Addendum Agenda of Strategy and Assets Committee

Addendum Agenda - Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 August 2017

Page 1

MMS17.4 Mayoral Minute - Burrill Lake

HPERM Ref: D17/263506

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Write to the RMS outlining the outcomes of the community engagement process for the Burrill Lake bridge and include all submissions received by Council.

2. Within the Letter to RMS clearly outline that it is Council’s position that the bridge retains the name Burrill Lake Bridge.

3. Thank the community members and The Hon Shelly Hancock, Member for South Coast for their participation in the consultation process and for providing Council with a clear indication of the wishes of the community in relation to the name of the bridge.

Details

In 2013 Council received correspondence from the RMS advising that the name the ‘Roy McDaniel Bridge’ had been nominated by a member of the community, for the Burrill Lake Bridge. In accordance with the policy on naming of conventions, Council was asked, at that time, to seek feedback from the community about the proposal. Council staff acted in good faith, in accordance with the advice from the RMS, to undertake the community consultation exercise.

There has been significant interest in the consultation process with several social media groups formed such as The Keep Burrill Lake Bridge as historically named page, numerous media articles and community comment in relation to the proposed name. I have personally been contacted by several community members, as I am sure have other Councillors.

Council has already received a significant number of submissions on this issue. The results are as follows:

· 480 people did not agree with the name of the bridge to be Roy McDaniel

· 41 people did agree with the name of the bridge to be Roy McDaniel

· 462 people provided a written submission suggesting alternative names or asking for the name to remain Burrill Lake Bridge

Council is also aware through social media that a number of petitions and submissions will also be provided to Council shortly seeking the name to remain Burrill Lake Bridge.

The purpose of community engagement is to understand what the community wants within their local area. Consultation is undertaken to ask the communities opinion about matters that effect their lives. In this case the community’s voice has been heard loud and clear.

Although the consultation process officially ends on the 17^th August I believe that it is already evident from the consultation that the community wish to retain the name of the bridge as Burrill Lake Bridge. I am supportive of the community wishes and therefore wish to seek Council to provide a clear position resulting from the consultation undertaken so far.

I would like to assure everyone who provided names of love ones to be considered as part of this process, that each of those names will be kept by Council and forwarded to the RMS to ensure that a creative alternative will be found for the use of these names for other purposes.

I would also like to personally thank all community members who participated in this process and who have made their voices heard. Submissions can still be provided to Council before the 17^th.

Addendum Agenda - Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 August 2017

Page 3

MMS17.5 Mayoral Minute - Waste Management & Cost to Residents & Business

HPERM Ref: D17/263536

Attachments: 1. Attachment to Mayoral Minute - Waste inquiry Submission ⇩

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council continue to make representations to the NSW State Government to:

1. Return more of the Waste Levy funds collected back to regions it was collected from; and

2. Have Shoalhaven City Council excluded from the levy collection or at the very least reduce the levy applicable in Shoalhaven to the same level as other regional areas such as the Blue Mountains.

Details

Firstly thank you to Tony Fraser and David Hojem for presenting Council’s submission to the NSW Upper House “Energy from Waste” Technology Inquiry on Monday, 7 August 2017.

The full submission is attached for Councillor’s information however, I wish to highlight some particular issues relating to the impact of waste levies and the equity and fairness.

The following extract from the submission really brings home the reality of how much the State Government is extracting from residents and the businesses of the Shoalhaven (over $33 million in the last four years) and how much the State Government has returned ($1.735 million in the last four years i.e. 5.2%).

And, can anyone explain why Shoalhaven residents pay a levy of $138.20 per tonne (the metropolitan rate) while residents of Wollondilly Shire (Picton, Appin etc) and Blue Mountains City (Blaxland, Katoomba etc) pay only $79.60 per tonne and Eurobodalla Shire residents (Batemans Bay etc) pay nil?

Impact of waste levies

At $138.20/tonne the waste levy currently makes up 40% of the Shoalhaven’s landfill gate fee and adding GST into the mix the tax on the landfill gate fee is 50% of the fee.

The intent of the levy “to encourage recycling and divert waste away from landfill” should be applauded. However, the practical application has resulted in some perverse outcomes, as outlined below:

1. Applicability and fairness –

As a regional area with low socio economic indicators (see Table 1) and high unemployment, the Shoalhaven is regulated together with the Sydney Metropolitan levy area and charged a levy of $138.20/t. In comparison, the Blue Mountains and Wollondilly, both clearly closer in distance to Sydney (see Map 1) and more economically empowered (Table 1), are classified as being in the Regional Levy area and charged a levy of only $79.60/tonne. Eurobodalla, the Shoalhaven’s immediate southern neighbour, on the other hand, is considered to be outside of the levy regulated areas and does not get charged any waste levy.

We believe that the list of Local Government Areas being charged the waste levy needs to be reassessed. The assessment needs to consider factors such as distance to recycling processors, quantum of waste produced in the LGA and affordability (level of socio economic disadvantage in the community).

Table 1 – ABS Index of Relative Socio economic disadvantage (SEIFA)

*LGA*	*SEIFA Index of Disadvantage (Higher score is better)*	*Position out of 153 NSW Councils*
*Blue Mountains*	*1038.6*	26
*Wollondilly*	*1033.6*	28
*Sydney*	*1019.9*	35
*Shoalhaven*	*954.6*	92

Map 1: - Location of Shoalhaven, Blue Mountains and Wollondilly with respect to Sydney

2. Location of downstream processing for recyclable materials – Regional areas are challenged further by the relatively higher cost of hauling recyclable materials to the downstream processors. Downstream processors generally require high volumes of materials for cost effective processing of recyclables. Processing factories logically select a location for their operation that is close to the largest source of material, generally within in the Sydney Metropolitan Area. So a regional area such as the Shoalhaven faces the high cost of recycling, the high cost of transport and the highest available levy on landfill.

3. Use of levy income by the State Government – Table 2 below sets out the total of levy funds paid by the Shoalhaven City Council to the EPA over the four years of their first Waste Less Recycle More (WLRM) funding program. This is contrasted with the amount of WLRM funding received by the Shoalhaven over the 4 years. Council received 5.2% of our total contribution over the 4 year program. Council has not been able to ascertain what has been done with the remaining 95% of the levy payments, except to say that the funds are considered to be consolidated revenue for the NSW government and allocated to programs or projects as needed.

Table 2 – Levy funds paid by Shoalhaven to EPA over the last 4 years

		*Waste Less Recycle More (WLRM) Funding*
*Year*	*Levy paid to EPA*	*Non-contestable grant funding received*	*Contestable grant funding received*	%
2013/14	$7,180,315	$246,500	$215,088	6.4%
2014/15	$7,954,973	$246,500	$341,169	7.4%
2015/16	$10,021,983	$231,355	$112,800	4.2%
2016/17	$8,194,997	$231,000	$111,540	4.2%
*Total*	*$33,352,268*	*$955,355*	*$780,597*	*5.2%*

The EPA will make $337million available over the next 4 years as funding for the WLRM program. While on the surface of it this appears to be a lot, the levy payments to the EPA over these 4 years will be about $2,520 million with only 13% of this being returned to the sector.

There are barriers to actively pursuing the funds that are available. The criteria for funding are very tight, including the requirement to complete a project within the WLRM program timeframe) and the need to provide co-contributions. This requires shovel ready projects and sufficient financial reserves. However, infrastructure projects require long term planning, design, development approvals, tendering and contracting. The DA process on its own can take a year or more of preparation and up to a year for a decision.

To access funds Council needs to be convinced that the application for funding will be successful, and the application itself requires a specialist, to draft the business plans, concept designs and myriad of justifications as to why the grant is necessary. With resource poor Councils this function needs to be contracted to a Consultant, with the applicable consulting fees. Then the EPA may reject the funding application because someone else has a better application, or the funds allocated to that type of activity are exhausted.

As a result, easy to start projects such as funding consultants to do a report, or funding a litter or illegal dumping program, are popular. However, these don’t address the issue of improving recycling. Projects are also confined to those that meet EPA set criteria.

Council has raised this matter on numerous occasions with the Government and recently again with the Deputy Premier, John Bailiaro at a recent visit.