understanding the potential impacts of cds on local ... cds final report 16... · understanding the...

Understanding the potential impacts of CDS on Local

Government Kerbside Collections

The Potential Impacts of CDS on Local Government Kerbside Collections 2

This report was commissioned by LGNSW with funding from the EPA.

Document Check Off and Disclaimer

DATE VERSION AUTHOR CHECKED

19 October 2015 Preliminary Survey

Results Jeff Green Greg Freeman

2 November 2015 First Draft Jeff Green Greg Freeman

10 November 2015 Second Draft Jeff Green Greg Freeman

16 November 2015 Final Report Jeff Green Greg Freeman

The collection of information presented in this report was undertaken to the best level possible within the agreed timeframe and should not be solely relied upon for commercial purposes. The opinions, representations, statements or advice, expressed or implied in this report were done so in good faith. While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained within is accurate, Impact Environmental Consulting makes no representation as to the suitability of this information for any particular purpose. Impact Environmental Consulting disclaims all warranties with regard to this information. No part of this report is to be reproduced without the written consent of Impact Environmental Consulting Pty Limited.

Front Cover: PET Baler, Coffs Coast Waste Services Materials Recovery Facility.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has been commissioned by Local Government NSW (LGNSW) with funding from the

NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA). The report aims to enhance understanding of the

implications of a Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) on kerbside recycling and litter management

by local government, and inform the design of a CDS that complements kerbside collections.

On 22 February 2015 NSW Premier Mike Baird formally announced that the Government will

introduce a CDS for the recycling of drink containers. The final design of the CDS will be

announced in 2016, and implemented in 2017.

The Government has indicated that the CDS will complement, rather than compete with, the

existing kerbside recycling systems.

This study involved issuing a survey questionnaire to all 152 NSW Councils to derive information

about existing kerbside recycling arrangements and key issues to be taken into consideration in

designing the CDS. A total of 105 survey responses were received.

The Survey together with the EPA data discussed in this report indicate that 95% of all NSW

households are receiving kerbside recycling services. Almost 90% of kerbside recycling collection

services are provided by way of contract, with around 34% expiring in the next two years and

30% expiring in greater than 5 years.

The Council surveys indicated that around 72% of MRF’s are operated by contractors and 10%

by Councils, with 30% of contracts expiring in less than 2 years and 31% expiring in greater than

5 years. Thus the proposed CDS will impact on many existing contracts.

Councils will likely need to defer entering into any new contracts until after the CDS is

legislated, so that relevant provisions can be incorporated into new contract documents and

specifications. The time taken for contract development, procurement through to

commissioning of new services can typically take one to two years. In the meantime contracts

that are due to expire may need to be extended by way of negotiation.

Most contracts contain change of law and dispute provisions. Councils will require sound legal

and technical advice with the re‐negotiation of contracts.

With regard to the question of ownership of recyclables, 82% of respondents indicated that the

recyclables are owned by Council when placed on the kerb, but the opinions were more varied

in respect to the collection and processing phases. The legal position is that the under Section

743 of the NSW Local Government Act 1993, “All waste removed from any land or premises by

or on behalf of the council or received at a depot of the council is the property of the council.”

Council transfers ownership via provisions in the contracts.

NSW Councils have invested heavily in providing recycling collection and processing

infrastructure, kerbside collection and public place recycling services. In parallel, Councils have

implemented comprehensive community education and promotion to bring about behavioural

change and engender support for recycling.

The CDS has the potential to reduce council recycling costs, and will no doubt reduce litter and

improve recovery of drink containers from the waste stream. A CDS may also have other

implications which will require changes to kerbside recycling and litter management by local

government. This includes changes to kerbside collection systems, the suite of materials

collected, utilisation of existing collection and recycling infrastructure, potential changes in costs

of kerbside collection, costs of transport and processing to recover undamaged CD items and

refunds, and potential penalties arising from renegotiation of existing contracts.


Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 6

Background ............................................................................................................................. 6

Local Government NSW .......................................................................................................... 6

THE BRIEF ................................................................................................................. 7

CONTAINER DEPOSIT SCHEMES ................................................................................ 8

KERBSIDE RECYCLING IN NSW .................................................................................. 9

METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 10

NSW COUNCIL SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................ 11

Part 1 ‐ Background Information .......................................................................................... 11

Part 2 ‐ Recycling Collection Services.................................................................................... 13

Part 3 ‐ Recycling Processing Services .................................................................................. 21

Part 4 ‐ Reporting and Auditing ............................................................................................ 27

Part 5 ‐ Litter Management .................................................................................................. 29

Part 6 ‐ Council Views ........................................................................................................... 30

EVALUATION OF RESULTS....................................................................................... 32

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................... 35

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 36

GLOSSARY Of ACRONYMS ...................................................................................... 38

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A – Survey Monkey questionnaire ........................................................................ 39

Appendix B – Council Survey Respondents ........................................................................... 50

Appendix C – Council comments re Q13 contract variations ............................................... 51

Appendix D ‐ Council comments re Q14 contract changes .................................................. 52

Appendix E ‐ Council comments re Q15 contract penalties ................................................. 53

Appendix F – Council comments re Q27 contract variations ............................................... 54

Appendix G ‐ Council comments re Q28 contract changes .................................................. 55

Appendix H ‐ Council comments re Q29 penalty provisions ................................................ 56

Appendix I – MRF reports ..................................................................................................... 57

Appendix J – Use of CDS funds .............................................................................................. 58

Appendix K – Council comments about the proposed CDS .................................................. 59


INTRODUCTION

This report has been commissioned by Local Government NSW (LGNSW), with funding from the

NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA). The report aims to enhance understanding of the

implications of a CDS on kerbside recycling and litter management, and inform design of a CDS

that complements kerbside collections.

Background

On 22 February 2015 NSW Premier Mike Baird formally announced that the Government will introduce a container deposit scheme (CDS) for the recycling of drink containers.1

Mr Baird and the then Environment Minister Rob Stokes said that the government will engage in comprehensive community consultation on the design of the scheme and the incentive structure for communities to participate.

“The Baird Government’s preferred model is a cost‐effective scheme in which consumers, or a charity of their choice, receive a small financial reward for depositing a drink container in a reverse vending machine; but we are open to better alternatives.”

The government has indicated that the CDS should complement, rather than compete with, the existing kerbside recycling system.

The NSW government has initiated consultation with the community and industry focusing on:

The location of reverse vending machines;

The incentive for community participation;

The scope of containers to be redeemable under the scheme; and

The involvement of local government and the recycling industry in the scheme.

The Minister for the Environment has established a Container Deposit Advisory Committee to

advise on the Scheme’s design and implementation. The core task of the Committee will be to

ensure that any scheme recommended to the Government drives down litter rates and

increases recycling in a cost effective and efficient way.

The final design of the container deposit scheme will be announced in 2016.

Local Government NSW

Local Government NSW (LGNSW) is the peak body for councils in NSW. It represents all the 152

NSW general‐purpose councils, the special‐purpose county councils and the NSW Aboriginal

Land Council.

LGNSW is a professional organisation representing NSW councils and facilitating the

development of an effective community‐based system of Local Government in NSW. LGNSW

represents the views of councils to NSW and Australian Governments; provides industrial

relations and specialist services to councils; and promotes NSW councils to the community.

The majority of NSW councils provide residents with kerbside collection of recyclables. Based

on a container deposit scheme design similar to that of South Australia or Northern Territory,

approximately 23% of recyclables (by volume) currently presented in kerbside recycling bins

would be eligible for redemption under a CDS.

1 https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases-premier/getting-bottles-and-cans-out-our-streets-beaches-and-waterways






A CDS has the potential to offset some of these costs, but may have other implications in terms

of changes to kerbside collection systems, the suite of materials collected, utilisation of existing

collection and recycling and infrastructure, potential increased costs of kerbside collection,

transport and processing to recover undamaged CD items and refunds, and potential

renegotiation of existing contracts.

This Report will provide important information to LGNSW and the Committee to assist in the

design and implementation of a cost‐effective container deposit scheme.

THE BRIEF

The Consultant’s Brief required that IEC design and conduct data collection from all 152 NSW

councils to ascertain the information outlined below.

1. Current kerbside collection details for each council:

a. Collection frequency i.e. weekly, fortnightly or monthly for each bin type (red, co‐

mingled (yellow) bin or separate blue bin for paper).

b. Does council operate the collection service internally, or is it contracted out?

2. The term of existing kerbside collection contracts for recyclables, including end date

3. Whether council has a MRF/recycling contract

4. The term of existing MRF/recycler contracts (where it is separate to collection) including

end date;

5. Has council undertaken a compositional audit of kerbside recycling bins in the last two

years? If so, would council make the reports or data from the reports available to LGNSW?

6. What is the cost to council per tonne of recyclables delivered to the MRF?

7. Do council’s collection and/or recycling contracts include clauses that enable the contract

to be modified in the event of legislative change

a. If yes to the above, is it only triggered on legislative change or also on policy

change?

b. If no, can the contract be varied but with penalty?

8. For each council, identify who owns the recycling material at each stage:

a. at kerbside

b. once in the collection vehicle

c. at consolidation point e.g. transfer station (if applicable)

d. at MRF/AWT

9. Are all of council’s cost factors for operating kerbside recycling collections funded by the

domestic waste management charge?

10. If council was to benefit from deposits or handling fees under a CDS, would council be likely

to:


a. use these funds to reduce the domestic waste charge?

b. use these funds to fund other waste services?

c. Allocate the funds to council’s general revenue?

11. Are all of council’s cost factors associated with litter management funded through the

domestic waste management charge? If no, how are they funded?

CONTAINER DEPOSIT SCHEMES

It is estimated that more than 2 billion plastic bottles are littered every year in NSW. The cost to

the community of littering goes well beyond visual pollution. It is estimated that the total cost

to the community is between $300 and $350 million nationally each year.2

In 1975 the South Australian Government introduced container deposit legislation (CDL) that

imposed a deposit on a range of beverage containers. The deposit is included in the retail price

and refunded when the container is

returned to a collection point.3

CDL has more recently been

introduced in the Northern Territory

(NT).

In SA the container deposit scheme

captures a broad range of beverages

in all container materials, including

flavoured milks and pure fruit juices in

containers less than 1 litre and other

beverages in containers up to and

including 3 litres. Exemptions apply to

plain milk in all containers, wine and

spirits in glass containers and pure

fruit juice and flavoured milk in any

container of one litre or more.

Australian states and territories CDL status4

The Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW commissioned Mike Richie and

Associates to undertake a study, released in 2012 on the impacts (cost/benefits) of the

introduction of a container deposit/refund system (CDS) on kerbside recycling and councils 5.

The study found that under a CDS:

• Kerbside recycling would contain 17% less material.

• 5% of the material in the remaining kerbside bin would be unreturned CDS material.

• Due to the value of the unredeemed deposits, MRF revenues would be 31% higher.

• Recycling is likely to result in a payment as opposed to a charge to councils at the MRF

gate.

2 http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/MinMedia/EPAMinMedia15062601.pdf 3 http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/facts-sheets/container_deposit_legislation_4.pdf 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_deposit_legislation_in_Australia 5 http://www.lgnsw.org.au/files/imce-uploads/90/LGSA%20CDS%20Impact%20Study%20100812a.pdf


• Councils’ overall recycling costs would be reduced by 19‐47%.

• NSW councils could save $23 to $62 million annually on recycling costs.

• Councils across Australia could save $69 to $183 million annually.

The 2012 report looked at the cost implications, however there remain questions about a range

of other potential implications of the proposed CDS on NSW local government kerbside

recycling collection systems which this report seeks to address.

KERBSIDE RECYCLING IN NSW

Kerbside recycling has been progressively implemented across NSW over more than two decades.





According to the most recent NSW EPA Local Government Waste and Resource Recovery Data

Report (WARR Report) 2012‐20136, 95% of all NSW households are receiving kerbside recycling

services. A total of 698,742 tonnes of recyclable material was collected from kerbside services in

that year of which 92% was recovered and diverted from landfill. An annual average of 266 kg of

kerbside recyclable materials were collected from NSW households with a recycling service,

which equates to a weekly average of 5.1 kg per household or 1.9 kg per person.

NSW EPA kerbside waste and recycling audits indicated that the average proportion of potential

dry recyclables in residual waste streams was 22.1% based on materials typically recycled in the

dry recycling stream. Thus despite kerbside recycling a significant proportion of recyclables are

still being diverted to landfill, though the report does not quantify how much of this was CD type

materials.

Most NSW Councils provide fortnightly collection of co‐mingled recyclables using 240 litre Mobile

Garbage Bins (MGB). The 2012‐13 report7 found that 104 Councils were using this service

configuration.

The 2012–13 WARR Report found that 71,483 tonnes of recyclable materials were collected from

drop off facilities provided by councils across NSW. In addition domestic type kerbside recycling

services are often provided to business premises.

In recent years Councils have been increasingly offering households a larger 360 litre MGB, as

opposed to the 240 litre MGB. Whilst the most recent 2012‐2013 EPA data only identifies two

Councils (Clarence and Snowy LGAs) with the larger predominant bin size, this does not reflect

the more recent growing trend towards the larger bins as the default or as optional upgrades.

A study by NevRwaste, 20138 found evidence that more recyclables (22% more recyclables by

weight compared to regional baseline) were deposited in the 360 litre MGB and less recyclables

were found in the refuse bin (33% less recyclables by weight compared to regional baseline). Bin

weights were taken before and after the distribution of the bigger recycling bin and the weights

increased in the selected rural council trial areas by 13.8% in Benalla and 7.8% in Wangaratta.

6 http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/warrlocal/140432-lg-data-1213.pdf 7 http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/warrlocal/140442-audits-2011.pdf 8 http://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/data/Projects/Final_reports/VIC_159-12_Bigger_Bins_for_Better_Recycling_final_report.pdf


The survey showed that people generally preferred the bigger recycling bins with the exception

of older or single households9.

Rural and regional councils are more sparsely populated and more remote from markets for

recyclables. Thus kerbside recyclables collection costs are generally higher and transport costs

to regional or metropolitan Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) and end markets are costly and

often prohibitive.

High compaction rates optimize collection and transport costs, which results in breakages and

crushing of beverage containers.

METHODOLOGY

Based on the project brief a questionnaire for all 152 NSW Councils was developed by IEC in

consultation with LGNSW. A copy of the questionnaire is contained in Appendix A.

Relevant information was also sourced from the EPA’s latest Local Government Waste &

Resource Recovery Data Report10

The questionnaire was designed using Survey Monkey11, an established online cloud based

survey and data analysis program.

The database of contacts for NSW councils was provided by LGNSW, however IEC utilised

additional contact information it possessed to assist in this process.

The methodology and timeline for distributing and collecting the surveys was as follows:

On Monday and Tuesday 28 & 29 September 2015 Impact Environmental Consultants

(IEC) made telephone contact with representatives of all Regional Waste Groups to

explain and seek assistance in coordinating councils to complete the survey by due

date.

The regional waste groups contacted were: SSROC, WSROC, MACROC, NSROC, SHOROC,

Hunter Councils Inc., NEWaste, NIRW, MIDWASTE, NetWaste, REROC, RAMROC Murray,

RAMROC Riverina and the South East Resource Recovery Group.

On Friday 2 October 2015, IEC sent emails to all NSW Councils seeking completion of

the online questionnaire by Monday 12 October 2015.

At 6am Monday 12 October 2015 an automatic email reminder was sent by Survey

Monkey to Councils which had not responded.

As at close of business Monday 12 October 2015, a total of 58 Councils had responded,

though several surveys were incomplete.

On Tuesday and Wednesday 13&14 October IEC contacted all remaining Councils by

phone to chase up outstanding surveys. In addition representatives of the Regional

Waste Groups were again phoned on 14 and 15 October 2015.

The final close off of the Survey was extended to 5pm Friday 16 October, at which time

no further surveys were accepted.

9 http://www.newrrg.vic.gov.au/projects/360-litre-recycling-bin-trial/ 10 http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/warrlocal/140432-lg-data-1213.pdf 11 https://www.surveymonkey.com/


As at close of Survey a total of 105 responses had been received out of the 152 Councils.

However many survey questions were skipped . Refer Appendix B.

Survey data was then analysed by IEC.

NSW COUNCIL SURVEY RESULTS

A total of 105 survey responses were received, though several were incomplete. One Council

provided two surveys, which were completed by different officers. Thus 104 Councils out of 152

responded as shown in Appendix B.

Based on the Councils which responded, this survey covers a total of 2,233,512 premises

serviced with a kerbside recyclables collection.

The overall response rate by Councils was 68.4%, however as mainly lower population regional

and rural Councils did not respond, the responses represented around 78.25 % of NSW

households based on 2012‐2013 EPA data12 .

In terms of statistical confidence the 104 Council response rate is calculated at 95% confidence

level with a margin of error of 6%, or 99% confidence level with a margin of error of 8%.13

However the response rate to each question varies, thus reducing the confidence levels and

increasing the margins of error.

Indicative margins of error and confidence levels are given for questions answered or skipped

as follows:

Answered Skipped Confidence Level Margin of Error

60 44 95% 10%

70 34 95% 9%

80 24 95% 8%

90 14 95% 7%

100 4 95% 6%

Responses to the survey questions posed to NSW Councils are provided below, and follow the format of the Survey Monkey questionnaire contained in Appendix A.

Part 1‐ Background Information

1. Council Details

A complete list of Council respondents is provided in Appendix B.

12 http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/warrlocal/140432-lg-data-1213.pdf 13 https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/margin-of-error-calculator/


2. Which recycling services does your Council provide?

As indicated in the graph below 91% of Councils which responded provide kerbside collection of

recyclables. The Councils which indicated that they do not provide kerbside recycling are rural

and regional. 72% of Councils provide recycling drop off facilities, several rural councils do so as

an alternative to kerbside services.

3. Are all elements of your recycling services (listed above) funded by your Domestic Waste

Management Charge?

Please list which.

Of the 102 responses, 46% of Councils indicated that all the listed recycling services are funded

by the DWM charge. 28% of Councils indicated that only some are.

Of the 44 Councils which listed services, around 90% indicated domestic kerbside recycling, and

around 25% indicated that Drop Off are funded by the DWM charge.


4. If NO to the above, which activities are funded separately?

For this question only one Council indicated that the Domestic Waste Management Charge does

not fund kerbside recycling. A total of 11 comments were provided which indicated ‐ nil

services, not applicable, partial funding, services funded by way of commercial waste

management charge or paid for by customers. It is evident from the responses that some

recycling services are funded from a mix of domestic and non‐ domestic charges and other fees.

Part 2 – Recycling Collection Services

5. For a typical single dwelling how frequently is kerbside recycling collection offered?

73% of Councils provide co‐mingled fortnightly recycling collection services. Three Councils

commented that they provide collections for paper & cardboard on alternate weeks.


6. Please estimate the cost per lift for the collection component of the kerbside recycling service for a typical single dwelling.

For this question there were a total of 77 respondents however only 63 provided figures, others

indicating commercial in confidence or answer not known. Five of the provided figures were

clearly too high, incorrect and were eliminated.

It was evident that many of the respondents had not understood the question and thus there is

a wide disparity in the data provided.

The median price was then calculated at $1.37 per lift.

It is possible that some of the rates being paid include collection AND processing.

The following chart shows the cents per lift for each respondent, other than the five responses mentioned above.

7. For the majority of your council area, how are your recycling collection services carried

out?

Most Councils provide recycling collection services by way of contractors (73%), with the

remaining 27% being carried out by Council staff. With respect to services rendered by Council

staff, 7 out of the 25 Councils are located in the Sydney metropolitan area with the remainder

being in rural and regional areas.


8. If your recycling collection is performed by a contractor, do you have a contract in

place?

All but 8 Councils (11%) indicated that they have a contract in place, two of which are within the

Sydney metropolitan area, with the others being rural and regional. Three of the rural and

regional Councils indicated that no services are provided, which contradicted the question

posed. One of the Sydney metropolitan area Councils indicated that a new contract is to be

prepared in 2016. It was not clear from the responses why contracts for the remaining Councils

were not in place.


9. If Yes to the above, when does this contract (or contract extension of contract) expire?

Almost 90% of Councils provide recycling services by way of contract, with around 34% expiring

in the next two years and around 30% expiring in greater than 5 years. Thus CDL will impact on

many existing contracts and many contracts that expire in the meantime may need to be

drafted to make provision for CDL. 10. Are your recycling collection services part of a wider regional contract?

Only 22 Councils (27%) out of the 83 which responded provide recycling services under regional

contracts. Of those, 18 Councils are in rural and regional areas and 4 are in the Sydney

metropolitan area.


11. If YES to Q10, is there a lead council or organisation for your collection contract? If yes, please list.

None of the 9 Councils which indicated “Yes” are located within the Sydney metropolitan area.

Lead organisations identified were Hunter Resource Recovery, Midcoast Waste Services,

RAMROC, Dubbo City Council, Albury City, Parkes Shire Council and Coffs Harbour City Council. 12. If YES to Q10, does each council have an individual contract with the collection contractor?

Thirteen Councils (65%) have individual contracts with the collection contractors, and 7 Councils do not have individual contracts with the contractor.


13. Does your collection contract allow for variations?

A total of 46 Councils (64%) indicated that the contracts allowed for change of law. It is likely

that some respondents lacked detailed knowledge of contract provisions to accurately respond

to this and other contract questions as is evident by the number of questions that were

skipped. Contracts which IEC has been involved with, including the EPA’s Model Waste and

Recycling Collection Contract14, contain change in law and dispute resolution procedures. NSW

contracts are also subject to the Frustrated Contracts Act15.

In any renegotiation of contracts or agreements triggered by CDS it is to be expected that

contractors will leverage outcomes to maximise commercial returns. Thus without Councils

having the benefit of sound legal and technical advice, financial benefits of the scheme may be

skewed towards commercial interests.

The 40 Council comments which were provided in relation to this question are contained in

Appendix C and summarized as follows. Most indicated that variations were possible by mutual

agreement, though these comments mainly pertained to routine adjustments such as service

numbers and service routes, rather than major changes. Comments were made that the EPA

model contract provisions apply. A comment was made that day labour has more flexibility than

contract. Several mentioned that change of law provisions are included.

14 http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/wastetools/collection-contract.htm 15 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fca1978247/


14. Are there any clauses in your contract that allow it to be amended if there are legislative

or policy changes (e.g. change of law clause)

If yes, please explain

Refer comments at Q13. A total of 35 council comments were received in relation to this question, these mostly confirmed that change of law provisions are in place. See Appendix D.

15. Are there any penalty provisions in your contract if legislative changes cause a variation?

If yes, please explain

Most Councils (71%) indicated that there are no specific penalty provisions in respect to

variations brought about by legislative changes. A total of 19 comments were received, as

shown in Appendix E. Several respondents indicated that the contractor can claim reasonable

costs of variation, several were unsure, and one indicated that the EPA’s Model contract

provisions would apply. No figures were provided about the likely scale of any penalties.


16. If your Council provides a kerbside recycling collection service, who owns the recyclables at the following points in the collection process?


Most respondents indicated that Councils own the recyclables when presented at the kerb.

However there may be circumstances in which a collection contract specifically assigns

ownership of recyclables at the kerb to the contractor.

The disparities with the answers to other questions may be partly explained by the fact that

some councils conduct kerbside collection and operate MRFs.

In any event, the NSW Local Government Act 1993 provides in s. 743 that Council has

ownership of waste removed from land or premises by or on behalf of the Council or received

at a depot of the Council. Council transfers ownership via the contract.

17. If unsure with regard to Q16, does your contract make any reference to the ownership of

the collected material?

A total of 14 responses were received for this question. Five Councils indicated that there is no specific reference to ownership in the contract. Five Councils indicated specific provisions in favour of the contractor. Other responses were not relevant.

Part 3 Recycling Processing Services

18. Who operates the Transfer Station and/or MRF where your recyclables are delivered to?

A total of 56 Councils responded to this question as shown in the chart below, which labels both

the number of respondents and percentage for each operator.

Most Councils deliver recyclables to Transfer Stations that are operated by contractor (54%)

although 34% of Councils deliver to Transfer Stations operated by Council staff. All of the latter

are within rural and regional areas. Tumut, Berrigan and Cootamundra Shire Council Transfer

Stations are run by Social Enterprise.


With regard to the question as to who operates the MRF, 72% of Councils deliver recyclables to contractor operated MRF’s. 7 rural and regional Councils send their recyclables to MRFs operated by social enterprise and 7 rural and regional Councils send their recyclables to MRFs operated by Council staff.

19. Please estimate how much per tonne Council pays (or is being paid) to process your

recyclables?

Where councils have recycling services other than comingled services, they were asked to answer this question in relation to the non-paper stream.

a) How much are you being paid per tonne by a contractor?

Only ten Councils reported being paid by a contractor, with prices ranging from $10 to $128 per

tonne. The higher figures were for source separated paper, which contradicted the question

posed. The median and average figures for comingled were $35.50 and $33.20 per tonne

respectively.

The payment of rebates or the charging of gate fees is dependent on a range of market

conditions at any time.

b) How much do you pay per tonne to a contractor?

A total of 48 Councils responded to this question, with 14 reporting nil cost. The highest figure

of $185 per tonne was for a western region council which was transferring compacted

comingled recyclables long distances to a Sydney MRF. Several councils refrained from

answering this question on the basis of commercial in confidence.

The median and average figures were $50.00 and $52.40 per tonne respectively.

It is important to recognise that regional councils are greatly disadvantaged by transport

distances and scale of operations. The costs of transport may potentially be exacerbated by the

proposed CDS.

c) If you have some other arrangement in place please provide details

There were 23 responses to this question, the main response being that the processing and

marketing of recyclables is embedded in the kerbside collection contract rate.


20. How are the MRF activities being paid for?

73% of Councils fund MRF activities through the Domestic Waste Management Charge.

With regard to the question about other ways of funding MRF activities, 14 responses were

received, the key comments being:

Councils are not charged for recycling or receive payments for materials recovered

MRF processing is included in bin lift charge

Partly funded by DWM and by other sources

21. If your recycling processing is performed by a contractor, do you have a Contract in place?

A total of 78% of Councils indicated that a contract is in place. 6 of the 13 Councils which indicated “No” are in the Sydney metropolitan region.


22. If YES, when does this contract (or contract extension) expire?

30% of recycling processing contracts expire within 2 years, and 31% in greater than 5 years. Thus CDL will impact on many recycling processing contracts.

23. Are your recycling processing services part of a wider regional contract?

63% of Councils indicated that their processing services are not part of a wider regional contract,

and 37% indicated that they are.


24. If YES to Q23, is there a lead council or organisation for your processing contract?

56% of Councils indicated there is a lead organization for the processing contract. 25. If YES to Q23, do you each have individual contracts with the processing contractor?

A total of 22 Councils (56%) do have individual contracts with the processing operator.


27. Does your processing contract allow for variations? If yes, please explain

A total of 35 Councils (55%) indicated that their contracts allow for variations. Comments provided mainly expressed that variations were permitted in respect to change of law, and/or by mutual agreement. Refer council comments in full in Appendix F. 28. Are there any clauses in your contract that allow it to be amended (e.g. contract pricing)

if there are legislative changes (e.g. change in law clause)? If yes, please explain

A total of 38 Councils (59%) indicated that their contracts can be amended if there are legislative changes. Comments were received from 21 Councils on this issue. More than half said that contracts could be varied. Only two thought that variations may not be permitted. Refer council comments in full in Appendix G.


29. Are there any penalty provisions in your contract if legislative changes cause variation? If yes, please explain

43 Councils (73%) indicated that there are no penalty provisions if legislative changes cause variation. A total of 21 comments were received, as shown in Appendix H. Several respondents indicated that the contractor can claim reasonable costs of variation. One respondent thought no variation could be negotiated. No figures were provided about the likely scale of any penalties.

Part 4 Reporting and Auditing

30. Does the MRF regularly report to Council on the material received or composition of

recyclable stream?

A total of 55 Councils commented that they receive MRF reports to various levels of detail and

frequency as shown in Appendix I. Comments mainly indicated that reports of tonnages and

contamination levels are received monthly, and with statements. Several Councils indicated

that material composition data is received.


31 Has Council undertaken a compositional audit of domestic waste or recycling in the last 2

years?

A total of 45 Councils (48%) indicated that they had undertaken compositional audits in the last

two years.

32. If YES to the above two questions, could this information be made available to LGNSW for

use on this Project?

A total of 33 Councils (75%) indicated that they could make compositional audit information

available to LGNSW for use on this project. As at 8 November 2015, 7 Councils had provided

this information.

The audit reports will prove useful in establishing baseline data to assess the impacts of the CDS

on the domestic kerbside waste and recycling streams, and to gauge the efficacy of the scheme.


Part 5 Litter Management

33. Are all or some of Council’s litter management costs funded through the Domestic Waste

Management charge?

If some, please estimate?

Only 19 Councils (20%) indicated that litter management is wholly funded through the domestic

waste management charge. 13 Councils gave estimates, which indicated that on average the

domestic waste management charge contributes 37% of the cost of litter management.

34. If NO to Q33, how are they funded?

Other (please specify)

49 Councils (88%) indicated that litter management is funded through general rates.


With respect to “Other”, eight Councils commented that litter can be funded through local waste/environment levy, cross‐subsidised from council’s other activities, or potentially through a mix of general rates, fees and charges and income from fines.

Part 6 Council Views

35. If Council was to benefit from deposits or handling fees under a CDS, would the council be

likely to:

Use these funds to reduce the DWM charge?

Use these to improve recycling services?

Use these funds for community waste education?

Use these funds to fund other services?

Allocate to general revenue?

Unsure?

Over 50% of respondents were unsure how the deposits or handling fees would be used. Comments provided indicate that several thought that this would need to be determined by Council. Comments were mixed, the most common themes being:

CDS funds would be unlikely to cover the costs

Use of funds would need to be determined by elected Council when known

Would use funds to improve waste management and recycling services

Could be used to reduce domestic waste management charge

Upgrade recycling infrastructure

The responses indicate a lack of clarity about the form in which CDS funds may return to Council e.g. by payments or reduced kerbside recycling costs. Refer to Appendix J for all comments provided.


36. Are there any special considerations for your area that should be taken into account when designing a CDS?

A total of 58 Councils provided input on this question of which 28 were from the Sydney

metropolitan or outer Sydney metropolitan area. Comments are provided in full in Appendix K.

Some of the key issues expressed by Councils included:

implications to existing and planned collection and recycling contracts

Lack of information about the details of the proposed CDS to allow Councils to gauge the

implications of the scheme.

The proposed CDS may result in Councils bearing additional costs for recycling collection

and MRF processing. Reasons given included costs of transport, and space for storage of

materials.

The Scheme needs to be convenient for residents in terms of travel distances to reverse

vending machines and redemption of container deposits, particularly in rural and

regional areas.

Viability of existing MRF infrastructure which relies on existing and growing throughput.

Regional Councils and their communities may be disadvantaged by distances, transport

costs and dispersed population.

Concerns that costs arising though contract renegotiations may outweigh some benefits

from CDS deposit income.

Uncertainty as to whether income from CDS or cost savings in respect to domestic

kerbside services can be used for purposes such as litter control.


EVALUATION OF RESULTS

The survey of all 152 NSW councils elicited 104 responses. Though 48 councils did not respond

the results provide an overall statistical confidence level of 95% confidence with a margin of error

of 6%. Responses to the 36 primary and subsidiary questions in the survey were more variable,

however were mostly within the range of 95% confidence level with a margin of error of up 10%.

The following table distils core issues for local government that were expressed by Council

respondents in the Survey and provides comments and suggested actions. The comments have

been assembled based on Council responses, relevant legal provisions, and as required by the

consultants Brief, interpretation and reflection on the results to formulate suggested

recommendations.

Ref. Issue Comments Suggested Actions

1. Councils that are

obliged to call

tenders and enter

into contracts for

collection, transport

and processing of

recyclables prior to

finalization of the

CDS scheme will be

at risk of the

requirement for

contract

renegotiation and

penalties.

Councils should be advised by way

of legal opinion or by way of formal

advice from the NSW Office of Local

Government, that the pending CDS

constitutes “extenuating

circumstances” pursuant to Section

55(3)(i) of the Local Government

Act 1993. Thus Councils would be

legally justified to negotiate

extensions of existing recycling

collection and processing contracts

until after the CDS is legislated.

That LGNSW seek to have advice issued to NSW Councils, by way of independent legal advice and/or formal advice from the NSW Office of Local Government that the pending CDS constitutes “extenuating circumstances” pursuant to Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.

That NSW Councils be

cautioned against entering into

contracts for recycling

collection and processing

contracts until after the CDS is

legislated. Guidance be

provided for any necessary

alternatives to entering into

contracts

2. Lack of information

about the details of

the proposed CDS to

allow Councils to

gauge the

implications of the

scheme.

A draft CDS needs to be developed

and disseminated to NSW local

councils so that more informed and

robust comments can be made

about the implications of the

scheme and the preferred model.

This should include workshops with

Councils throughout NSW.

That the EPA and LGNSW seek to have the Draft CDS disseminated to Councils as soon as possible so that more informed and constructive comments can be provided.

That the design of CDS not be finalised until such comments

on the Draft CDS have been

provided by LGNSW and NSW

Councils and have been fully

considered.

3. The proposed CDS

may result in

Councils bearing

additional costs

caused by

Kerbside recycling collection vehicles are designed to optimise compaction and transport costs. This causes crushing of drink containers, which may potentially make a proportion ineligible for CD refunds.

The proposed CDS be designed

so as to minimize impacts on

the established kerbside

recycling systems in NSW.


inefficiencies with

recycling collection

and MRF processing.

Reducing collection compaction rates so as to improve recovery of CD items intact would increase collection costs.

If CD items are to be recovered intact in MRF processing operations, this would likely require plant redesign, more space, capital expenditure, and additional manning and transport costs.

Contractors would seek to recover these costs from Councils through contract negotiations or via tender bids which would include the additional costs.

The potential financial benefits to councils arising from container deposit income may be eroded by the above additional costs and inefficiencies.

In this regard consideration be

given to structuring the CDS

along the lines that:

No requirement that recycling

collection and long distance

transport compaction rates be

significantly reduced to keep

Drink containers undistorted,

unbroken and intact.

No significant changes to MRF

operations be required to

redeem CD deposit income.

For example, perhaps by way

of default CD material

compositions for MRF inputs

and or outputs such as baled

PET plastics, coloured and

uncoloured broken glass etc.

That the CDS be designed so as to minimise inefficiencies and

erosion of deposit income

benefits to Councils and their

communities.

4. Viability of existing

MRF infrastructure

which relies on

existing and growing

throughput.

If the design of the CDS causes

significant reduction in recycling

material in the kerbside collection

stream, then existing MRF

infrastructure may be under

utilised. This may increase the

capital cost component of recycling

recovery charges. This may pose a

particular problem for regional

Councils which own MRF

infrastructure or which have

contracts for regional MRFs.

That the proposed CDS be

designed so that regional

Councils are not

disadvantaged with additional

costs.

5. Regional Councils

and their

communities will be

disadvantaged.

Regional Councils are disadvantaged by travel distances and scale of operations.

Transport costs of intact drink containers such as PET drink bottles (if that is a scheme requirement) may be higher. Councils may be left with the task of operating local collections as lower throughput may make areas less attractive to commercial operators.

Costs to get recyclables to end destinations.

That the proposed CDS be designed so that regional Councils are not disadvantaged with additional costs.

That an Excel tool or the like be developed to assist regional councils in transitioning to the proposed CDS.


Costs to manage the scheme in regional and remote areas where scale of operations may make them commercially unviable.

Several Councils in regional areas conduct recycling collection and processing using day labour. Depending on the final design of the CDS, these operations may require significant changes such as storage, plant design, foot print, manning, equipment, capital, trucks and transfer arrangements.

6. 360 litre MGBs

recycling bins may

become redundant.

In recent years Councils have been

increasingly opting for 360 litre

kerbside recycling bins as the

default or providing residents with

optional low cost upgrades to the

larger bins. If reduction in

recyclables occurs as has been

suggested then most residents

would no longer require 360 litre

bins. The bins typically have a life of

up to 20 years. Replacement of 360

litre bins with 240 litre bins would

be another cost to Councils unless

other materials are added to the

collection.

That the proposed CDS be designed so as to minimize impacts on the established kerbside recycling systems in NSW.

7. The proposed CDS will likely require variation of existing collection and recycling contracts which will expire after implementation of the CDS.

Concern that costs

arising through

renegotiations may

outweigh benefits

from CD deposit

income.

Around 70% of the NSW Councils surveyed have contracts in place which expire after the proposed implementation date of the NSW CDS. Around 30% of contracts expire in greater than 5 years. Renegotiation of existing contracts can be complex and may need to be referred to mediation or the courts. In any renegotiation of contracts or agreements triggered by CDL it is to be expected that contractors will leverage outcomes to maximise their commercial returns. Thus any financial benefits may tend to be skewed towards commercial interests rather than councils. Councils will need to be armed with sound legal advice and independent experts to assist in this process.

That LGNSW seek funding to provide general legal advice to help Councils navigate through renegotiation of contracts that require variation as a result of CDL

That LGNSW seek funding for independent experts and legal advisors to provide specific advice to Councils and participate in particular renegotiation processes where necessary.


8. Doubt whether

income from CDS or

cost savings in

respect to domestic

kerbside services can

be used for purposes

such as litter control.

Under the provisions of Section 504 of the Local Government Act 1993 CDS savings or income in respect to domestic kerbside recycling may only be used for the purposes of domestic waste management or reducing waste management charges.

The meaning of “domestic waste”

and “domestic waste management

services” is defined under the Act

It be noted that, pursuant Section 504 of the Local

Government Act 1993,

savings or income arising

from CDS in respect to

domestic kerbside recycling

services may only be used for

the purposes of domestic

waste management services

or reducing waste

management charges.

CONCLUSION

The Survey together with the EPA data discussed in this report indicate that 95% of all NSW

households are receiving kerbside recycling services.

Almost 90% of kerbside recycling collection services are provided by way of contract, with 34%

expiring in the next two years and 30% expiring in greater than 5 years.

The Council surveys indicated that 72% of MRF’s are operated by contractors and 10% by

Councils, with 30% of contracts expiring in less than 2 years and 31% expiring in greater than 5

years.

Thus the proposed CDS will impact on many existing contracts.

Councils will likely need to defer entering into any new contracts until after the CDS is

legislated, so that relevant provisions can be incorporated into new contract documents and

specifications. The time taken for contract development, procurement through to

commissioning of new services can typically take one to two years. In the meantime contracts

that are due to expire may need to be extended by way of negotiation.

Most contracts contain change of law and dispute provisions. Councils will require sound legal

and technical advice with the re‐negotiation of contracts.

With regard to the question of ownership of recyclables, 82% of respondents indicated that the

recyclables are owned by Council when placed on the kerb, but the opinions were more varied

in respect to the collection and processing phases. The legal position is that the under Section

743 of the NSW Local Government Act 1993, “All waste removed from any land or premises by

or on behalf of the council or received at a depot of the council is the property of the council.”

Council transfers ownership via provisions in the contracts.

The CDS has the potential to reduce council recycling costs, reduce litter and improve recovery

of drink containers from the waste stream.

However a CDS may have other implications in terms of changes to kerbside collection systems,

the suite of materials collected, utilisation of existing collection and recycling and infrastructure,

potential increased costs of kerbside collection, costs of transport and processing to recover

undamaged CD items and refunds, and potential penalties arising from renegotiation of existing

contracts.


There is considerable uncertainty among councils at this stage about how the scheme will work.

This has made it challenging to gather information from councils about the likely scale of

change required to their kerbside recycling services, and collection and processing contracts.

Hopefully the Government’s CDS Discussion paper will allay these concerns when it is released.

The qualitative and quantitative data gleaned in this study and analysis of issues raised will no

doubt provide valuable information upon which to frame the CDS so as to optimise beneficial

outcomes for all.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

1. LGNSW seek to have advice issued to NSW Councils, by way of independent legal advice

and/or formal advice from the NSW Office of Local Government that the pending CDS

constitutes “extenuating circumstances” pursuant to Section 55(3)(i) of the Local

Government Act 1993. This will enable existing contracts to be extended short‐term until

the mechanics and implications of a CDS are better known.

2. NSW Councils be cautioned by way of “LGNSW Weekly” or the like regarding entering into

new contracts for recycling collection and processing until after the CDS is legislated.

Guidance be provided for any necessary alternatives to entering into contracts.

3. EPA and LGNSW seek to have details of the draft CDS disseminated to Councils as soon as

possible so that more informed and constructive comments can be provided.

4. The design of CDS not be finalised until such comments on the draft CDS have been

provided by NSW Councils and have been fully considered.

5. The proposed CDS be designed so as to minimize impacts on the established kerbside

collection, transport and processing recycling systems and infrastructure in NSW.

6. In regard to Recommendation 5, if it is intended that the CDS will require that drink

containers be undistorted, unbroken and intact in order to redeem deposit income,

measures be included in the CDS that:

a. Avert potential transport inefficiencies and increased costs that may arise if collection

and transport vehicle compaction rates need to be reduced.

b. Avert potential inefficiencies and additional costs which may arise in respect to MRF

operations in particular materials storage, manning, plant redesign, plant footprint,

capital costs and transport to end markets. For example, perhaps by way of default

CD material compositions for MRF inputs and or outputs such as baled PET plastics,

coloured and uncoloured broken glass etc.

7. That the CDS be designed so as to minimise inefficiencies and erosion of deposit income

benefits to Councils and their communities.

8. The CDS be designed so that regional communities are not disadvantaged with additional

costs.

9. An Excel tool or the like be developed to assist regional councils in transitioning to the

proposed CDS. This would assist local CDS project management activities such as


budgeting, resourcing, planning, plant and equipment reconfiguration, procurement and

community education.

10. Funding for general legal advice or other support measures be made available to help

Councils navigate through renegotiation of contracts that require variation as a result of

CDL

11. In addition to the above LGNSW seek funding for independent experts and legal advisors to

provide specific advice to Councils and participate in particular renegotiation processes

where necessary.


GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

CD Container Deposit

CDAC Container Deposit Advisory Committee

CDL Container Deposit Legislation

CDS Container Deposit Scheme.

DWM Domestic Waste Management Charge

EPA NSW Environment Protection Authority

IEC Impact Environmental Consultants

LGNSW Local Government New South Wales

MACROC Macarthur Regional Organisation of Councils

MGB Mobile garbage bin

MIDWASTE Mid North Coast Waste

MRF Materials Recovery Facility

MSW Municipal (domestic) waste

NetWaste Central and Western Waste

NEWaste North East Waste

NIRW Northern Inland Regional Waste

NSROC Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils

PET Polyethylene terephthalate

RAMROC Riverina and Murray Regional Organisation of Councils

REROC Riverina Eastern ROC

ROC Regional Organisation of Councils

SERRG South East Resource Recovery Group

SHOROC Shore Regional Organisation of Councils

SSROC Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils

WARR Waste and Resource Recovery

WSROC Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils


APPENDICES

Appendix A – Survey Monkey questionnaire


Note: Page 9 of survey form is blank


Appendix B – Council Survey Respondents

SURVEY MONKEY RESPONDENTS

Council

Survey

Submitted? Council

Survey

Submitted? Council

Survey

Submitted?

Albury City Council Yes Gloucester Council Yes North Sydney Council No

Armidale Dumaresq Council Yes Gosford City Council Yes Oberon Council Yes

Ashfield Council Yes Goulburn Mulwaree Yes Orange City Council Yes

Auburn City Council Yes Greater Taree City Council Yes Palerang Council No

Ball ina Shire Council Yes Greater Hume Shire Council No Parkes Shire Council No

Balranald Shire Yes Great Lakes Council Yes Parramatta City Council Yes

Bankstown City Council Yes Griffith City Council No Penrith City Council Yes

Bathurst Regional Council Yes Gundagai Shire Council No Pittwater Council Yes

Bega Valley Council No Gunnedah Shire Council No Port Macquarie‐Hastings Cou Yes

Bell ingen Shire Council Yes Guyra Shire Council Yes Port Stephens Council Yes

Berrigan Shire Council Yes Gwydir Shire Council Yes Queanbeyan City Council No

Blacktown City Council Yes Harden Shire Council No Randwick City Council Yes

Bland Shire Council Yes Hawkesbury Yes Richmond Valley Council Yes

Blayney Shire Council No Hay Shire Council Yes Rockdale City Council No

Blue Mountains City Council Yes Hil ls Shire Council No City of Ryde Yes

Bogan Shire Council Yes Holroyd City Council Yes Shellharbour Council No

Bombala Shire Council No Hornsby Shire Council Yes Shoalhaven Council Yes

Boorowa Council No Hunters Hil l Council Yes Singleton Council No

City of Botany Bay Yes Hurstville City Council Yes Snowy River Shire Council Yes

Bourke Shire Council Yes Inverell Shire Council No Strathfield Municipal Council No

Brewarrina Shire Council No Jerilderie Shire Council Yes Sutherland Shire Council Yes

Broken Hil l City Council Yes Junee Shire Council No Tamworth Regional Council Yes

Burwood Yes Kempsey Shire Council No Temora Shire Council No

Byron Shire Council Yes Kiama Municipal Council Yes Tenterfield Shire Council Yes

Cabonne Shire Council Yes Kogarah City Council Yes Tumbarumba Shire Council No

Camden Council Yes Ku‐ring‐gai Council Yes Tumut Shire Council Yes

Campbelltown City Council Yes Kyogle Council Yes Tweed Shire Counci l Yes

Canterbury City Council Yes Lachlan Shire Council Yes Upper Hunter Council No

Carrathool Shire Yes Lake Macquarie City Council Yes Upper Lachlan Shire Council No

Central Darling Shire Council No Lane Cove Council Yes Uralla Shire Council Yes

Cessnock Yes Leeton Shire Council Yes Urana Shire Council No

City of Canada Bay Yes Leichhardt Council Yes Wagga Wagga Council No

City of Sydney No Lismore City Council Yes The Council of the Shire of WaYes

Clarence Valley Council Yes City of Lithgow Council Yes Walcha Council Yes

Cobar Shire Council Yes Liverpool City Council Yes Walgett Shire Council No

Coffs Harbour City Council Yes Liverpool Plains Shire Counci Yes Warren Shire Council No

Conargo Shire Council No Lockhart Shire Council No Warringah Council Yes

Coolamon Shire Council No Maitland City Council Yes Warrumbungle Shire Council No

Cooma Monaro Shire Council Yes Manly Council No Waverley Council Yes

Coonamble Shire Council Yes Marrickville Council Yes Weddin Shire Council Yes

Cootamundra Shire Council Yes Mid‐Western Regional CounciYes Wellington Council No

Corowa Shire Council Yes Moree Plains Shire Council Yes Wentworth Shire Council Yes

Cowra Shire Council Yes Mosman Council Yes Willoughby Council No

Deniliquin Council Yes Murray Shire Council Yes Wingecarribee Shire Council Yes

Dubbo City Yes Murrumbidgee Shire Council Yes Wolondil ly Shire Council No

Dungog Council No Muswellbrook Shire Council Yes Wollongong City Council Yes

Eurobodalla Shire Council No Nambucca Council No Woollahra Council No

Fairfield City Council Yes Narrabri Shire Council No Wollondilly Shire Council Yes

Forbes Shire Council Yes Narrandera Shire Council No Wyong Shire Council No

Gilgandra Shire Council Yes Narromine Shire Council No Yass Valley Council Yes

Glen Innes Severn Council Yes Newcastle City Council Yes Young Shire Council No


Appendix C – Council comments re Q13 contract variations (unedited)

Ref. No. Q13. Council Comments

1 A clause with regards to Variations. Requests can be made to by the contractor or the Council and price variation

considerations. A process is outlined in this clause.

2 Add additional properties as required.

3All contracts allow for variation by agreement by both parties. This is however costly and requires negotiation with the

contractor generally having the upper hand. No specific clause exists allowing a variation in service numbers or frequency

4Any required variations (route extensions, growth) are drafted and adopted where both parties are in mutual acceptance.

5Any variation would require formal negotiation with the collection contractor and probably financial implication.

6 As its a day labour service, there is a degree of flexibil ity

7 As per agreement by each party

8 By mutual negotiation to collection service terms

9 By negoitation and agreed variation with appropriate compensation.

10 By negotiation

11 Change in Law, Principal required variation, agreed variation‐ change in scope and service rates for that change

12Change in number of properties (new or retired). Incorporation of 360L recycle bin for MUDs. Change in law clause.

13 cl24.2During the term of the contract either party may propose changes to Services that will deliver service improvements,

improved resource recovery and performance outcomes or reduced costs. Where these proposals achieve cost savings then

these will be shared equally between the parties.

14 Omitted for Condidentiality Reasons

15 Contract describes a process for seeking a variation

16Contractor must comply with requests to increase the number services (provided it has necessary resources to be comply)

17 Council can request variations at an time, and the contract can be varied. The contractor will advise Council if the variation

is possible, and will provide a cost estimate.

18 EPA's model contract

19 Force Majeure

20 however a variation may occur if agreed to by the contractor

21If the contractor is prevented from carrying out the services by any order, notice, or direction from any competent authority

or by law then Council may at its option: (a) recommend a variation in the terms of this contract or' (b) Terminate this

contract by notice in writing to the contractor an upon delivery of such notice this contract will be cancelled and no party

will be l iable to any other party for cost, damages, compensation, charges or expenses suffered or incurred by any party

arising out of such termination. However, such termination wil l be without prejudice to the right of the Council and the

Contractor in respect to any breach or default under this contract occurring prior to such termination.

22 Likely to, but not certain.

23 MRF Agreement has price variations

24 Mutual agreement

25 mutual agreement

26 n/a

27 Our new contract to be prepared in 2016 will al low for variations

28 Provision exists for contractor to seek a variation if collection systems or laws/regulations change that result in additional

costs to the contractor

29 Public Place Recycling, FOGO, individual council needs

30 Quoted from contract: 'During the Contract term , the Council Superintendent may direct the Contractor to: ‐ alter the extent

of the Services; ‐ alter the character, quality or mode of performance of the Services; ‐ carry out any work of a character

similar to the Services; ‐ make any other change that the Council Superintendent reasonably deems is necessary; or ‐ make

any other change which the parties agree to make.

31 Service changes in case of emergencies; service changes for convienience with agreement of all parties; variations to service

rates for services; reduce the scope of contracted services (11.5.1)

32 The contract allows for variations that may be desirable for the satisfactory execution and functioning of the Collection

Service(s). Such variations may include additions, omissions, substitutions, alterations, changes in quality or character, kind

or position and changes in specific sequence method, timing or technology.

33 There is a clause about variations, however it must be factored in that the contractor buys collection vehicles based on the

tonnes expected to be collected. CDL could mean much less tonnes of recycling, therefore less vehicles required. This is not

really a variation, it could be renegotiating an entire different service.

34 Through the contract any alteration would need to be negotiated prior to implementation

35 variation clause

36 Variation to service areas and schedules etc. with agreement of both parties

37 Variations can be negotiated.

38 Variations may only occur with the agreement of the other Party but such agreement shall not unreasonably be withheld.

39 We can add residents to the run, if agreed by Council & JR Richards

40 With agreement of all affected parties


Appendix D - Council comments re Q14 contract changes (unedited)


1 Change in law clause. Rise and fall.

2 Change in law is recognised

3 Change of Law Clause

4 Change of law provisions

5 Changes to law that impose a significant financial impact

6Claim variation to service rates to account for a qualifying increase in costs arising as a direct result of a

Qualifying Change in Law

7Contract allows for removal or modification of any part / item within the contract where that part becomes

i l legal, invalid or unenforceable. This does not affect the balance of the contract.

8 Contractor to comply with statutory ans legal obligations

9 Extension of time

10

If the contractor is prevented from carrying out the services by any order, notice, or direction from any

competent authority or by law then Council may at its option: (a) recommend a variation in the terms of this

contract or' (b) Terminate this contract by notice in writing to the contractor an upon delivery of such notice

this contract will be cancelled and no party will be l iable to any other party for cost, damages, compensation,

charges or expenses suffered or incurred by any party arising out of such termination. However, such

termination will be without prejudice to the right of the Council and the Contractor in respect to any breach

or default under this contract occurring prior to such termination.

11 If the law was to change


13 n/a

14 Not specifically but it is implied.

15 Only if it is l ikely to increase the contractor's net cost.

16 Only with agreement of both parties

17Our new contract to be prepared in 2016 will allow for it to be amended if there are legislative or policy

changes

18 See 13.

19 See above

20 See answer to question 13 above

21 Service Changes for Convenience

22 Standard clause to allow for changes in law

23 That the contractor will abide by any legislative changes

24 The contract has a "change in clause"

25 The contract has a clause dealing with legislative changes.

26

The contract stipulates "The Contractor must comply with the requirements of all Legislation of the

Parliament of New South Wales and the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, all relevant Australian

Standards and with the lawful requirements of public and other authorities in any way affecting or

applicable to the performance of its obligations".

27

The Contractor must ensure the Services are performed in a safe manner and in accordance with all relevant

legislations and Codes of Practice. Variations may only occur with the agreement of the other Party but such

agreement shall not unreasonably be withheld.

28There is a Variations and Better Performance Clause that encourages innovative provisions to be negotiated

and implemented

29 This contract may only be amended or supplemented in writing signed by the parties.

30 Typical change of law clause vaiation

31 Unsure, EPA's model contract currently used, but will have a new contract in place once CDL comes in.

32 Variation permitted to address changes in law

33 We are currently looking at that option to allow for appropriate varitaions.

34 We have a change in law clause

35 Yes, there is a change in law clause ‐ the contractor can adjust costs and negotiate any changes with Council.


Appendix E - Council comments re Q15 contract penalties (unedited)


1 Contractor can claim the cost of the variation

2 Contractor to Comply with Statutory and Legal Obligations

3

Currently our contractor owns the recycling content upon collection and offsets our overall service

costs

4 EPA's model contract

5

If the contractor is prevented from carrying out the services by any order, notice, or direction from

any competent authority or by law then Council may at its option: (a) recommend a variation in the

terms of this contract or' (b) Terminate this contract by notice in writing to the contractor an upon

delivery of such notice this contract will be cancelled and no party will be liable to any other party

for cost, damages, compensation, charges or expenses suffered or incurred by any party arising out

of such termination. However, such termination will be without prejudice to the right of the

Council and the Contractor in respect to any breach or default under this contract occurring prior to

such termination.

6 Legislative requirements.

7

Likely to be, but not certain. I work in a small organisation and am responsible for a number of roles

‐ waste management, environmental health management and regulatory services. I am the only

professional in my small team and am constantly under pressure to meet State Government

timeframes eg EPA reporting. Our large area/small population LGA has to meet many of the

standards that apply to metropolitan LGAs and better resourced regional LGAs. I regularly work

back into the night (tonight for example) to manage high priority tasks eg dog attacks, large project

management, development assessment etc. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to

review the contract.

8 n/a

9

no but I have a clause about cost increasing, if anything collection cost could decrease due to loss in

volume. Not sure what we would do about that.

10

No charges or deductions will be made in respect of any Variation unless the Parties have agreed

upon any additional charges or any deductions to be made from the Service Rates arising out of the

Variation. If the Parties are unable to agree the issue will be deemed a dispute.

11 Only if it is likely to increase the contractor's net cost.

12

Only that the contractor can be compensated for increased costs if the matter is not resolved

within 28 days

13

Our new contract to be prepared in 2016 will allow for penalty provisions if legislative changes

cause a variation

14 Penalty is via increased costs as per above

15 Possibly, depends on the changes.

16

Quoted from contract: The value, if any, of any variation must be added or subtracted from any

payment to the Contractor.

17 See above

18

There would probably be a financial implication. Would need to be determined through

negotiation between Council and the collection contractor.

19 Variations are subject to reasonable assessment of costs


Appendix F – Council comments re Q27 contract variations (unedited)

Ref. No. Q27 Council Comments

1 Allowance for additional charges for waste received at the MRF from neighbouring LGA's

2 Allows for a change of law

3 As agreed by both parties

4 But there will be a cost increase if the contractor is affected

5 By mutual agreement ‐ renewed automatically annually unless otherwise raised by each party.

6 Change In law

7 Change of law and rise and fall

8 Change of Law Clause

9 Changes to contract terms

10 Contractor responsible for processing all recyclables delivered under the contract at the nominated MRF

(Actual quantity delivered varies from week to week)

11 however may be negotiated if processor agrees

12 If changes to laws/regulations, significant cost changes that could not be for seen at time of tender.

13 If the contractor is prevented from carrying out the services by any order, notice, or direction from any

competent authority or by law then Council may at its option: (a) recommend a variation in the terms of

this contract or' (b) Terminate this contract by notice in writing to the contractor an upon delivery of

such notice this contract wil l be cancelled and no party will be liable to any other party for cost,

damages, compensation, charges or expenses suffered or incurred by any party arising out of such

termination. However, such termination will be without prejudice to the right of the Council and the


14 Legislative changes


16 May vary contract with the consent of the Contractor and contract price is to be varied as agreed.

17 mutual agreement

18 Mutual agreement via head contractor

19 N/A

20 N/A ‐ inlcuded in collection contract

21 No change of law of clause

22 One contract for collection and processing

23 only change in law

24 Only with agreement of both parties

25 Price based on PPI index

26 Price fluctuations based on contamination levels

27 Provision exists for contractor to seek a variation if collection systems or laws/regulations change that

result in additional costs to the contractor

28 Qualifying Change in Law variation, Principal required variation & Agreed variation through change in

scope including any changes in costs

29 to: ‐ alter the extent of the Services; ‐ alter the character, quality or mode of performance of the Services;

‐ carry out any work of a character similar to the Services; ‐ make any other change that the Council

Superintendent reasonably deems is necessary; or ‐ make any other change which the parties agree to

make.



32 Standard contract variation clause

33 The contract is a profit sharing partnership arrangement between a local Council and a disability

support organistaion

34 variation clause

35 We don't own the product


Appendix G - Council comments re Q28 contract changes (unedited)

Ref. No. Q28 Council Comments

1 Agreed Price variation to cover costs

2 As Above

3 As above.


5 Cost of Variation subject to assessment of reasonable costs

6 Current contract expired ‐ working on monthly basis

7 Don't think so

8 if it is l ikely to increase contractor's net cost.

9 If the contractor is prevented from carrying out the services by any order, notice, or direction from any competent

authority or by law then Council may at its option: (a) recommend a variation in the terms of this contract or' (b)

Terminate this contract by notice in writing to the contractor an upon delivery of such notice this contract will be

cancelled and no party will be l iable to any other party for cost, damages, compensation, charges or expenses

suffered or incurred by any party arising out of such termination. However, such termination wil l be without

prejudice to the right of the Council and the Contractor in respect to any breach or default under this contract

occurring prior to such termination.

10 ita a variation

11 Likely to be, but not certain. Refer to question 15.

12 mutual agreement

13 N/A

14 Negotiated outcome based on actual cost variations incurred

15 No variations are to be negotiated

16 potentially if we were to change the stream of materials

17 Quoted from contract: The value, if any, of any variation must be added or subtracted from any payment to the

Contractor.


19 See above

20 Set rebate offered as discount on bin l ift per property for term of contract.

21 Standard contract change in law clause


Appendix H - Council comments re Q29 penalty provisions (unedited)

Ref. No. Q29 Council Comments1 Standard contract change in law clause

2 Set rebate offered as discount on bin lift per property for term of contract.

3 See above


5 Quoted from contract: The value, if any, of any variation must be added or subtracted from any payment

to the Contractor.

6 potentially if we were to change the stream of materials

7 No variations are to be negotiated

8 Negotiated outcome based on actual cost variations incurred

9 N/A

10 mutual agreement

11 Likely to be, but not certain. Refer to question 15.

12 ita a variation

13 If the contractor is prevented from carrying out the services by any order, notice, or direction from any

competent authority or by law then Council may at its option: (a) recommend a variation in the terms of

this contract or' (b) Terminate this contract by notice in writing to the contractor an upon delivery of

such notice this contract will be cancelled and no party wil l be l iable to any other party for cost,

damages, compensation, charges or expenses suffered or incurred by any party arising out of such

termination. However, such termination wil l be without prejudice to the right of the Council and the


14 if it is l ikely to increase contractor's net cost.

15 Don't think so

16 Current contract expired ‐ working on monthly basis

17 Cost of Variation subject to assessment of reasonable costs


19 As above.

20 As above

21 Agreed Price variation to cover costs


Appendix I – MRF reports (unedited)

Ref. No. Q 30 MRF reporting

1 All materials recovered.

2 all product streams and contaminants are reported

3 All products collected, processed and sold and any contamination landfil led

4 All recyclables

5 all streams from co‐mingled collection

6 All volumes of each product

7 All.

8 Aluminium, steel, plastic, cardboard/paper and glass

9 An annual report is prepared by the contractor (Uralla Shire Council) which estimates the various volumes of

the different material streams. This information is used for EPA reporting purposes.

10 Annual or by request

11 Audits are carried out

12 Complete break down of tonnages received and dispatched each month.

13 complete breakdown: tonnes collected, sorted, categories& contamination

14 Contamination levels only. Contractor does not provide composition details of recyclables

15 Contamination rates, al l comingled recycling

16 Email reports are received in respect to contamination of waste

17 General statement of material compostion of MRF received materials

18 Glass, mixed plastic, paper/card, Al cans, steel cans, residual

19 If we request the information it can be provided

20 In answer to question 32. we do not have the results back yet. It has only just been performed.

21 Limited reporting ‐ streams annually. Tonnage dockets for delivery purposes only.

22 Mainly contamination or non compliant recyclable materials

23 Monthly

24 Monthly report on all materials and contamination to landfi ll in tonnes

25 Monthly report on all recycled material delivered.

26 Monthly report on quantities received and composition

27 Monthly reports

28 Monthly reports provided on quantities of paper, glass, glass fines, mixed plastic, aluminium and steel

recovered.

29 monthly reports, weights of co‐mingled/ paper & cardboard by site

30 monthly, quarterly and annual report provided on all streams (received and diverted)

31 On the monthly invoices

32 only comingled tonnages or contamination

33 only report and charge for contamination

34 Only tonnages

35 Paper/cardboard, Glass Plastic 1‐7 Aluminium Steel (cans) Liquid paperboard

36 Quartly

37 reccyling bin composition, quantites of recyclables recovered and sold

38 Recyclables tonnages

39 Report provided by the domestic waste contractor. There is no direct relationship to the MRF operators.

40 The contractor provides monthly reports on material received, tonnages and composition.

41 The contractor reports

42 The MRF reports monthly on the generic split on the material received.

43 Time and date & weight of receival

44 Tonnage

45 tonnage and contamination

46 Tonnage process is reported on a monthly basis. Composition breakdown is provided at end of financial

year.

47 Tonnage reports for payment purposes

48 tonnages ‐ daily and weekly and quarterly/ annual reports including material stream of facil ity

49 Tonnages are reported

50 tonnes of material received

51 Total tonnes of recycling as part of monthly reporting statistics to Council .

52 Total tonnes received and contamination for whole MRF dumped to landfi ll

53 via collection contractor, council has no direct relationship with disposal facil ity

54 We get details of overall tonnages, but not the composition for our specific waste stream. They provide an

average of everyone's waste stream that they receive.

55 We receive a monthly report. The breakdown of the stream is based on the latest audit and doesn't change

until the next audit.


Appendix J – Use of CDS funds (unedited)

Ref. No. Q35 Council Views re use of CDS income

1 Allocate funds to l itter education and management activities

2 also would consider any funds being used towards improving public place recycling and l itter prevention.

3 Any funds for handling will probably be lucky to cover the costs.

4 Any revenue is unlikely to cover the expenditure of our local CDS scheme.

5 Any scheme that places additional strain on Council 's very l imited resources would not be supported.

6 Better public place and event recycling and waste education.

7 combination of the above

8 commercial recycling

9 Council is desperate to have some form of recycling and to reduce l ittering. Council would be hopeful that a CDS would help

us to achieve this.

10 Council might reduce DWM charge ‐ a political decision.

11 Council would have to determine this when the scheme is developed.

12 Council would need to decide what to do with any income generated by CDS.

13 Council would review the current arrangements to determine if recycling could be finanically viable.

14 Council`s can not use litter control from domestic waste budgets. Its not defined as domestic waste under the Act.

15 Councils specific role is to provide cost effective waste and recycling services to the community. As a self contained

business unit, any cost reductions would be used to expand the quality or scope of the works done.

16 Funds would be placed in a reserve that could only be re‐invested into recycling infrastructure, education & compliance

and expanded labour resources targeting l ittering and servicing of infrastructure.

17 I am not aware of the Councils direct views on this subject but from an operational point of view the l itter management,

roadside and public place waste management are all areas requiring funding that would be recommended.

18 Improve recycling services by upgrading Council 's MRF and keeping the recyclates in (….omitted for confidentiality….) for

processing so that any income from recycled product is returned directly to the Walcha Community.

19 increase services offered and broaden the range of recycling services offered. Would also be used to increase community

waste education

20 It may go to reduce the DWM charge. Other uses would be dependant on how much it was and what work/costs involved in

collecting it were.

21 It would depend on the mechanism/processes. If we could host a collection point at out Waste Management Faclities, we

would use any income to offset operating costs at those facil ities

22 likely outcomes would mainly be to improve landfill management.

23 Matter for the elected Council

24 More education.

25 MRF operational imporvements, capital improvements, consider recovering more material streams

26 Provision of a central recycling centre within the existing Waste Management Centre in (….omitted for confidentiality….) .

Not all commercial premise have recycling service available for example and larger recyclables cannot be placed in a 240L

bin. A central facil ity in the shire would increase the abil ity to recycle.

27 The funds would be used to establish a sustainable recycling service

28this would be dependent upon what income was received and how much income we lost from our comingled recycling bin.

29 Unlikely to see (….omitted for confidentiality….) Council real ise any direct financial benefit from proposed CDS. Any

financial benefits via direct revenue will need to be discussed at a Council level to determine appropriate application of

funds generated.

30 Upgrade MRF facil ity

31 We could also use these funds to improve recycling services.

32 We could use these funds to support broader drop off services

33 We would look at possibly funding a recycling program as we do not currently have the funds to provide this service

34 Whilst there is no kerbside collection in place the volumes (based on landfil l collection) are small, and would be put

towards landfil l costs. however if kerbside recycling is introduced this may change

35 Would depend on the amount involved

36 Would remain in waste area and may be used to reduce or increase/improve waste services overall

37 Would use fees for waste management or other council functions. Council proposes to review waste management costs and

ensure a robust and equitable method to determine charges


Appendix K – Council comments about the proposed CDS

Note: re 2, 3 & 4 above. It appears that there has been collaboration between respondents.

Ref. No. Q36. Council comments about special considerations which need to be taken into account when

designing a CDS

1 Our proximity to places where the containers are recycled ‐ Impact on local charities that collect cans

2 •Council’s contract for processing of recyclables includes provision for varia on in the event of ‘changes in

legislation, statute or regulation by state or federal governments…’ Therefore, if the CDS results in a decrease in

the value of kerbside‐collected recyclables, it is highly l ikely that this wil l trigger a contract variation which will

result in an increase in Council’s cost per tonne for processing of recyclables. It is anticipated that many

councils across New South Wales would be in a similar situa on. •Council wil l be conduc ng a composi on

audit prior to the introduction of the CDS, and another identical audit some time after the introduction of the CDS.

It is hoped that the comparative results wil l provide objective data on any changes in composition that the CDS

may have caused, which may be used to enable Council and the contractor to negotiate what, if any, price

variation should occur as a result of the CDS. While the audits wil l be commissioned by Council, it is hoped to

obtain the contractor’s formal agreement to the scope of the audits before they are conducted. Other councils

may wish to follow a similar course of action.

3 •Council’s contract for processing of recyclables includes provision for varia on in the event of ‘changes in




councils across New South Wales would be in a similar situa on. •Council wil l be conduc ng a composi on







4 1. Council’s contract for processing of recyclables includes provision for variation in the event of ‘changes in




councils across New South Wales would be in a similar situation. 2. Council wil l be conducting a composition







5 Any system should be designs as to not increase the current demands on local government, especially in relation

to reporting.

6As the Government has yet to release details of the Container Deposit Scheme this places Council at financial risk

in the waste contract tendering process and therefore these issues need to be resolved prior to implementation of

the CDS program in 2017. Some issues of concern are: •What will be the extent of regulatory framework for the

CDS program? •Will there be any specific targets and penal es. If so, wil l they be directed at Council? •The

Waste Contractors & Recycling Association of NSW (WCRA) have stated setting the container product refund

value will have direct impact on collec on recycling systems; •Our exis ng waste contractor as well as WCRA

have advised that the introduction of a CDS that results in reduced throughput for an MRF will require direct

compensa on to the MRF operators by either the State Government or Council; •In l ine with the above what will

be the coverage of containers that wil l be included in the Scheme? •How will the Government define the

mechanics and places for the community to return containers – The Government has indicated there will be

reverse vending machines (RVMs) but no other information. Will there be other drop off points, where will they be

and who administers these? •How will the scheme work (financial model) Council cannot be expected to prop up

any programs of this nature. There can be no cost shi ing for this program; •By nature there will be opera onal

costs (handling fees, maintenance, power, fuel) who pays and how? •It is assumed there will be some form of

Government Department managing this entire operation (not Council) How will the CDS be administered and by

whom? Will it be managed privately or publicly? Will this be a legislated authority? Will the waste levy be

increased to provide opera onal budgets for the scheme? •Who conducts the educa on campaign for

implementation of community behavioural change and operation of the program? Council has committed

substantial investment into public place recycling stations all over our city. Our existing waste management

assets wil l also need to be considered in relation to where the proposed RVMs are located.




9 Cessnock covers 2000 sq kms, 2 major towns & 15 vil lages

10 Contamination management in regards to drop off centres if they are unmanned

11 Council doesn't operate any Transfer Station or MRF.

12 Council has a number of concerns regarding the convenience for residents.

13 Didn`t have enough detail at present as we don`t know who`s funding it ‐ who`s collecting the material ‐ where are

they planned to be installed ‐

14 Difficult to answer as I don't know how the system will work. E.g. How will rebates be determined and be paid to

Council 's for receptacles in the recycling stream

15 Distance to processing facilities

16 Easy of use space required loss of income to council

17 High MUD's content with English as a second language The need to report on the tonnages collected in our area

to include in the Annual EPA reporting

18 Highly transient interstate and international population.

19 How Reverse Vending System works in regional areas / vi l lages etc... Who funds the implementation and

maitnance of the RVM.

20 How we contractually manage a substantial loss in volume and tonnes of recycling i.e. (1) collection contractor

no longer required 4 staffed vehicles for recycling collection (2) how we make up the shortfall income from being

for recycling

21 isolation and transport costs wil l be the biggest issue

22 It wil l need to be effective and not a scheme that has such a variety of options that it becomes irrelevant


24 Multilingual educational material and resources

25 NESB/CALD

26 No

27 no

28 No

29 No additional costs or unfunded services

30 No, concern that product will be diverted from collection contractor ‐ prefer CDS product to be owned by

contractor

31 Not Sure, however I would estimate that about 20% of recyclable originate interstate and 100% of collected

recyclable end up interstate ??

32 Numerous issues which have been well documented through other areas such as CDS local government working

group.

33 Our distance from metropolitan areas

34 Please consult with Local Councils. A survey is not consulting. Have officers visit the regional areas, l isten to

ideas and concerns. Speak to the NSW Food Authority about consulting with Local Councils ‐ their officers

generally do a great job, and have good established processes eg regional food group meetings. I can't say the

same for the EPA.

35 Population / locality / access / geographic location ‐ near to Victorian Border

36Population, Location of Receptacles, Servicing of Receptacles in a regional location, Volume of Recyclables

deposited if stockpiled by rural residents, Costs/responsibil ities associated with management of a CDS service.

37 Proximity to Qld and any consequences this may have on the service.

38 Proximity to QLD border, size of area covered by LGA and remoteness of vi l lages and waste facilities in the area.

Cost to transport recyclables far outweighs the processing cost.

39 Recycling bins in households with more than 2 people are generally full to overfull. A CDS would hopefully create

much needed space in recycling bins.

40 Regional location, freight expenses to get reclables to market. Lower population base means less material

available.


41 rural and remote

42 Space! no council facil ities with space for accepting CDS material. Also space restrictions across the LGA as inner‐

city built up area (also access for collection vehicles etc)

43 Summer impacts on beach areas

44That regional towns should not be disadvantaged due to not having the large volume of product to drive a local

processing plant and that the LGA's should not have to contribute to cost involved in transporting to large centres

45 The SA model is a good starting point

46The scheme must be flexible to work in a rural regional area, and must include all containers (especially glass).

47 transport costs

48 Transportation costs and low volumes requiring storage prior to disposal

49 Type/variety, site selection, social benefit.

50 Vandalism can be a problem within the shire.

51 Very built up area.

52 WARR targets as they will be reduced and cost shifting through logistics etc on to Council managed facil ities for

rural and remote areas

53 We are a regional city with isolated regional communities as neighbouring councils, I would be interested to

know who you can set up a CDS that caters for regional areas.

54 We have almost 50% 360 l itre recycling bins in our area, and recycling has been increasing.

55 Whether crates wil l be targeted any more than MGB's by people collecting CDS approved containers from

resident's kerbside recycling. Will there be more non‐CDS approved containers scattered at the kerb hence

increasing servicing costs? Loss of economies of scale especially transportation from regional areas. For

example, wil l CDS approved PET & glass have to be transported separately to non‐CDS approved PET?

56 Who's going to manage the service, is the volume you get in the regional areas going to cover the cost of the

service. It wil l have an effect on current operating recycling centres. Another thing for LG to look after.

57 yes

58 yes, as a co owner of a small MRF with the abil ity to expand into other small Council areas, the CDS must permit

small scale works and deal with the tyranny of distance issue that is a reality for rural councils

59 Yes, travel distances for freight, smaller western councils are not the same as the larger metro councils and may

need different strategies implemented for CDS, hopefully the smaller councils wil l be consulted on what's best for

these councils

64

Local Government NSW

Understanding the potential impact of CDS on Local Government Kerbside Collections

16 November 2015

understanding the potential impacts of cds on local ... cds final report 16... · understanding the...

Documents