There were also unbudgeted unrealised gains of $57k.
Finance
costs for the 9 month period (including interest, line
fees & the effect of swaps) was $4.617m compared with Annual Plan budget
for the year of $6.288m.
In conjunction with
Council’s treasury advisors hedging instruments are regularly reviewed in
an effort to ensure the instruments are being utilised to best advantage as
market conditions change. The level of hedging cover is also reviewed as the
forecasts of future debt levels are revised. It is proposed to reduce the
12 month forecast debt level and to then take action to ensure the resulting
treasury policy targets are met by 30 June 2017.
Council’s
S&P Global Rating’s credit rating remains unchanged at AA /
A-1+. It is anticipated the outcome of their latest annual review will be
known before the Committee meeting. No change is expected.
Council’s
borrowing strategy is continually reviewed, in conjunction with Council’s
treasury advisors, to ensure best advantage is taken of this quality credit
rating.
A further
performance report will be provided after the end of the June 2017 quarter.
Attachments
|
1.
|
Investment Fund & Borrowing Appendices ⇩ 
|
|
|
Steve Paterson
Strategy Manager Finance
|
|
|
PALMERSTON NORTH CITY
COUNCIL
Memorandum
TO: Finance and Performance Committee
MEETING DATE: 19 April 2017
TITLE: Illegal Dumping and Charity Shops
DATE: 31 March 2017
AUTHOR/S: Natasha
Hickmott, Rubbish and Recycling Engineer, City Networks
Robert van Bentum,
Water & Waste Services Manager, City Networks
|
RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Finance and Performance Committee
1. That
the Committee receive the Illegal Dumping and Charity Shops Memorandum.
|
1. ISSUE
1.1 Following a deputation from
Lyall Brenton (Methodist Goodwill) to the Community Development Committee on
Monday 13th March 2017, the Committee requested a report from
Officers to outline:
· the extent of illegal dumping in the City
· the impact of illegal dumping on the charity shops
· options to address or mitigate the effects
1.2 This memo attempts to
provide some background to the issues using the limited firm data to hand as
well as outlining some possible mitigation measures.
2. BACKGROUND
to illegal dumping
2.1 The issue of illegal dumping
or ‘fly tipping’ as it variously termed is a growing one locally,
nationally and internationally. Key reasons for the trend include the
increasing cost of waste collection and disposal as well as the increasing
private ownership of waste collection and disposal facilities.
2.2 In Palmerston North, prior
to July 2016, collection of illegal dumping (fly tipping) was carried out by
several different areas of Council with costs incurred against a range of cost
centres depending on the location of the dumping. This tended to obscure the
true cost of the issue to Council.
2.3 From July 2016, the Water
and Waste Division of Council has assumed responsibility for the management and
expenditure associated with illegal dumping through a single Service Level
Agreement (SLA) with City Enterprises. This has allowed the full extent of the
issue to be documented and costs to be tracked more accurately.
2.4 City Enterprises staff are
engaged to attend to all reported incidences of illegal dumping in the City at
Council facilities or Council owned land. Incidences are reported to
Council through the RFS system by members of the public or other Council staff
during the course of their normal duties.
2.5 Incidents are logged through
‘workforce’ from the RFS system and assigned to a collections team
member, who receives the work request via tablet. As part of responding
to a dumping incident, collection staff undertake the following and record
information on a mobile tablet device. The dumping locations are mapped and can
be viewed on PNCC’s intranet.
· Date and time of collection.
· Location logged by coordinate.
· Type of waste collected.
· Estimated volumes and weight.
· Photographs of the waste
2.6 As part of responding to illegal
dumping, staff search through the material and retrieve any items which might
identify the potential source of the material.
2.7 Table 1 summarises the extent of
illegal dumping as measured by way of incidents, tonnages and referrals to
Regulatory during the 8 month period July 2016 – February 2017.
Table 1: Illegal Dumping Statistics
|
|
Jul
2016
|
Aug 2016
|
Sep 2016
|
Oct 2016
|
Nov 2016
|
Dec 2016
|
Jan 2017
|
Feb 2017
|
Total to Date
|
Estimated Total for Year
|
|
Number of Incidents attended
|
97
|
104
|
71
|
107
|
124
|
110
|
63
|
64
|
740
|
1,100
|
|
Tonnes
|
4.4
|
7.1
|
3.2
|
3.5
|
10.2
|
4.5
|
2.5
|
4.6
|
40
|
60
|
|
Evidence Referred to regulatory
|
0
|
0
|
8
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
15
|
20
|
2.8 Figure 1 provides a
breakdown of the illegal dumping incidents by material type over the 8 month
period July 2016 – February 2017.
Figure 1: Illegal Dumping Incidents by Material Type for July 2016
– February 2017.
2.9 Costs for the collection and
disposal of illegal dumping under the SLA for the period July 2016 –
February 2017 total $75,000, with full year costs expected to be in the range
of $120,000 - $130,000.
2.10 The illegal dumping SLA with City
Enterprises accounts for the majority of the larger and significant illegal
incidents, however illegal dumping also occurs in association with other
Council services, e.g.:
· Ferguson Street Recycling Centre – contamination and illegal
dumping
· Recycling Drop Off Points – illegal dumping
· Street Litter Bins – household rubbish
· Parks Litter Bins – household rubbish
· Parks and Reserve Management – dumped household rubbish and
furniture
· Littering on the road network
· Stormwater drains, streams and reserves
2.11 Typically small quantities of household
waste are placed into the public litter bins and this is generally collected as
part of normal day to day operations. The quantities of waste are difficult to
estimate and attribute to illegal dumping. However Officers have noted the
volumes of household waste steady increasing and this is reflected in the
increasing costs for providing these services. The annual costs have risen by
around $10,000 in the last 2 years.
2.12 There are also specific areas and times
of the year when illegal dumping is more of an issue. Each year during November
and December in a number of inner city streets, with large student tenant
populations (Ada, Morris, Oxford and Rolleston Streets) illegal dumping
incidents spike. Typically residents dump anything from general
household rubbish to furniture, e-waste and clothing on the kerbside. The
costs incurred by Council in clearing this in late 2016 were around $8,000.
This dumping occurred despite proactive attempts by Council (with the Massey
Students Association) to place several skip bins in key areas for a designated
period during November, and arranging with Methodist Goodwill to take away any
reusable items from these bins.
2.13 Council had previously trialled in
December 2013 a ‘one off’ free day for the disposal of unwanted
items during this period. The cost of this one free drop off day
was in excess of $11,000. Key lessons and issues from this exercise included
that:
· Items were dumped outside the advertised period (both before and
after).
· Several additional staff were required to handle the waste on the
day.
· Some of the items could have been repurposed or on sold.
· It took several days to completely clear the site.
· There was evidence that residents from outside the City boundary
took advantage of the opportunity to dispose of waste.
3. Council
Support for Charity Shops
3.1 Following a number of
submissions to Councillors and Council staff, in early 2014, Council Officers
met with charity shop managers in September 2014, to discuss the issues they
were facing in relation to illegal dumping. Officers were made aware of
the extent and increasing problem of residents using Charity shop drop-offs to
dispose of unwanted and frequently unusable items.
3.2 As a result of the meeting
Council agreed to pay a subsidy (by reimbursement) towards the waste disposal
costs incurred by these organisations. It should be noted that the business
model for Charity shops is based on receiving goods at no cost and so there is
an expectation that a proportion of items received cannot be sold and must be
disposed of. The main items of issue are bulky furniture items and electrical
and e-waste items.
3.3 Officers proposed a fund of
up to $10,000 be made available to subsidise waste disposal costs. To
ensure some equity, officers requested evidence of the organisations total
annual spend on waste disposal. The total amount spent by these
organisations was used to determine a maximum annual allocation based on a
percentage of each organisation’s previous years expenditure on
waste. Based on a total waste spend of around $50,000 in 2014, a subsidy
of 20% of each organisation’s allocated waste was agreed. Table 2 below
depicts the reimbursements paid to each organisation in the last 2 calendar
years. The extent to which individual organisations have claimed their
allocation has varied.
Table
Two: Charity Reimbursements 2015 - 2016
|
Charity
|
Max.
Limit
|
Total
Reimbursement
|
|
January
– December 2015
|
|
Arohanui
Hospice
|
$1,245
|
$561.63
|
|
Methodist
Goodwill
|
$1,192
|
$1558.71
|
|
NZ Red
Cross
|
$640
|
$300.74
|
|
Salvation
Army – Church Street
|
$3,260
|
$3,258
|
|
Salvation
Army – Main Street
|
$615
|
$364.01
|
|
Arts
Recycling Centre
|
$210
|
$52.50
|
|
St.
Vincent de Paul
|
$320
|
$320
|
|
2015
Totals
|
$7,482
|
$6,415.59
|
|
January
– December 2016
|
|
Arohanui
Hospice
|
$1,325
|
$1,325
|
|
Methodist
Goodwill
|
$1,565
|
$2,012.25
|
|
NZ Red
Cross
|
$690
|
$0
|
|
Salvation
Army – Church Street
|
$4,270
|
$4,270
|
|
Salvation
Army – Main Street
|
$815
|
$815
|
|
St.
Vincent de Paul
|
$325
|
$292.58
|
|
2016
Totals
|
$8,990
|
$8,714.83
|
3.4 Officers are currently
working with NZ Red Cross to assist them to make claims for costs incurred in
2016 so that reimbursement can be made. The Arts Recycling Centre has advised
they no longer require the reimbursement contribution. Once the 2016 claims are
completed, Officers will advise the 2017 reimbursement available to each
organisation. This will be calculated to ensure disbursement of the $10,000
allocated.
3.5 Council also allows Charity
shops to locate clothing donations bins at the Ferguson Street Recycling
Centre. The bins are however a location for illegal dumping and the Charity
Shops are expected to be responsible for removing any non-clothing items.
Recycling Centre employees assist by:
· Collecting any excess clothing on the ground outside the clothing
bins, placing in the building prior to lock up to keep the items dry and useful
for the agencies.
· Removing small items of illegal dumping for disposal.
· Advising agencies when their bins are full and ready for collection
· Providing for CCTV coverage of the area where the clothing bins are
located
3.6 Unfortunately dumping is a
random event, and resources are not always available to monitor the cameras on
a regular basis. However, where and when possible the footage is
reviewed. There has been some limited success in the past in capturing
and following up on dumping incidents, however without sufficient evidence
Regulatory staff has been unable to issue infringement notices or pursue a
prosecution.
3.7 Signage and surveillance
cameras were installed at the Methodist Social Services site at Council’s
expense earlier in 2017. Officers have agreed with Methodist Social
Services that the monitoring and ongoing maintenance of the cameras will be
undertaken by Methodist Social Services. The success or otherwise of the
camera installation has yet to be determined.
4. current
strategies under consideration
4.1 Behaviour Change Approach:
City Networks have recognised that the issue of illegal dumping is a complex
one that requires a multi-pronged approach across waste minimisation,
education, reuse, recycling and prosecution. Officers are working on a number
of fronts to encourage and facilitate behaviour change within the community.
4.2 It is clear that the cost of
waste disposal and in particular large bulky end of use items is costly for
many in the community. However Officers are also clear that waste minimisation,
reuse and recycling offer the best options for reducing waste costs for the
community while still focussed on waste reduction and minimisation. Simply
providing a low cost option for disposal of waste would undo the significant
progress made by Council in the waste minimisation space.
4.3 Public Education: As well
as highlighting the issues of illegal dumping, Officers have been working with
Regulatory to establish and include further information on Council’s
website, including a page dedicated to illegal dumping. A form
which enables the public to report incidents can be downloaded from the website
and Officers are looking to make an online form available soon. It is intended
in this way to enlist the help of the community to identify both illegal
dumping areas but also potentially enable consideration of pursuing prosecution
if the evidence threshold is met.
4.4 Prosecution: While the
new single SLA is providing excellent data on the quantity, number and location
of illegal dumping events it is not yielding information sufficient to meet the
evidence standard required for successful prosecution.
4.5 Council’s Regulatory
Manager has advised that the practice of issuing infringements on the basis of
retrieved documentary evidence does not meet the requirements of the Litter Act
such that any infringement notice could be challenged legally. In addition
Council does not have employees who understand the evidence requirements and
can document any incident adequately for a successful prosecution.
4.6 Council Officers have been
in discussion with Manawatu District Council (MDC) around their enforcement
unit, comprising ex-police and security personnel, established to prosecute
breaches of Council rules and regulations. MDC has agreed to meet with PNCC
staff to discuss assisting with a trial to demonstrate what could be achieved.
It is proposed to begin with the issue of illegal dumping in the first
instance.
5. Other
Support options
5.1 As has been reported to Council in previous reports and workshop
briefings addressing the issue of illegal dumping can only be achieved as part
of a holistic approach to provision of waste and recycling services. The
perception within the community that rubbish disposal is expensive particularly
for those with low or fixed incomes and those who are renting accommodation,
contributes to illegal dumping of household waste. The absence of low cost
re-use and recycling options for large and bulky consumer goods at the end of
their life is also a key driver.
5.2 Council’s strategy has been to increase the range and
accessibility of low cost recycling and reuse services as well as ensuring that
there is a cost effective alternative to commercial rubbish services. Gaps in
the range of services remain. Officers have recommended that Council consider
rating the cost of collecting household rubbish rather than providing any
subsidy for rubbish disposal costs in general. Subsidising the cost of
disposing of general waste has the potential to undermine progress made in
waste reduction and minimisation.
5.3 In the remainder of this report, Officers set out a range of other
options for mitigating the issue of illegal waste, incentivising and
encouraging sustainable disposal of household waste.
5.4 A number of specific suggestions to mitigate illegal dumping issues
in the Charity Shop sector have been proposed which include:
· A
dedicated Council provided weekly waste collection service for Charity Shops
· Provision
of free e-waste drop off
· Provision
of a city wide inorganic waste collection service.
5.5 Charity
Shop Waste Pick-up: The suggestion of a regular
(weekly) Council funded collection from charity shop premises will of course
provide relief to Charity shops. However Officers consider it will make
acceptable the practice of ‘illegal dumping’ and lead to a
significant increase in the level of items placed in front of charity shops. In
effect Council will be legitimising up to 10 mini-dump sites within the City.
By picking up the full cost of waste disposal from the Charity Shops, Council
would be removing the incentive for Charity Shops to manage and control the
practice on their own terms. Currently there is only one Charity Shop openly
advocating for a change to the current level of Council support.
5.6 Free
E-waste Collection Service: Current Council E-waste
services are cost recovery with charges based on the cost of recycling,
transport and disposal. In the absence of any central government or product
stewardship support, the costs are high and clearly a disincentive for users.
Currently around 2,000 to 3,000 items are recycled through this service with
total charges of $10,000 per annum.
5.7 Current industry sources suggest that the average person will
generate around 28kg of e-waste during their lifetime and that this volume is
likely to be increasing. For a population of 80,000 people this gives a total
E-waste waste volume of 2,240 T. Allowing for some items to be re-sold or
reused, the net quantity for disposal is likely to be around 2,000 Tonnes. If
this is disposed of over 25 years, the annual volume going to landfill is
estimated to be around 80 Tonnes. Disposal costs are based on volume rather
than weight, however assuming an E-waste density of 1,600 kg/T, gives a
disposal cost of $1.6/kg. The cost of disposing of 80T of E-waste would be
around $130,000 per annum.
5.8 In addition to disposal costs, additional staff time and materials,
e.g. plastic wrap, will be required. If a low level of charge continues
to be levied, the best estimate for an enhanced E-waste service will be some
$180,000 to $200,000 per annum, or $7 / household per year.
5.9 There is a significant risk that a subsidised E-waste service will
attract commercial and out of town users. Council Officers consider that target
E-waste drop off days or subsidies targeting the more problematic items might
be provide an option for a lower cost intervention.
5.10 Rated
Inorganic Collection Service. Officers have
investigated inorganic collection services options provided by other Councils.
Where previously Councils have provided an annual kerbside collection service,
this approach has largely been abandoned due to the risks, logistics and high
cost. Instead the typical inorganic collection service now offered uses a
booking system by means of an online tool or telephone call centre to Council
(Auckland Council).
5.11 Key features of the service include dividing the City into
collection areas, with each area allocated a single scheduled collection to
occur in a designated week during the year. If residents miss their scheduled
collection then there is no return service. The service has some strict
parameters including:
· limited
to inorganics only with no general household rubbish, green waste/organics or
hazardous material
· quantities
are limited to around 1 – 2m3 per household
· items
must be presented on the property and not on the kerbside
5.12 The service is funded by way of a targeted rate on each property.
Officers estimated that a service of this type would cost in the vicinity of
$40 per rateable property based on the following assumptions:
· 20%
of properties make use of the service
· 2
trucks/4 staff will be able to collect from 16 houses per day
· Average
weight per property is 300kg
· Full
time administrator required for the scheme
· One
off capital cost to develop an on-line booking system
· Waste
is delivered to an off-site warehouse where the items which can be re-used or
sold are recovered, with the balance being disposed to landfill (lease and
maintenance costs)
· E-waste
is packaged and sent to an accredited e-waste
· Metal
rich appliance and waste is accepted by a local metal recycler at no cost to
Council
5.13 While such a service may be attractive, there are also significant
risks, including diversion of waste from the commercial sector and current
private transfer station to the Council service. It is also likely that Council
will attract out of region waste. Costs would need to be monitored closely and
the rated cost may need to be adjusted if higher participation rates than
assumed occur.
6. Option
1. Enhanced Current Services
6.1 Council Officers have reviewed the current range of services and
identified a range of enhancements to the current services which may help to
mitigate illegal dumping and Charity Shop costs. Some of the potential
enhancements are outlined below along with one off capital and annual operational
costs. It is estimated that these enhancements will result in a $5 to $7
increase in the public rubbish and recycling targeted rate.
|
Initiative
|
Capital Cost
|
Operating Cost /
annum
|
|
Further investment in the Behaviour
Change and Education area to support targeted community engagement
initiatives
|
|
$25,000
|
|
Install additional cameras and reposition
existing cameras along with implementing a surveillance and reporting regime
for the Fergusson Street and Awapuni drop-off areas
|
$15,000
|
$20,000
|
|
Invest further in investigating key
problems areas with significant illegal dumping and identify capital and
operational improvements in signage, lighting and access restrictions.
|
TBC
|
$20,000
|
|
Funding of specialist resources to
improve evidence gathering with a view to pursuing prosecutions
|
|
$10,000
|
|
Increase the level of subsidy to Charity
Shop waste disposal costs
|
|
$10,000
|
|
Reduce charges for E-waste recycling
particularly TVs and computer monitors to encourage greater service use
|
|
$30,000
|
|
|
$15,000
|
$115,000
|
7. Option
2 targeted inorganic waste services
7.1 If Council is of a mind to improve access to services which mitigate
the cost of inorganic rubbish disposal then Officers have identified a range of
other targeted inorganic waste services which could be provided. The specific
services and rough order costs for these are summarised below. The total cost
to provide the full package of enhancements is likely to be a $15 to $18
increase in the public rubbish and recycling rate.
7.2 It is envisaged that a similar range of enhanced services as
outlined in Option 1 would be considered with the following additional
services.
7.3 A nationwide mattress recycling scheme is proposed to be rolled out
in 2018/2019. The funding of this scheme is still being determined. In
the interim Council could participate in a trial as mattresses appear to be a
particular problem for Charity Shops. The options for the delivery of
this service still need to be determined as well as the likely cost, however
typical costs for disposal of around $20 - $30 per mattress are expected. Based
on disposal of say 500 mattresses per annum costs to Council could be of the
order of $15,000 per annum. Officers would need to investigate detailed options
for providing the service.
7.4 Provision of a subsidised E-waste collection service is also
suggested, with the largest subsidies offered for items which present the
greatest benefit in terms of removal from the waste stream i.e. TV’s and
Computer Monitors. The specific level of subsidy proposed has not been
determined but if only nominal charges of a few dollars were levied per item,
annual costs of up to $200,000 could be expected or $7 per rateable property.
7.5 Officers recommend that any subsidised E-waste service be introduced
in a staged manner, with fees reduced over time in response to the level of
uptake and the net cost to Council. This would assist Council staff to manage
the service. Alternatively Council could offer specific low cost E-waste
drop-off days. It is expected that with the large volume of legacy items in
storage these drop-off days may attract large volumes of material and be
problematic for Council staff to manage.
8. Option
3 rated inorganic waste service
8.1 Option 3 provides for a significantly enhanced level of service for
inorganic waste receipt and collection. Specific services which might be
provided are listed below. The key additional service is a
‘book-in’ inorganic collection. Auckland Council is the only
Council, Officers have identified that are offering this type of service. For
this service to be cost effective Council will need to secure support from
local Charity shops and recycling businesses to enable diversion of at least
50% of what is collected so that waste disposal costs can be effectively
managed. This will require a sorting and handling facility with additional
staffing and asset costs. It is estimated that costs to Council for this Option
3 level of service will require an increase of around $55 to the public rubbish
and recycling rate to cover the following:
· A range of
enhancements to the existing services as outlined in Option 1.
· Provision of a
subsidised E-waste collection scheme as outlined in paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5
· A rated inorganic
waste service as outlined in sections 5.6 to 5.9.
Attachments
Nil
|
Natasha Hickmott
Rubbish and Recycling Engineer
|
Robert van Bentum
Water & Waste Services Manager
|
|
