Agenda OCM - 20100701

AGENDA ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

TIME: 5.30PM

1 JULY 2010

VENUE – CITY OF STIRLING

Constituent Members: Cities of Perth, Joondalup, Stirling, and Wanneroo. Towns of Cambridge, Victoria Park and Vincent

Managing waste and recovering resources responsibly

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL

NOTICE OF MEETING

25 June 2010 Councillors of the Mindarie Regional Local Government are respectfully advised that an Ordinary Meeting of the Council will be held in the Council Chambers of the City of Stirling, 25 Cedric Street, Stirling, at 5.30pm on Thursday 1 July 2010. The business papers pertaining to the meeting follow. Your attendance is requested.

KEVIN POYNTON Chief Executive Officer MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL - MEMBERSHIP

Cr J Bissett (John) Town of Victoria Park Cr D Boothman (David) City of Stirling Cr R Butler (Rob) City of Perth Cr S Cooke (Sharon) City of Stirling Cr S Farrell (Steed) Town of Vincent Cr R Fishwick (Russ) City of Joondalup Cr L Gray JP (Laura) City of Wanneroo Cr K Hollywood (Kerry) City of Joondalup Cr D Newton JP (Dot) City of Wanneroo Cr C MacRae (Corinne) Town of Cambridge Cr J Robbins (Jason) City of Stirling Cr B Stewart (Bill) City of Stirling

NB: Although some Councils have nominated alternate members, it is a precursor to any alternate member acting that a Council carries a specific resolution for each occasion that the alternate member is to act, referencing Section 51 of the Interpretation Act. The current Local Government Act does not provide for the appointment of deputy or alternate members of Regional Councils. The DLGRD is preparing an amendment to rectify this situation.

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCILORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA - 1 JULY 2010

Page 2

AGENDA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM

SUBJECT

FILE NO

PAGE NO

1 OATHS/AFFIRMATIONS OF ALLEGIANCE AND DECLARATIONS OF OFFICE N/A P6

2 QUESTION TIME N/A P6

3 ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES N/A P6

4 MINUTES N/A P6

4.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – 22 APRIL 2010 N/A P6

4.2 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING – 6 MAY 2010 N/A P6

4.3 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING – 24 JUNE 2010 N/A P6

5 ANNOUNCEMENTS N/A P6

6 DEPUTATIONS N/A P7


Page 3

7 BUSINESS ARISING FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING TREATED AS AN ORDER OF THE DAY

N/A P7

8 REPORTS (Declaration of Financial/Conflict of Interest to be recorded prior to dealing with each item)

N/A P7

8.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER N/A P7

8.1.1 BUSINESS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD 23 APRIL 2010 – 4 JUNE 2010 COR/8 P7

P12-30

8.1.2 RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY UPDATE REPORT FOR THE PERIOD 26 MARCH 2010 – 2 MAY 2010

WST/13-02 P7 P31-84

8.1.3 CONFIDENTIAL ITEM RRFA WASTE DIVERSION TARGET WST/179 P8

P85-92

8.1.4 CONFIDENTIAL ITEM FUTURE LANDFILL SITE INVESTIGATION AND PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE LAND

WST/31 P8 P93-109

8.1.5 AUDIO RECORDING OF MRC COUNCIL MEETINGS GOV/34 P8-9

P110-113

8.1.6 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIODS ENDED 31 MARCH 2010 – 30 APRIL 2010 FIN/5-02 P9

P114-135

8.1.7 LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR THE MONTHS ENDED 31 MARCH 2010 – 30 APRIL 2010 Fin/5-02 P9

P136-148

8.2 AUDIT COMMITTEE – 8 JUNE 2010 N/A P9


Page 4

8.2.1 APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR FOR NEXT TERM OF THREE YEARS FIN/124 P9

P149-155

8.3 STRATEGIC PROJECTS COMMITTEE - 14 MAY 2010 N/A P10

8.3.1 STRATEGIC INTEGRATED REGIONAL PLAN WST/176 P10 P161-252

8.3.2 FUTURE LANDFILL SITE INVESTIGATION WST/31 P10 P253

8.3.3 BUDGET 2010/2011 FIN/9 P10 P254-297

9 NOTICE OF MOTION N/A P10

10 GENERAL BUSINESS N/A P10

11 NEXT MEETING N/A P10

12 CLOSURE N/A P11


Page 5

1 OATHS/AFFIRMATIONS OF ALLEGIANCE AND DECLARATIONS OF OFFICE 2 QUESTION TIME 3 ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES 4 MINUTES 4.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – 22 APRIL 2010 The Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 22 April 2010 have been printed and circulated to members of the Council. RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of Council held on 22 April 2010 be taken as read, confirmed and the Chairman invited to sign same as a true record of the proceedings. 4.2 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING – 6 MAY 2010 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on 6 May 2010 have been printed and circulated to members of the Council. RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of Council held on 6 May 2010 be taken as read, confirmed and the Chairman invited to sign same as a true record of the proceedings. 4.3 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING – 24 JUNE 2010 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on 24 June 2010 have been printed and circulated to members of the Council. RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of Council held on 24 June 2010 be taken as read, confirmed and the Chairman invited to sign same as a true record of the proceedings. 5 ANNOUNCEMENTS


Page 6

6 DEPUTATIONS

7 BUSINESS FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING TREATED AS AN ORDER OF THE DAY

8 REPORTS Declaration of Financial/Conflict of Interest to be recorded prior to dealing with each item. Disclosure of Financial and Proximity Interests (a) Members must disclose the nature of their interest in matters to be discussed at

the meeting. (Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995).

(b) Employees must disclose the nature of their interest in reports or advice when giving the report or advice to the meeting. (Sections 5.70 and 5.71 of the Local Government Act 1995). Disclosure of Interest Affecting Impartiality (a) Members and staff must disclose their interest in matters to be discussed at the meeting in respect of which the member or employee has given or will give advice. 8.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 8.1.1 File No: COR/8 Item and Attachments at Page SUBJECT: BUSINESS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD 23 APRIL 2010 – 4 JUNE 2010 MRC RECOMMENDATION That Council receive this progress report for the period 23 April 2010 – 4 June 2010 against Annual Business Plan 2009/2010. 8.1.2 File No: WST/13-02 Item and Attachments at Page SUBJECT: RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY UPDATE REPORT MRC RECOMMENDATION That Council note the RRF update report.


Page 7

8.1.3 File No: WST/179 Item and Attachments at Page CONFIDENTIAL ITEM SUBJECT: RRFA WASTE DIVERSION TARGET MRC RECOMMENDATION That Council note the anticipated changes to the Waste Diversion Target in accordance with the RRFA. 8.1.4 File No: WST/31 Item and Attachments at Page CONFIDENTIAL ITEM SUBJECT: FUTURE LANDFILL SITE INVESTIGATION AND PROPOSAL TO

PURCHASE LAND MRC RECOMMENDATION That Council:

(i) note the progress report on investigations to identify a suitable replacement landfill for Tamala Park

(ii) approve the Business Plan for the purpose of giving Statewide public notice under the Local Government Act and to consider any submissions and whether to proceed with the transaction at the next available meeting

8.1.5 File No: GOV/34 Item and Attachments at Page SUBJECT: AUDIO RECORDING OF MRC COUNCIL MEETINGS MRC RECOMMENDATION That Council:

(i) note the investigation and report into a quality audio recording system for MRC Council meetings

(ii) approve the establishment of an audio recording capability for MRC Council meetings

(iii) note the plan to implement this system following the purchase of the recommended audio recording system ‘For the Record’ for the recording of MRC Council meetings


Page 8

8.1.6 File No: FIN/5-02 Item and Attachments at Page SUBJECT: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIODS ENDED 31 MARCH 2010 AND 30 APRIL 2010 MRC RECOMMENDATION That the Financial Statements as attached at Attachment One and Two for the months ended 31 March 2010 and 30 April 2010 be noted. 8.1.7 File No: FIN/5-02 Item and Attachments at Page SUBJECT: LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE MONTHS ENDED 31 MARCH 2010 AND 30 APRIL 2010 MRC RECOMMENDATION That Council endorse the list of payments made, as per the delegation made to the Chief Executive Officer, for the months ended 31 March 2010 and 30 April 2010. 8.2 AUDIT COMMITTEE – 8 JUNE 2010 8.2.1 Audit Com. Item 1 File No: FIN/6 Item and Attachments at Page SUBJECT: AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING – 8 JUNE 2010 AUDIT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That Council:

(i) accept the quotation submitted by Grant Thornton for the delivery of audit services with following characteristics

• for a period of three years commencing 2009/2010

• maximum total hours of 120 hours per year (360 hours total)

• maximum total cost - $54,750 (ii) appoint Michael Hillgrove and/or alternate partner of Grant Thornton as

the auditor for a term of three years to conduct the Annual audits of Mindarie Regional Council for the financial years 2009/2010 to 2011/2012


Page 9

8.3 STRATEGIC PROJECTS COMMITTEE – 14 MAY 2010 8.3.1 SPC Item 1 File No: WST/176 Item and Attachments at Page SUBJECT: STRATEGIC INTEGRATED REGIONAL PLAN SPC RECOMMENDATION That the Strategic Projects Committee receive the progress report on the development of a strategic integrated regional plan. 8.3.2 SPC Item 2 File No: WST/31 Item and Attachments at Page SUBJECT: FUTURE LANDFILL SITE INVESTIGATION SPC RECOMMENDATION That this project be discussed at the July Strategic Projects Committee meeting. 8.3.3 SPC Item 3 File No: FIN/9 Item and Attachments at Page SUBJECT: BUDGET 2010/2011 SPC RECOMMENDATION Draft report with identified changes be presented at the next Budget Workshop for further discussion. 9 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING 10 GENERAL BUSINESS - SEE NOTE (1) 11 NEXT MEETING 11.1 Ordinary Council Meeting • 26 August 2010

• 5.30pm

• Town of Vincent


Page 10

12 CLOSURE - MEETING DECLARED CLOSED Notes

(1) Under this item, members have the opportunity to:

(a) make a statement providing information related to the Council's business;

(b) to ask a question relevant to the Council's business.

Under this item a member shall not raise any matter directly related to any other item on the agenda and shall not foreshadow any motion for consideration at another meeting.


Page 11

ITEM 8.1.1 BUSINESS REPORT (for the period 23 April 2010 – 4 June 2010) File No: COR/8 (D/10/4121) Attachment(s): 1. Information related to landfill and recycling activity at Tamala Park to end April 2010 2. MRC Marketing and Education Plan – Progress Report 3. Letter – City of Stirling 4. Letter – Town of Vincent Author: Kevin Poynton

SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide Council with current information on all business activities. BACKGROUND The Council at its meeting held in October 2008, resolved, inter alia, to approve a revised Strategic Plan. Council, at Special Council Meeting 28 May 2009, approved Annual Business Plan 2009/2010. This business report is now presented in a format consistent with both the Strategic Plan and approved Annual Business Plan. New information since the last report is provided in ‘bold italics’. DETAIL OBJECTIVE ONE – WASTE MANAGEMENT Objective One is ‘to manage waste in a way that

• Maximises resource recovery

• Minimises waste to landfill

in order to minimise environmental impact. Existing Waste Processing Projects – Tamala Park The table at Attachment One describes business activity for the period 1 July 2009 – 30 April 2010 for member councils, and others, in terms of tonnage (received for processing) and revenue associated with this tonnage. Information related to landfill and recycling activity at Tamala Park to end April 2010 is presented in the table at Attachment One. Current information in relation to Tamala Park landfill and recycling activities is as follows:

• The issue of a contractual dispute with a service provider, in relation to landfill construction work, has progressed to the point where a draft legal document assigning responsibilities from the contractor (JJ MacDonald) to the current owners (WATPAC) has been reviewed. Legal advice has been that the type of assignation is incorrect. Further liaison has continued with WATPAC and the administration is awaiting further WATPAC correspondence

• Utilisation of Tamala Park limestone has continued both onsite and via exploitation of offsite activities

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 12

• An investigation into the characteristics of future gas management plan is in progress with a view to either an extension of the existing arrangement for a finite period, or conduct of another tender exercise for the service. Preparation of a tender package is in progress, following Council decision April 2010 to proceed this way

• Key tasks associated with the groundwater management plan for 2009/2010 are as follows:

- Groundwater sampling, analysis and reporting

- The annual ground water monitoring report, including the results from 18 new bores was presented to DEC in March 2009

- Specialist groundwater monitoring/management consultancy services will be required for planning any groundwater remediation requirements in FY 09/10 that may arise as a result of the leachate plume being detected to the north of Stage I

- Provision of an additional 3 borehole clusters to aid the investigation of the above item

The administration has received the latest groundwater monitoring report. Key points to note are as follows:

- Annual groundwater monitoring for 2009 included 9 additional boreholes along northern boundary

- Results indicate plume is migrating in north westerly direction and some substances of concern are above investigation trigger levels at the northern boundary

- Funding requested in 2010/2011 budget for investigating Monitored Natural Attenuation and Engineered Remediation options

- Consultation with stakeholders to be undertaken with inputs from above investigations to be considered

- A detailed report on the groundwater management program will be presented to the Strategic Projects Committee (SPC) later in 2010

• Access to Federal Government funds to establish a ‘used – fridge management capability’ as an internal rather external service, at a cost saving of $29,000 per annum, has commenced. These funds are being used to train two staff on ‘used fridge management’

Existing Waste Processing Projects – Neerabup Progress against a project to establish and operate a Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) at Neerabup in is contained in a separate report within this agenda. OBJECTIVE TWO – WASTE PROCESSING OPPORTUNITIES Objective Two is to identify, evaluate and implement opportunities for expansion of the waste management business. An Integrated Regional Plan Tasks associated with the development of an integrated regional plan have been progressed as follows:

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 13

• Multi-Criteria Analysis of scenarios

• TWG scenario workshop held on 15 April

• Further Multi-Criteria Analysis of scenarios following input from the TWG workshop

• Numerous attempts to arrange a final scenarios workshop with Elected Members and the TWG (date yet to be confirmed)

Additional Processing Facilities Tasks associated with the establishment of additional processing facilities for operation by Mindarie Regional Council have been progressed as follows:

• Recycling Centre Balcatta (City of Stirling)

- Investigation into Mindarie Regional Council operation of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) component completed, with a conclusion that any piecemeal transfer of CoS capability to MRC was not workable.

- Alternative approach re ‘takeover’ of ALL the recycling activities at Balcatta is proposed for further action. This further action is discussion with CoS on the issues and workability of this proposal, with respect to land tenure, existing contracts and financial issues.

• ‘Son of Tamala’ Landfill

- Work is progressing to investigate purchase of land for potential purchase for use as a landfill, if required. A separate report on this matter is part of this agenda

OBJECTIVE THREE – INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP AND ADVOCACY Objective Three is to identify and promote industry-wide initiatives for improvements to waste/resource management, particularly in relation to waste minimisation and resource recovery. SWMP Projects Progress on current SWMP projects during the reporting period has been as follows: 1. 2 Bin Trial (clean2stream) This project seeks to address the issue of “which bin to put it in” and study household and non residential sorting and collection systems to be considered for future improvements in recycling recovery and waste processing. The object of this project is to develop and trial a 2 stream collection system that is optimised to suit future organic and non-organic waste recycling for a range of premises, without the introduction of a new “class of waste” stream and the expense associated with the supply of bins, trucks, staff and environmental emissions associated with collection vehicles. Participating Local Government – Town of Cambridge Current Progress:

• Draft Final Report completed, final check and then uploaded to MRC website

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 14

2. Bulky Waste Characterisation This project is designed to identify the composition of the various bulky waste streams delivered to Tamala Park and Recycling Centre Balcatta and identify their sources. This information is then available to the Mindarie Regional Council and the City of Stirling to be considered in the redesign of their respective transfer stations including charging policy and materials handling procedures to increase the amount of waste diverted from landfill. Participating Local Governments: City of Stirling, Mindarie Regional Council. Current Progress:

• Project completed, report on MRC website for public information

3. Best practice bulky hard waste and garden waste verge collections This project seeks to identify best practice recovery of bulky hard and green waste from household verge collections for the purpose of reuse and recycling. During the project officers audit materials placed on verges for collection, interview officers from member councils and collection contractors and collate detail on all member council collection services. Current Progress:

• Draft Final Report completed

• Final check and then uploaded to MRC website 4. Events Recycling The results of these investigations will be used to develop new waste management models and procedures for use throughout the region. The waste management models will also make allowance for the different sizes of events. Participating Local Governments: City of Perth, consultation with all member councils Current Progress:

• Project completed, report on website 5. Council Infrastructure Works Waste Recycling This project is designed to bring together all of the Engineering and Parks operational staff within the region with responsibility for the recycling and disposal of solid waste generated through the construction and maintenance of Local Government infrastructure with a focus on pavement, drainage and parks operations. The object is to identify best practice infrastructure waste avoidance and recycling and seek to adopt the best practices through all member Local Governments through copying techniques and sharing contracts. Participating Local Governments: All member councils Current Progress:

• Draft final report being compiled

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 15

6. Reducing the Direct Environmental Impact from the Transport of Collected Recycling and Waste Materials for Present and Future Scenarios The objective of this project is to identify what opportunities exist and what steps need to be taken to optimise the collection and transport of materials for the purposes of recycling and disposal. The project is intended to identify the optimum travelling distances for kerbside collection vehicles in terms of premises serviced, fuels consumed and emissions to the atmosphere from when a truck is filled to capacity to the point of discharge and to specify what benefits can be derived from:

• Locating processing facilities closer to the point of collection

• Using transfer stations to sort and move waste to more remote recycling facilities and landfill sites.

Participating Local Governments: All member councils Current progress:

• This project forms part of the Hyder Integrated Regional Plan

• Currently work in progress Final Reporting to the DEC on funded projects – final report being prepared. Ongoing discussions with the DEC about future funded projects. Partnership Activities Key partnership activities during the reporting period have been as follows:

• Municipal Waste Advisory Council (MWAC)

- Meeting held April 2010 - Draft Policy Statements on Data and Information Management

was endorsed - Program for e-waste collection days advised - Concern was expressed over uncertainty associated with

funding for SWMP projects

• Forum of Regional Councils (FORC)

- Meeting held 3 May 2010 - Presentation received from representatives of Curtin Centre for

Cleaner Production with a view to establishment of partnership with FORC

- Presentation received from representative of Department of Planning on the waste management issues associated with urban planning in Perth

- Decision made re appointment of communications services provider

- Progress report received on development of presentation to Parliament representatives on FORC – related issues

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 16

• Waste Management Association of WA (WMAA(WA))

- Implementation of project plans for utilisation of $100k from Waste Authority

• Industry Training Council (EUPA)

- Review and revision of waste industry training needs, using levy funds. This work is in progress

OBJECTIVE FOUR – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Objective Four is to engage with the community in the Mindarie region in order to promote behaviour consistent with the region’s operational plans for waste/resource management. A report on progress against Council’s Marketing and Education Plan is at Attachment Two to this Item. Marketing Activities Key marketing activities progressed during the reporting period were as follows:

• Monthly community update advertisements in Community Newspapers in April and May

• CEO Bulletin produced following April 22 Ordinary Council Meeting

• MRC News distributed to all households in the region in April

• Ongoing maintenance and improvements to website; Earth Carers forum and blog project has commenced

• Calendar of waste education activities during May and June circulated to Councillors and other stakeholders

• The bi-annual Stakeholder Survey has been administered during this period with results due shortly

• An update of the corporate brochure “Every Moment Matters” is being worked on

Education Activities Key education activities progressed during the reporting period were as follows:

• Continued support of member councils with the metropolitan-wide battery collection program. Battery bins are now in place in each Council area. Investigation of region-wide contractor to collect batteries. The first delivery of batteries to eastern states for recycling occurred in late March

• Fridge calendars are being finalised for Cambridge, Stirling, and Vincent

• Earth Carers course completed with Graduation Ceremony held on May 12

• RFQ process for internal displays at RRF Visitors Centre has been awarded and work is progressing well

• RRF DVD is in production

• Successful HHW Disposal Day held at Stirling on May 22. Promotion is underway for Cambridge HHHW Disposal day on June 19

• HHW brochure has been produced and circulated

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 17

• Work is continuing on development of waste statistics report card and graphic representation on website

• Stage one of a scoping study into development of a Junior Earth Carers program is underway

• Discussion continued with Western Power re joint promotion of fluoro collection program. This includes the production of a fluoros collection box for distribution through Councils to residents

• Advertising in Community Newspapers across the region for “Change Your Smoke Alarm Battery” Day on April 1st, and to offer free disposal for waste resulting from storm damage during April

• Planning and promotion underway for the Apple e-waste drop-off weekend on June 12 & 13. We have two collection venues within the region

• Support of Tales With a Twist puppet show in schools during Term 2 and at the Wanneroo Shopping Centre during the April school holidays

• Attendance at Garden Week as part of a metropolitan-wide Regional Council waste education display

• Visits to schools to give talks, and tours of our facilities are strongly booked. Bookings now being accepted for July

Community Engagement Advisory Group (CEAG) Activities Key CEAG activities progressed during the reporting period were as follows:

• CEAG has reviewed its Roles & Functions Statement. This was endorsed at the April Ordinary Council Meeting

• CEAG has completed it review of performance against the CPA as of Practical Completion. This was endorsed at the April Ordinary Council Meeting

OBJECTIVE FIVE – ORGANISATIONAL MANAGEMENT Objective Five is to maintain excellent management of the Mindarie Regional Council organisation. Business Systems Key projects associated with this port folio are as follows:

• Implementation of improved budget preparation process, in conjunction with member councils

• Investigation of personnel resourcing mix, prior to Budget 2010/2011. This work has progressed to ‘identification of interviewees’ milestone for Project Manager, Marketing Manager, Environmental Officer

• Progress of improved TWG governance model, in the form of revised officer forums, including the inaugural meeting of Strategic Projects Committee ( Chair: Karen Caple, Deputy” Martyn Glover )

• Progress of a project to develop a revised pricing model. This has resulted in Council resolving to adopt a ‘single fee’ model – a decision which is now in dispute before the Supreme Court

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 18

• Correspondence has been received from Town of Vincent on this matters of the fees decision, and this is at Attachment Four to this Item

Member Council Partnerships Key activities progressed as follows:

• Liaison Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) re buffer and associated issues

• Agreement by TPRC on revised buffer plan

• Commencement of preparation of a lease amendment to effect this revised buffer plan

On the matter of Town of Cambridge exemption request, CEO Mindarie Regional Council and CEO Town of Cambridge have agreed that this matter is best left until investigations on a revised pricing model and an ‘exemption approach’ are completed. This is now estimated to be late 2010. On the matter of member Council partnerships, correspondence has been received from City of Stirling on the matter of ongoing utilisation of MRC services (see Attachment Three). Establishment Agreement The administration has received correspondence from Town of Vincent advising a position of support for ‘one vote – one Council’, as distinct to the existing model, in any future draft Establishment Agreement. This position is at odds with other Council positions on this matter i.e. retention of status quo. Attendees at an Officer Business Workshop on 13 August 2009 agreed ‘way ahead’ as follows:

• Finalisation of the draft Establishment Agreement, for MRC endorsement and subsequent consideration by member councils

• Development of a suite of potential Constitution amendments, for consideration by MRC and member councils in the event of non-agreement to the draft Establishment Agreement

The Establishment Agreement work is closely linked to the pricing model, and will occur in synchronisation with this pricing model work. The estimated timeframe for presentation of a final draft Establishment Agreement to Council will depend on pricing model progress. Given that Council has now resolved a ‘single fee’ model, it is proposed to re-commence deliberations on this matter of Establishment Agreement, via a workshop in late July – early August 2010.

CONSULTATION Not applicable STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Not applicable

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 19

POLICY IMPLICATIONS Not applicable STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS This progress report reflects progress against approved activities associated with the Council’s annual Business Plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS These activities are conducted within the context of the approved Council budget for any particular financial year. COMMENT Council business is currently being conducted within the framework of the Annual Business Plan. MRC OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council receive this progress report for the period 23 April 2010 – 4 June 2010 against Annual Business Plan 2009/2010. AGENA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING – 11 June 2010 The group agreed the inclusion of additional information on the Attachment associated with the Marketing Plan i.e, sub totals, explanation of any over expenditures. The group agreed that some quotations for facilitation services should be obtained from those facilitators used by member Councils. The Recommendation was not amended as a result of the meeting. MRC RECOMMENDATION That Council receive this progress report for the period 23 April 2010 – 4 June 2010 against Annual Business Plan 2009/2010.

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 20

ATTACHMENT ONE

TO ITEM 8.1.1

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

1 JULY 2010

INFORMATION RELATED TO LANDFILL AND RECYCLING ACTIVITY AT TAMALA PARK TO END APRIL 2010

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 21

Info

rmat

ion

rela

ting

to la

ndfil

l, re

sour

ce re

cove

ry &

recy

clin

g to

nnag

es y

ear t

o da

te 2

009/

10M

onth

:A

pr-1

0

RR

F A

ctua

lLa

ndfil

l Act

ual

Tota

l Ton

nage

Rev

ised

Bud

get

2009

/10

Targ

et %

Yea

r to

Dat

eA

ctua

l % Y

ear t

o D

ate

Act

ual G

/L $

Rev

ised

Bud

get

2009

/10

Targ

et %

Yea

r to

Dat

eA

ctua

l % Y

ear t

o D

ate

MEM

BER

S

Proc

essa

ble

Cam

brid

ge3,

982.

05

3,20

2.19

7,

184.

24

9,50

0.00

83

.33%

75.6

2%86

5,70

1.54

$

1,

144,

800

$

83

.33%

75.6

2%Jo

onda

lup

21,1

53.6

6

22

,615

.74

43,7

69.4

0

55

,941

.00

83.3

3%78

.24%

5,27

4,21

9.12

$

6,74

0,90

0$

83.3

3%78

.24%

Per

th-

12,0

41.0

0

12

,041

.00

16,0

00.0

0

83

.33%

75.2

6%1,

450,

940.

68$

1,

928,

000

$

83

.33%

75.2

6%S

tirlin

g-

16,6

24.4

3

16

,624

.43

12,0

00.0

0

83

.33%

138.

54%

2,00

3,24

4.23

$

1,44

6,00

0$

83.3

3%13

8.54

%V

icto

ria P

ark

3,20

6.62

6,

477.

77

9,68

4.39

13

,964

.00

83.3

3%69

.35%

1,16

6,03

1.17

$

1,68

2,70

0$

83.3

3%69

.30%

Vin

cent

1,42

8.17

9,

046.

70

10,4

74.8

7

13

,742

.00

83.3

3%76

.23%

1,26

1,18

2.92

$

1,65

5,90

0$

83.3

3%76

.16%

Wan

nero

o17

,643

.15

20,3

27.4

9

37

,970

.64

49,3

00.0

0

83

.33%

77.0

2%4,

574,

455.

44$

5,

940,

700

$

83

.33%

77.0

0%Su

b To

tal P

roce

ssab

le47

,413

.65

90,3

35.3

2

13

7,74

8.97

17

0,44

7.00

83

.33%

80.8

2%16

,595

,775

.10

$

20

,539

,000

$

83.3

3%80

.80%

Non

-Pro

cess

able

Cam

brid

ge2,

185.

98

2,18

5.98

1,

200.

00

83.3

3%18

2.17

%14

4,60

1.69

$

79

,200

$

83

.33%

182.

58%

Joon

dalu

p10

,693

.35

10,6

93.3

5

10

,261

.00

83.3

3%10

4.21

%70

5,91

9.29

$

67

7,20

0$

83

.33%

104.

24%

Per

th45

.25

45.2

5

37

.00

83.3

3%12

2.30

%2,

986.

94$

2,

400

$

83.3

3%12

4.46

%S

tirlin

g62

,277

.70

62,2

77.7

0

83

,000

.00

83.3

3%75

.03%

4,10

1,01

1.95

$

5,47

8,00

0$

83.3

3%74

.86%

Vic

toria

Par

k1,

136.

14

1,13

6.14

68

9.00

83.3

3%16

4.90

%74

,984

.91

$

45

,500

$

83

.33%

164.

80%

Vin

cent

942.

89

94

2.89

484.

00

83

.33%

194.

81%

62,2

30.7

0$

31,9

00$

83.3

3%19

5.08

%W

anne

roo

18,6

24.5

9

18

,624

.59

21,0

00.0

0

83

.33%

88.6

9%1,

234,

680.

75$

1,

386,

000

$

83

.33%

89.0

8%Su

b To

tal N

on-P

roce

ssab

le-

95

,905

.90

95,9

05.9

0

116,

671.

00

83.3

3%82

.20%

6,32

6,41

6.23

$

7,

700,

200

$

83

.33%

82.1

6%O

ther

Sita

Bio

visi

on R

esid

ues

20,5

29.0

7

20

,529

.07

30,0

00.0

0

83

.33%

68.4

3%1,

354,

918.

63$

1,

980,

000

$

83

.33%

68.4

3%S

tirlin

g B

ales

19,4

39.4

8

19

,439

.48

22,0

00.0

0

83

.33%

88.3

6%1,

283,

005.

73$

1,

452,

000

$

83

.33%

88.3

6%W

anne

roo

WR

C9,

863.

65

9,86

3.65

3,

700.

00

83.3

3%26

6.59

%65

1,00

0.96

$

24

4,20

0$

83

.33%

266.

59%

Sub

Tota

l Oth

er-

49

,832

.20

49,8

32.2

0

55,7

00.0

0

83.3

3%89

.47%

3,28

8,92

5.32

$

3,

676,

200.

00$

83.3

3%89

.47%

SUB

TO

TAL

MEM

BER

S47

,413

.65

236,

073.

42

283,

487.

07

342,

818.

00

83.3

3%82

.69%

26,2

11,1

16.6

5$

31,9

15,4

00.0

0$

83.3

3%82

.13%

CA

SUA

LS

Sou

th P

erth

-

14

8.77

148.

77

18

3.33

83.3

3%81

.15%

16,2

29.4

5$

20,0

00$

83.3

3%81

.15%

Trad

e &

Cas

h -

33,7

97.8

5

33

,797

.85

39,9

98.6

7

85

.00%

84.5

0%3,

923,

772.

71$

4,

618,

140

$

85

.00%

84.9

6%Su

b To

tal C

asua

ls-

33

,946

.62

33,9

46.6

2

40,1

82.0

0

84.1

7%84

.48%

3,94

0,00

2.16

$

4,

638,

140

$

84

.17%

84.9

5%TO

TAL

47,4

13.6

5

270,

020.

04

31

7,43

3.69

383,

000.

00

30

,151

,118

.81

$

36,5

53,5

40.0

0$

REC

YCLI

NG

Rec

yclin

g ce

ntre

sal

es38

9,31

8.79

$

24

0,00

0$

83

%16

2%

TON

NA

GE

REV

ENU

E

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 22

ATTACHMENT TWO

TO ITEM 8.1.1


1 JULY 2010

MRC MARKETING AND EDUCATION PLAN – PROGRESS REPORT

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 23

MRC MARKETING AND EDUCATION PLAN – PROGRESS REPORT (as at end of May)

ACTIVITY BUDGET YTD ACTUALS

ACTION PRIOR TO JUNE 30

Corporate Communications

Annual Report & Strategic Plan

$18,000 $21,800 Completed – over due to design and printing of Strategic Plan

Waste Conference $15,000 $18,021 Completed – over due to additional registrations

Media activity $10,000 $5,803 Ongoing Website update $45,000 $31,984 Maintenance continuing, plus commencement

of Stage 2 interactive, and development of interactive game. Budget will be fully utilised.

MRC News $65,000 $41,000 Produced and distributed in April to all households in region. Only one issue produced this year; remainder of budget carried forward to 2010/11

Facts n Stats $12,833 $0 Unlikely to spend before end of June Every Moment Matters

$4,167 $0 In production

General advertising $6,000 $3,700 Utilised as required Sub-total $176,000 $122,308

Waste education WESSG support $2,500 $1,880 One more monthly meeting for the financial

year Branding support $21,000 $8,690 Updated Style Guide ready for distribution

Discussing bin sticker support for Stirling which will utilise remaining budget.

Region evaluation tool

$10,000 $0 Work has commenced to develop report card; expected to be well developed within next month

Tours program $20,000 $17,061 Full program up to & beyond June Bus subsidy $15,000 $6,789 Unused funds will be used for purchase of

giveaways for tours Launch of education centre

$4,500 $9,453 Completed – over due to extra activities at launch function.

Mobile display $10,000 -$2,566 Negative expenditure due to final grant payment; developing updated info panels; aiming for completion in next month

Fridge calendar “Waste management & recycling guide”

$56,000 $32,036 Financial year calendars are about to go to print for Stirling and Vincent.

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 24

Earth Carers $60,000 $25,611 5th training program completed. Ongoing EC

events. Development of EC forum and blog for website underway, and scoping a Junior EC program. May fall short of expenditure (balanced by overs in other areas).

HHW promotion $48,000 $21,987 2010 Disposal Day for Cambridge on June 19. Expenditure for Joondalup and Stirling HHW Disposal Days not yet reflected in actuals.

Waste Wise events $14,000 $3,459 Activity funded as RIP project – unlikely to achieve more in next month. An amount to be carried forward to new financial year.

Contaminants education

$6,300 $2,102 Fluoros & batteries focus; collection boxes for distribution to households in production

E-waste $25,000 $0 Apple e-waste day in June 12 & 13. WALGA support has reduced the required MRC contribution to $11,500.

Partnership program $25,000 $23,800 Scheduled performances of Tales With A Twist in schools & at community events completed for this financial year

Schools program $30,000 $3,731 Production of games to be completed and used during incursions for which demand is strong & growing. Planning to introduce schools battery collection program in 2010/11. Will be purchasing battery bins and promotional material in next month.

ESL $10,000 $745 For completion before end of June Advertising $7,000 $7,000 Completed for the year

Sub-total $364,300 $161,778 Projects & SWMP support

Visitors Centre $40,000 $20,000 Completion of Stage 1 fitout by end of June. Variations to fit-out will exceed budgeted amount; expenditure offset against underspending on monthly update ads.

DVD & brochures for RRF

$18,000 $2,348 DVD in production

Monthly update ad $72,000 $39,019 Another monthly ad to appear in June. Not all expenditure to date reflected in actuals.

Sub-total $130,000 $61,367

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 25

ATTACHMENT THREE

TO ITEM 8.1.1


1 JULY 2010

LETTER – CITY OF STIRLING

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 26

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 27

ATTACHMENT FOUR

TO ITEM 8.1.1


1 JULY 2010

LETTER – TOWN OF VINCENT

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 28

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 29

ITEM 8.1.1


Page 30

ITEM 8.1.2 RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY UPDATE REPORT (for the period 26 March 2010 – 2 May 2010)

File No: WST/13-02 (D/10/4122) Attachment(s): 1. Cardno Power Outage Plan 2. MRC Power Outage Procedure 3. BioVision Power Outage Procedure Author: Ian Watkins

SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information relating to relevant historical information and operation of the Stage 1 Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) at Neerabup. New information since the last report is provided in ‘bold italics’. BACKGROUND Stage 1 RRF contract was signed with BioVision 2020 on 23 November 2007. Construction commenced on 27 February 2008 with the 20 year operating period commencing on 16 July 2009. DETAIL Operations As at 16 July 2009 facility operations commenced. Typical operational conditions include:

• MRC to deliver 400 tonnes per day - Monday to Friday

• BioVision to process 285 tonnes per day - seven days per week

• 40,000 kilolitres of water consumed per year

• 3 MW hours of power consumed

• Approximately 40,000 tonnes of compost produced annually

• Approximately 30,000 tonnes of residue sent to Tamala Park annually

• 1,200 tonnes of ferrous metal recycled annually Composter Structural Issues Following the completion of short term repairs to the cracked composters, the facility was put back into full operation on 1 February 2010. Subsequent to this date, the facility has operated at greater then 100% Availability, with the only exception being a number of power outages. Standstill Deed (SSD) Update:

• The Standstill Deed (SSD) wording has been agreed between the MRC and BioVision

• The ANZ is agreeable the conditions of the SSD

• The ANZ is in the process of formally signing the SSD

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 31

• The facility is currently being operated as if the SSD was in full effect MRC Current Activities:

• Adjusting weekly delivery tonnage to accommodate operational requirements

• Investigating potential insurance claims

• Monitoring BioVision activity relating to composter long-term repairs BioVision current activities:

• Adjusting facility operations to maximise Availability

• Pursuing insurance claims:

- Feedback from BioVision is that the "Industrial Special Risks" insurer is not responding to the Claim. This is to do with the fact that it has not yet been finalised which party (designer or composter construction contractor) is liable for damages

- BioVision is pursuing legal action against the insurer

- The insurer has subsequently appointed an insurance assessor and technical expert to review the circumstances and possible claim outcome

• Finalising composter long-term repair arrangements BioVision Tonnage Guarantee (assumption is that the SSD will be signed off by all parties):

• As at the end of January 2010 BioVision had a Guarantee shortfall of 5,651 tonnes

• Table No. 1 provides a summary of the BioVision Guarantee shortfall:

MONTH GUARANTEE TONNES

ACTUAL TONNES

GUARANTEE SHORTFALL

January 7,726t 2,076.88t 5,651.13tFebruary 7,360t 8,048.35t 5,351.35tMarch 8,464t 10,164.51t 5,074.89tApril 8,096t 6,435.70t 4,074.89tMay 7,728t 8,668.09t 3,829.99tJune 4,416t 8,400t 0.00t

Note: (1) The monthly change in the Guarantee Shortfall is not

simply the difference between Actual Tonnes and Guaranteed Tonnes as some of the Actual Tones are offset against MRC Deemed Tonnes (under delivered tonnes).

(2) The Actual Tonnes and Guarantee Shortfall for the month of June are estimates.

• During the month of June 2010, BioVision has a scheduled two week maintenance shutdown. During this period there are zero Scheduled Tonnes programmed for delivery. As a result of the need to catch up the Guarantee shortfall, BioVision is planning to postpone the shutdown until the following Contract Year (after 16/07/2010); consequently BioVision should process two weeks of Additional Tonnes (4,000

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 32

tonnes). From Table No. 1, it can be seen that by the end of June, it is most likely that BioVision would have caught up the Guarantee Shortfall

Waste Delivery Under normal operating circumstances the RRF will typically accept approximately 2,000 tonnes of waste per week (Scheduled Tonnes). As a result of the reduced Availability associated with the composter cracks, BioVision is endeavouring to catch up the tonnage shortfall during the remainder of the Contract Year (the Standstill Deed provides an opportunity for BioVision to continue to catch up the tonnage shortfall during the following Contract Year). As a consequence the MRC has been requested to deliver more than the scheduled 2,000 tonnes per week. In order to meet the demand for additional tonnage, the Town of Vincent has commenced delivering waste to the RRF. Consequently, the following Member Councils deliver waste to the RRF:

• City of Wanneroo

• City of Joondalup

• Town of Cambridge

• Town of Victoria Park

• Town of Vincent With the on-set of winter and the corresponding decreased tonnages, should the MRC be requested to deliver additional tonnes, above and beyond what is available from the existing Member Councils delivering to the RRF, the City of Perth and the City of Stirling may be required to commence deliveries. An issue that arose following the Town of Vincent commencing deliveries was that the Received Hall is not designed to accept “rear lift” type vehicles. The Town of Vincent operates two of this type of vehicle. BioVision/SITA opted not to receive waste from these two vehicles; hence, a portion of the Town of Vincent's Processable waste is still being delivered to Tamala Park. The problem with the rear lift type vehicles is that they are unable to reverse back far enough in order to tip into the Receival Hall pit. The only option available is for these vehicles to tip part of the waste on the floor next to the pit. SITA then is required to push the waste into the pit. In addition to the double handling, this activity dirties the tipping floor on which all of the waste delivery vehicles drive; consequently, getting waste on the vehicle tyres and tracking waste on the exit road. The MRC is in discussion with BioVision to resolve the tipping issues associated with rear lift type vehicles. In accordance with the RRFA, the facility is required to accept this type of vehicle. Should the City of Perth be required to deliver waste to the RRF, this issue becomes even more critical as all of the City of Perth waste delivery vehicles are rear lift type vehicles. Graph No. 1 provides detail of the Actual Tonnage of waste delivered in comparison to Scheduled Tonnage.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 33

Graph No. 1 – Actual vs. Scheduled Tonnage

Monthly Waste Delivery

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10

Months

Tonn

age

Scheduled TonnesActual Tonnes

Graph No. 2 – Monthly Availability

Monthly Availability

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

110.0%


Months

Avai

labi

lity

Availability (6 Monthly)

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 34

Graph No. 3 – Monthly Cost/tonne Delivered (incl. Compost Cost)

Monthly Cost/Tonne Delivered (incl. Compost Cost)

$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

$400.00


Months

Cos

t/Ton

ne D

eliv

ered

Cost/Tonne Delivered

Graph No. 4 – Waste Diversion from Landfill

Waste Diversion From Landfill

-

1,000.00

2,000.00

3,000.00

4,000.00

5,000.00

6,000.00


Months

Tonn

age

of W

aste

Div

erte

d

Waste Diversion

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 35

Key Performance Indicators KPI’s as per the RRFA are as follows: Table No. 1 – KPI Summary KPI Target Previous

6 Months Mar Apr May

Availability 95%* 68.6% 110% 73% 103% Environmental Standard - Number of Breaches

0 0 0 0 0

Waste Diversion 71.4% 47.0% 56.9% 41.6% 47.8% Quality of Compost - Number of Breaches

0 13 1 0 0

Quantity of Recyclable Packaging 0.8% 1.35% 1.08% 1.22% 1.35% Health and Safety - Number of LTI’s

0 0 0 0 0

Community Acceptance - Number of Complaints **

0 16 6 4 0

Project Culture - PAG Chairperson Score

100 100 100 100 100

* The Target Availability during the Initial Operating Period is to achieve an Availability of greater than 95% over a six-month period. ** Numerous complaints relating to a single event are treated as a single complaint. In accordance with the RRFA, during the first Contract Year, the KPI’s relating to waste type (Waste Diversion, Quality of Compost, and Quantity of Recyclable Packaging) are able to be adjusted so far as the variability in the quality impacts a particular KPI. Consequently; there will be no fee abatement for failure to achieve the related KPI’s for the first year of operation, until waste variability has been finalised. Waste Diversion The average waste diversion for the past three months (March, April, May) has been 48.7%. As per the RRFA, the Waste Diversion Target is subject to change. BioVision has requested a change. This matter is the subject of a separate Confidential Item presented to Council. Compost Quality For the Contract Year up to 1 May 2010 there has been 13,543.95 tonnes of compost produced. To date compost has been delivered to the following locations:

• Turf farms

• Olive farms

• Custom Compost facilities north and south of Neerabup for blending, storage blending and then distribution to customers

Within the RRFA there is a maximum lead level of 250mg/kg. 22 tests have been carried out on the compost, of these, 13 tests have lead levels above the stipulated 250mg/kg. The maximum test result has been 380mg/kg.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 36

The majority of the contamination has occurred in the earlier tests carried out. In the last nine tests (14/10/9 to 14/12/9) only two of the test results have produced a lead level of greater than 250mg/kg. Due to the reduced Availability as a result of the composter cracks, the facility was not running at design capacity during this period. Once the composter cracks have been repaired and the facility is back up to full production, the lead contamination trend can be confirmed. Within the Australian Standard (AS 4454) the maximum lead level is 420mg/kg for C2 restricted use compost. Although the lead levels are above the RRFA maximum levels, all tests have been below the C2 (restricted use) maximum level and hence still able to be used for certain applications. The elevated lead levels are a function of the incoming waste stream. The MRC needs to concentrate on community education to remove electronic waste, batteries etc from the waste stream. Further effort will be required to identify what components of the waste stream are contributing to the heavy metals in the compost. No new compost test results have been received during the reporting period. This is as a result of the lack of production of compost due to recent composter cracks and the fact that it takes a minimum of two weeks for the tests to be completed and results received. Quantity of Recyclables The quantity of metals recycled to date has reached 1.05% of total tonnes processed. This is above to the target of 0.8%. Air Quality The City of Wanneroo waste delivery truck drivers have previously raised concern with regards to the quality of the air (odour and dust) within the receival hall. SITA appointed Coffey Environmental to undertake air quality monitoring within the receival hall. Monitoring and reporting was finalised in December 2009, with the report being provided to the MRC in early January 2010. The outcome of the Coffey Environmental monitoring report clearly stated that there were no exposure concerns to the waste delivery truck drivers. A copy of the report was provided to the City of Wanneroo. The City of Wanneroo have advised the MRC that the waste delivery truck drivers have acknowledged the outcome of the monitoring report; however, point out that the report was done during a period of reduced waste delivery and that once the facility was back to full production the drivers would monitor the odour level within the receival hall. On 14 January the City of Wanneroo drivers recommenced waste delivery to the RRF. However on 1 February the drivers again complained about the air quality in the delivery hall and stopped delivering waste to the RRF. City of Wanneroo Manager Waste Operations and despatch supervisor visited site and determined that there was no problem with the air quality and following an internal meeting with the drivers, waste delivery was resumed on 2 February. Following discussions with the TWG, the MRC Administration is investigating the installation of continuous air quality monitoring equipment within the delivery hall. Activities undertaken to date include:

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 37

• Discussions with SITA about:

- Further Receival Hall air quality monitoring to be undertaken by SITA

- The potential for the MRC to undertake additional air quality monitoring

- The consequence of the MRC undertaking additional air quality monitoring

• Issue raised at the PAG meetings, as the MRC would require PAG approval to enter the BioVision Lease area to undertake additional air quality monitoring

• Outcome from the PAG meeting:

- MRC and SITA to meet with the City of Wanneroo to confirm the scope of work for an air quality consultant to further investigate City of Wanneroo driver’s concerns

- Following agreement with the City of Wanneroo, appoint a suitably qualified consultant to undertake the investigation

On 13 May the MRC met with the City of Wanneroo Health Coordinator to view the Receival Hall and driver disposal procedures. No specific concerns were raised during the site visit This remains an ongoing matter that is under investigation. In late 2009 Cardno compiled a Power Outage Plan to identify actions to be undertaken by the various parties in the event of a power outage. This Plan was used by the MRC and BioVision to develop Power Outage Procedures. In early 2010, there were a number of power outages including a 4 day event which resulted in SITA hiring in generators. What those power outages demonstrated was that the RRF was able to be run (@ 100% capacity) under temporary generator power; hence there would never be a need to empty the facility as a result of no power. From the lessons learnt, the Power Outage Procedures were further refined to reflect actual events that were undertaken. The Cardno Power Outage Plan is at Attachment One to this Item. The MRC Power Outage Procedure is at Attachment Two to this Item. The BioVision Power Outage Procedure is at Attachment Three to this Item. Community Complaints During the reporting period there have been 4 complaints received from the golf club during April and none received during May. SITA advise that the biofilter has reached optimum efficiency following the shutdown associated with the composter cracks and this is why there has been a reduction in complaints recently.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 38

Project Advisory Group MRC Representatives: BioVision Representatives: Cr Laura Gray Emmanuel Vivant Kevin Poynton (CEO) Marco Fontana Giusti Eddy Albrecht (City of Stirling) Nial Stock

MRC Alternates: BioVision Alternates: Cr Dot Newton Casimiro da Fonseca Kalwant Dhillon Craig Barker Chris Colyer (Town of Cambridge) Kevin Wilson The PAG recently met on 7 April, 5 May and 2 June 2010 Items dealt with by the group include:

• Composter Structural Issues

• Waste Diversion Target

• Odour Complaints

• BioVision Monthly Report/Update

• Waste Residue Options

• Receival Hall air quality monitoring – City of Wanneroo Driver Concerns

• Power supply - Wanneroo grid connection Following the Budget Workshop on 13 May 2010, there was a query about the PAG Terms of Reference and what the PAG Chairman costs the MRC. In summary, the Project Advisory Group has the primary responsibility of overseeing the execution of the RRFA and ensuring that the agreement runs as smoothly and as efficiently as is possible having regard to the undertakings, commitments and obligations of either party. As part of the RRFA, there is a need to appoint an independent PAG Chairperson and the MRC is responsible for the costs associated with the Chairperson. At the Ordinary Council Meeting o 13 December 2007, the CEO was given delegated authority to appoint the PAG Chairperson. On 11 February 2008 the PAG accepted Mike Wadsworth as the Chairperson. Mike is paid at $220/hr and to date the PAG Chairperson has cost the MRC approximately $880/meeting (4 hours/meeting). With 11 PAG meetings per year, this equates to approximately $10,000/year. MRC Infrastructure Development Visitors Centre Following the completion of building works, the Visitors Centre internal fit-out is currently being carried out.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 39

The MRC has received requests for a vehicle washdown bay at the RRF. It was never intended that a vehicle washdown bay would be provided on site; however, following the member Council requests, the MRC will investigate a concept design scope the work and budget pricing for construction in the 2011/2012 Financial Year. Community Engagement The MRC community engagement program continues to be managed via the Community Engagement and Advisory Group (CEAG). The group last met on 14 April 2010 at the Joondalup Resort. Issues discussed at the meeting included:

• Project update

• Complaints Management

• City of Wanneroo truck driver concerns about odour in the Receival Hall

• Waste Education update

• RRF Stage 2 Development The CEAG meeting of 20 May 2009 was held at the RRF and involved an after-hours walk around the facility. During the visit one of the CEAG members (Althea Malligan) got a small piece of dirt in her eye. This dirt consequently caused an eye irritation which has resulted in the need for ongoing medical assistance. The MRC public liability insurance has been covering the minor costs associated with a couple of visits to doctors and a pair of coverall sunglasses. Recently Althea Malligan lodged a claim against the MRC for $15,000 as final settlement to cover future medical costs and inconvenience. This claim has been passed on to the MRC insurers to process. The investigation continues. RRF Stage 2 Development With regards to the future development of Stage 2 RRF, the MRC is waiting on the following:

• State Waste Strategy

• Hyder Integrated Regional Plan

• City of Stirling direction on available waste tonnages beyond 2013

• Available waste quantities The MRC will reassess the program for the development of RRF Stage 2 prior to the July OCM. CONSULTATION Consultation during the period has occurred with the following groups:

• Freehills

• BioVision2020

• SITA

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 40

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Nil POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The development and operation of resource recovery in the region is consistent with the following Principals described in Strategic Plan 2009 – 2029:

• Community Focus

• Innovation

• Partnership

• Leadership In particular, Stage 1 RRF conforms with Objective 1 – Waste Management to maximise resource recovery and minimise waste to landfill in order to minimize environmental impact. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Composter Cracks As mentioned above, by the end of June 2010 BioVision is likely to have caught up the Guarantee shortfall, (92% of Scheduled Tonnes) which means that for the period from 01/01/2010 the MRC has only paid for tonnes of waste that has been delivered to the RRF. The one exception being during April when the facility operated at 73% Availability as a result of a four day power outage, an extremely low day of MRC delivery and a day of unavailability due to essential maintenance of the grapple. The power outage unavailability is the subject of an insurance claim. Composter Crack Insurance Claim The MRC has formally submitted a notification to the project insurers of its intention to submit an insurance claim as a result of the Forced Outage. Discussions are being held with both BioVision and Freehills to assess options open to the MRC with regards to potential insurance claims as a result of the cracked composters. Operational Expenditure The Project Operational Summary below sets out the 2009/10 facility operating budget against which operational costs are tracked throughout the year.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 41

Project Operational Costs Summary for 2009/10 Financial Year – As at 1 May 2010

Item Budget Proposed Revised Budget

Expenditure (to 2/5/10)

% Spent (of Budget)

Capital Expenses

2008/2009 Carryover $ 829,000 $ 885,000 $ 761,462 86.0%Total Capital Expenditure $ 829,000 $ 885,000 $ 761,462 86.0%

Operating Expenses

Consultancy Specialist Project Consultants

$ 120,000 $ 175,000 $ 191,188 109.3%

Project/Contract Management

$ 80,000 $ 90,000 $ 105,410 117.1%

Temporary Staff $ 10,000 $ 45,000 $ 30,000 66.7%Sub-total $ 210,000 $ 310,000 $ 326,598 105.4%

Facility Operations Building Maintenance $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,229 144.6% Building Cleaning $ 5,000 $ 2,500 $ - 0.0% Building Security $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ - 0.0% Fencing and Gate Maintenance

$ 5,000 $ 2,500 $ 38 1.5%

Road Maintenance $ 5,000 $ 2,500 $ 1,808 72.3% Bore and Pipework Maintenance

$ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ - 0.0%

Environmental Monitoring $ 20,000 $ 60,000 $ - 0.0%

Community Monitoring Program

$ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 33,626 74.7%

Landscape and Gardens $ 30,000 $ 40,000 $ 39,494 98.7% MRC Admin Charge $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 91,663 91.7% Utilities $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ - 0.0% Council Rates $ 27,000 $ 13,000 $ 12,862 98.9% Compost Disposal $ 545,000 $ 320,000 $ 131,908 41.2% RRF Gate Fees $14,600,000 $12,600,000 $ 9,152,834 72.6%

Sub-Total $15,427,000 $13,210,500 $ 9,471,462 71.7%Total Operating Expenses $15,637,000 $13,520,500 $10,559,523 78.1%

MRC OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council note the RRF update report.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 42

AGENA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING – 11 June 2010 The Group discussed the following:

• the need for a vehicle washdown bay

• clarification of the BioVision Guaranteed Shortfall tonnage and the need for an amended table in the report

• the need to clarify the position with regards to the City of Stirling ability to deliver processable waste to the RRF

MRC RECOMMENDATION That Council note the RRF update report.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 43

ATTACHMENT ONE

TO ITEM 8.1.2


1 JULY 2010

CARDNO POWER OUTAGE PLAN

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 44

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY

Power Outage Plan

September 2009 Job No. V03004-008 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 45

MRC Resource Recovery Facility Power Outage Plan

Mindarie Regional Council Version 4B 30 October 2009 Commercial in Confidence Page i

Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd

ABN 77 009 119 000

Cardno Centre

2 Bagot Road

Subiaco WA 6904

PO Box 155, Subiaco

Western Australia 6904 Australia

Telephone: 08 9273 3888

Facsimile: 08 9388 3831

International: +61 8 9273 3888

[email protected]

www.cardno.com.au

Document Control

Author Reviewer Version Date

Name Initials Name Initials 1 15 September 2008 John King JCK Bill Marchbank WFM

2 7 November 2008 John King JCK Bill Marchbank WFM

3 24 February 2009 Bill Marchbank WFM John King JCK

4 1 September 2009 Bill Marchbank WFM John King JCK

4B 30 October 2009 John King JCK Ronan Cullen RC

"© Cardno. All rights reserved 2008. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person without the prior written consent of Cardno.”

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 46


Mindarie Regional Council Version 4B 30 October 2009 Commercial in Confidence Page ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BioVision2020 Pty Ltd (BioVision) has contracted with the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) to process 100,000 tonnes of household waste per year for a 20-year period. A resource recovery facility (RRF) has been constructed by BioVision in the Neerabup Industrial Area, on land leased from the MRC. The terms of the contract are contained in the Resource Recovery Facility Agreement (RRFA). The Cardno/Meinhardt Joint Venture has been requested by MRC to prepare a plan for dealing with the potential impacts of a power outage that might affect the operations of the RRF. The objectives of this report are to achieve the following:

1. Outline the power requirements of the RRF; 2. Understand the types of disruption to power supplies that may occur; 3. Outline how such disruptions are to be managed, should they eventuate; 4. Outline each party’s responsibilities, should such disruptions occur; and 5. Address concerns relating to potential odour issues.

The report will be used to form an agreed position between the Mindarie Regional Council and BioVision as to how, in operational terms, the requirements of the RRFA that relate to the consequences of a power outage will be managed. The Plan for Dealing with Power Outages (Section 5 of this report) will be included as an appendix in the Operations and Maintenance Manual. The RRF utilises aerobic composting technology to produce compost. The core elements of the RRF are:

1. Two composters for the accelerated decomposition of biodegradable waste; 2. Waste handling, processing, maturation and storage; and 3. The odour management system that manages both odours and particulates.

The operation of the RRF is dependent on it receiving a continuous supply of electricity. The RRF is situated in an area that can be supplied with electricity from Western Power’s distribution networks associated with either the Wanneroo or Yanchep substations. The initial power supply to the RRF has been provided from the Yanchep network on a temporary basis, while infrastructure is built to deliver the permanent supply from the Wanneroo network. Information has been provided by Western Power regarding the reliability of power supplies within the Wanneroo and Yanchep networks during the four years up until the end of January 2009. Western Power has also indicated that it puts a very high priority on maintaining power supply. It implements a range of actions to minimise the impacts of a fault in its system The past performance of the two networks available to service the RRF site in Neerabup suggests that total power disruptions that are likely to be experienced will have durations less that one day, and typically of a few hours. BioVision has a three stage plan for responding to power outages

1. Temporary disruptions (less than 6 hours). Trucks in the waste receival area will be removed and the doors of the facility will be kept closed. No waste that has been received or products will be removed from the facility. The facility will remain closed until the power supply has resumed.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 47


Mindarie Regional Council Version 4B 30 October 2009 Commercial in Confidence Page iii

2. Short Power Failure (6 hours – 48 hours) same as for a temporary disruption, but a temporary power supply will be hired in and connected to the RRF to drive the odour management system. No waste that has been received or products will be removed from the facility. The odour management system will continue to operate, once the temporary power supply has been connected.

3. Major Failure (>48 hours) same as for a short power failure, but material in the process may need to be removed and transported to landfill.

A power outage has the potential of being a force majeure event if it is beyond the reasonable control of either the MRC or BioVision and results in the failure to perform all or some of the obligations under the RRFA. Two circumstances under which a force majeure event would arise are, if the duration or timing of a power outage is such that it is not be reasonably possible to adjust the scheduled tonnes for the remainder of the year so as to process 100,000 tonnes of waste in the year in question (clause 12.1(d) of the RRFA), or if BioVision is unable to comply with the KPIs (clause 12.5(a)(2)). Under these circumstances, BioVision (as the affected party) will be relieved from performing those of its obligations that it is unable to perform (clause 26.2(a)). In this case, BioVision will not be in breach of the KPIs or the requirement to receive 100,000 tonnes per annum of waste, and the Fee will not be adjusted (clause 16.4(a)). For most power outage events, it is anticipated that BioVision will be able to receive 100,000 tonnes of waste in a year, by using the catch up regime in Section 1 of Annexure I. Under this regime the surplus capacity of the RRF will be used to make up for tonnes of waste not delivered on days when the RRFA is Unavailable. In such cases a force majeure event will not have occurred in respect of the obligation to receive 100,000 tonnes of waste per annum. As part of its mitigation strategy, as soon as the power outage occurs, BioVision will be obliged to notify the MRC not to deliver waste for the duration of the outage. Subsequent to this notification, the Waste Delivery Schedule shall be deemed to be amended so that the following conditions apply. The Waste Delivery Schedule prepared under clause 12.1 by the Contractor should contain a clause such that, in the event of a power outage, the waste to be delivered to the RRF is deemed to be amended so that:

1. No tonnes are scheduled to be delivered on the days on which the RRF cannot receive waste due to the power outage; and

2. Waste up to the Maximum Daily Amount of Processible Waste is scheduled to be delivered on the days from the RRF being in full operation following the power outage, until the lost tonnage has been caught up. The parties must agree a Waste Delivery Schedule each year and this deeming provision should be included in the Waste Delivery Schedule (clause 12.1(e)).

The options for providing permanent standby power supplies have been investigated and are detailed in Table E1. Table E1: Options for Permanent Standby Power

Option Power Capacity Level of Operation Estimated Costs 1 1,000 kW Odour management

system $0.4 - $0.5 million

2 2,000 kW Odour management system and composters

$1.0-1.2 million

3 3,000 kW Full RRF operations $1.5 - $1.8 million

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 48


Mindarie Regional Council Version 4B 30 October 2009 Commercial in Confidence Page iv

The following conclusions can be drawn from this study: 1. Based upon historical information, provided by Western Power, it appears that

there is a low probability of major disruptions to the power supply in the Neerabup area;

2. Detailed information on the frequency and duration of power outages in industrial areas, such as Neerabup, suggests that power outages greater than one day are unlikely to occur;

3. The reliability of power supply to the RRF site will improve significantly, upon the completion of the permanent power feed from the Wanneroo network;

4. Western Power operates an incident management plan, to address major power outage events, as outlined in Section 3;

5. BioVision is required to arrange for standby power to be available to operate the RRF should a power interruption occur on those days agreed to in consultation with the Project Advisory Group;

6. During the rest of the year, BioVision is required to hire in temporary power in the event of a power outage, if it exceeds 6 hours in duration. The temporary power will be sufficient to operate the odour management system to a suitable level of operation during short – term disruptions. The RRF electrical power system has been configured to enable temporary power to be directed to other parts of the plant and operate them, eg composters, compost turners, etc, as required;

7. In the unlikely event that power outages in excess of 6 hours and up to 48 hours were to occur, BioVision will be able to manage the situation without major disruption, other than the cessation of waste deliveries to the RRF;

8. If a power outage lasts for more than 48 hour, BioVision may remove waste and compost material from the RRF and send it to landfill. The decision as to whether the material will be removed from the RRF will be made by BioVision, giving consideration to its obligations under its operating license.

9. The provision of approximately 1,100kW of power should allow for the satisfactory management of any foreseeable power outage events, given the history of power outage durations in the Neerabup area;

10. BioVision should be able to utilise the surplus capacity of the RRF to ‘catch up’ for the lost processing of waste that would occur in most anticipated power outages;

11. If BioVision were to catch up for lost processing of waste due to a power outage, and the RRF does not have to be emptied of material, a force majeure event will not have occurred, and BioVision and the MRC will not be financially disadvantaged on a net revenue/cost basis;

12. If an event occurs which is not the fault of either party, the commercial principle that is usually applied (and which was applied in the case of the RRFA) is that the costs should lie where they fall. That is, the event is neither party’s fault, and both are likely to be disadvantaged (including financially) as a result of it.

13. The Waste Delivery Schedule prepared by BioVision under clause 12.1 should contain a clause such that waste to be delivered is deemed to be amended so that :

i. no waste is scheduled to be delivered on the days on which the RRF cannot receive waste due to the power outage, and

ii. Waste to the Maximum Daily Amount of Processible Waste is scheduled to be delivered on the days from the RRF being in full operation following the power outage, until the lost tonnes have been caught up.

14. If an extended power outage was to occur, such that BioVision was not able to catch up within the financial year, utilising the RRF’s surplus capacility, then a force majeure event will have occurred. The MRC would then need to pay BioVision the Capital Cost Rate and Fixed Operating Cost Rate ($99.47 in November 2007 price) for the scheduled tonnes not processed, after allowing for the Additional Tonnes that were processed;

15. Cost estimates received from BioVision for the provision and installation of permanent standby power units for 1,100kW, 2,000kW and 3,000kW are in excess of the costs likely to be incurred by the MRC during any anticipated power outage;

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 49


Mindarie Regional Council Version 4B 30 October 2009 Commercial in Confidence Page v

16. It is considered that providing permanent backup power for the RRF is not warranted given the associated costs and benefits to the MRC and the low probability of extended power outages in the Neerabup Industrial Area; and

17. The Project Advisory Group should adopt a detailed plan for dealing with power outages, to ensure all parties understand their responsibilities and the processes to be followed in such an event. A draft plan is shown in section 5.

In light of these conclusions, the following recommendation are made to the MRC:

I. Does not seek changes to the strategy adopted by BioVision and reflected in the RRFA to manage interruptions to the operation of the RRF due disruptions to the supply of power to the RRF Site;

II. Does not support a variation to the RRFA to fund the provision of a permanent

standby backup power supply for the RRF;

III. Requires BioVision to use the surplus capacity of the RFF to ‘catch up’ for the lost processing of waste that would occur in most anticipated power outage events, in accordance with the RRFA;

IV. Requires the Waste Delivery Schedule prepared by BioVision under clause 12.1 of

the RRFA to contain a clause such that waste to be delivered is deemed to be amended so that :

a. no waste is scheduled to be delivered on the days on which the RRF cannot receive waste due to a power outage event, and

b. Waste to the Maximum Daily Amount of Processible Waste is scheduled to be delivered on the days from the RRF being in full operation following the power outage, until the lost tonnes have been caught up;

V. Recognises that if an extended power outage event was to occur, such that

BioVision was not able to catch up within the financial year, utilising the RRF’s surplus capacity, then a force majeure event will have occurred. The MRC would then need to pay BioVision the Capital Cost Rate and Fixed Operating Cost Rate ($99.47 in November 2007 price) for the scheduled tonnes not processed, after allowing for the Additional Tonnes that were processed;

VI. Seeks the agreement of BioVision, through the PAG, for both parties to adopt a

detailed plan, as shown in Section 5 of this report, for dealing with power outages at the RRF.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 50


Mindarie Regional Council Version 4B 30 October 2009 Commercial in Confidence Page vi

Mindarie Regional Council Resource Recovery Facility

Power Outage Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. OBJECTIVES OF THIS REPORT ...................................................................................... 1

2. POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RRF........................................................................ 2

3. CAUSES OF POWER OUTAGES ...................................................................................... 3

4. STRATEGY FOR POWER OUTAGES............................................................................... 5

5. DRAFT PLAN FOR DEALING WITH POWER OUTAGES ................................................ 7

6. CONTRACTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DEALING WITH POWER OUTAGES ......... 9 6.1 Failure to Process 100,000 tpa of Waste ................................................................... 9 6.2 Failure to Meet the Waste Diversion KPI ................................................................. 10 6.3 Availability of the RRF.............................................................................................. 10

7. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS TO MRC ............................................................................. 12

8. OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING PERMANENT STANDBY POWER.................................... 14

9. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 18

10. RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................... 20

11. APPENDIX 1: RRF OPERATING PROCESSES.............................................................. 21

12. APPENDIX 2: FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF POWER OUTAGE................................ 22

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 51


Mindarie Regional Council Version 4B 1 Commercial in Confidence

1. OBJECTIVES OF THIS REPORT

BioVision2020 Pty Ltd (BioVision) has contracted with the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) to process 100,000 tonnes of household waste per year for a 20-year period. A resource recovery facility (RRF) has been constructed by BioVision in the Neerabup Industrial Area, on land leased from the MRC. The terms of the contract are contained in the Resource Recovery Facility Agreement (RRFA). The Cardno/Meinhardt Joint Venture has been requested by MRC to prepare a plan for dealing with the impacts of a power outage that would affect the operations of the RRF. The objectives of this report are to achieve the following:

1. Outline the power requirements of the RRF; 2. Understand the types of disruption to power supplies that may occur; 3. Outline how such disruptions are to be managed, should they eventuate; 4. Outline each party’s responsibilities, should such disruptions occur; and 5. Address concerns relating to potential odour issues.

The report will be used to form an agreed position between the Mindarie Regional Council and BioVision as to how, in operational terms, the requirements of the RRFA that relate to the consequences of a power outage will be managed. The Plan for Dealing with Power Outages (Section 5 of this report) will be included as an appendix in the Operations and Maintenance Manual.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 52



2. POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RRF

The RRF utilises aerobic composting technology to produce compost. The core elements of the RRF are:

1. Two composters for the accelerated decomposition of biodegradable waste;

2. Waste handling, processing, maturation and storage; and 3. The odour management system that manages both odours and

particulates. Additional elements of the RRF include:

• Administration and support services; and • A public viewing gallery.

An overview of the waste processing activities is provided in Appendix 1. All of the stationary equipment in the RRF, including the waste receival equipment, the composters, the materials handling and screening equipment and the odour management system are powered by electricity. Therefore the operation of the RRF is dependent on a continuous supply of electricity. The following Table 1 details the power required to operate the RRF.

Table 1: Power Requirements of the RRF Level of Operation Electricity Required

- approx Operation of the composters 1,000 kW Waste handling, processing, maturation and storage operations 1,000 kW Operation of the odour management system 1,000 kW Full RRF operation 3,000 kW

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 53



3. CAUSES OF POWER OUTAGES

The RRF is situated in an area that can be supplied with electricity from Western Power’s distribution networks associated with either the Wanneroo or Yanchep substations. Information has been provided by Western Power regarding the history of power outages in Perth. Typically, power outages that might occur can be classified, as outlined in the following Table 2. This table also provides information, regarding the reliability of power supplies within the Wanneroo and Yanchep networks during the four years up until the end of January 2009.

Table 2: Power Outages and Network Performance in the Neerabup Area

Causes of Outages Wanneroo Network Yanchep Network Equipment failures of overhead assets

0.61 interruptions per year with a total outage time of 13 minutes


Inadvertent Switching operation

N/A 1.94 interruptions per year with a total outage time of 462 minutes

Lightning strike N/A 2.62 interruptions per year with a total outage time of 306 minutes

Transmission, eg zone substation faults


Protective operation of the feeder circuit breaker



Motor vehicle collision with pole, resulting in wires down


Minimal history of such events – data is reported in the following category, ie “Other Faults.”

Other faults, which by themselves have minimal or no effect on the statistics


Power shedding No interruptions due to power shedding

No interruptions due to power shedding

Annual reliability performance

1.98 unplanned interruptions per year with a total outage time of 145 minutes

14 unplanned interruptions per year with a total outage time of 1,742 minutes, or approximately 29 hours

Western Power puts a very high priority on maintaining power supply. It implements a range of actions to minimise the impacts of a fault in its system. For example, while the total failure of major plant in the Western Power network is rare, supplies of power are normally able to be maintained with relatively short outages. In approximately 2001, the Victoria Park zone substation was damaged by fire. Western Power overcame the problem by back-feeding power to the affected area from other networks. If such an event were to occur with either, or both of, the Wanneroo or Yanchep zone substations, power would be supplied from other adjoining networks, such as from the Clarkson &/or Mullaloo zone substations. If there was not enough capacity to maintain power supplies, after taking these steps, Western Power would bring in emergency generators. If that was not adequate, Western Power would then commence load shedding, whereby high priority customers were protected from load shedding to the extent possible. Anecdotal advice from the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council indicates that its resource recovery facility in Canning Vale experiences approximately one minor outage each two years of approximately 2 – 4 hours duration.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 54



Table 2 shows that the performance of the Wanneroo network is significantly better than the Yanchep network. This is largely due to the greater distance between Neerabup and the Yanchep substation compared to that between Neerabup and the Wanneroo sub-station. This reduces the risk of damage to the Wanneroo network. Also, a lot of the Wanneroo network infrastructure is newer that the Yanchep network infrastructure. Western Power has indicated that power supply to the RRF will initially be provided from the Yanchep network on a temporary basis, while infrastructure is built to deliver the permanent supply from the Wanneroo network. Subsequent to the permanent supply being provided, BioVision may request to be connected to both networks, ie with permanent supply provided from Wanneroo and backup supply provided from Yanchep. Based upon preliminary information provided by Western Power, such an arrangement can be implemented for an initial fee of $50,000 - $100,000, along with a standby tariff paid for the 3kW of power reserved in the Yanchep network against the contingency that the RRF will need to draw upon this reserve supply, were the Wanneroo network supply to be interrupted. In summary, the past performance of the two networks available to service the RRF site in Neerabup suggests that total power disruptions that are likely to be experienced will have durations of less than one day, and typically of a few hours. BioVision has indicated that they are reassured by the performance statistics provided by Western Power, indicating the network performance reliability in the Neerabup area and, as such, do not anticipate needing to implement a permanent power supply backup arrangement, such as that outlined above.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 55



4. STRATEGY FOR POWER OUTAGES

Under the RRFA, BioVision is required to prepare a Risk and Contingency Plan, an Operation and Maintenance Manual, an Odour Management Plan and an Environmental Management System for the RRF. These plans are required to address the contingency plans that would be used in the event of a disruption to the power supply to the RRF. These plans outline the following actions that BioVision will take in the event of power disruption:

1. Temporary disruptions (less than 6 hours has been nominated by

BioVision). Trucks in the waste receival area will be removed and the doors of the facility will be kept closed. No waste that has been received or products will be removed from the facility. The facility will remain closed until the power supply has resumed.

2. Short Power Failure (6 hours – 48 hours) as for a temporary disruption, but a temporary power supply will be hired in and connected to the RRF to drive the odour management system. The odour management system will continue to operate, once the temporary power supply has been connected. No materials will be removed from the facility during this timeframe, however the availability of a temporary drive facility, to enable rotation and emptying of the composters using temporary power, will be secured in case the outage extends for more than 48 hours.

3. Major Failure (>48 hours) as for a Short power failure, but material may need to be removed from the facility and transported to landfill.

Under the Power Outage Plan and as part of its mitigation strategy, as soon as the power outage occurs, BioVision will be obliged to notify the MRC not to deliver waste for the duration of the outage. Were a power outage to extend for a period greater than 48 hours, BioVision would be in a position to commence emptying the plant, should this be warranted, given it will have sourced a temporary power supply and the temporary drive facility to enable it to commence emptying the facility of unprocessed and partly processed material. If the decision was taken to empty the facility, due to an extended power outage, BioVision would direct the necessary temporary power supply to the following areas to enable removal of materials from the facility:

1. Area 100 Receiving: Waste would be removed from the receival pit and

transported to landfill in BioVision’s Hooklift containers; 2. Area 200 Composters: A supplementary drive system would be

mobilised to site to enable the composters to be rotated to enable their being emptied of waste, with the resident material being directed through primary refining and sorting for consignment to landfill in BioVision’s Hooklift containers. In this scenario, the flow of materials through the Primary Refining and Sorting areas would merely be used to transfer the materials to the waste despatch area, for transfer to landfill, rather than being called upon to provide refining or sorting functions;

3. Area 300 Primary Refining and Area 400 Sorting: The Primary Refining and Sorting areas would be emptied of resident material, as well as be used to transfer the materials to the waste despatch area, for transfer to landfill, rather than being called upon to provide refining or sorting functions;

4. Area 500 Maturation: Conveyors and compost turners can be powered to enable the maturation corridors be emptied of resident material for transfer to landfill. Material from the Maturation hall would be consigned

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 56



directly to the waste despatch area, via a bypass route to avoid secondary refining and storage, for transfer to landfill;

5. Area 600 Secondary Refining: Conveyors, cyclones and waste separation equipment would be powered to the degree necessary to enable this area to be emptied of resident material. This material would be transferred to Storage and Unloading, as per normal operations, for transfer to landfill;

6. Area 700 Storage and Loading: Following the emptying of all areas of the facility, the stockpile of partly processed material held in this area, would be loaded onto trucks for transfer to landfill. Separate stockpiles of finished materials would be loaded onto trucks for transfer to market; and

7. Area 800 Bio-Filter: Sufficient power would be supplied to maintain the operation of the Odour Management System, which incorporates the Bio-Filter.

A key element of the BioVision strategy is the need to hire a 1,000kW generator to power the odour management system of the RRF. BioVision is responsible for providing the temporary backup power and the supplementary drive system to rotate the composters during a power outage. Schedule 2, clause 3.3.7, of the RRFA states that on those days agreed annually in advance by the Project Advisory Group, BioVision will hire auxiliary power sufficient to operate the RRF should there be a power outage or interruption. This clause was included during contract negotiations in recognition that there are some periods when major events are conducted in Perth, and as a result, it may prove difficult to hire temporary power supplies at short notice.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 57



5. DRAFT PLAN FOR DEALING WITH POWER OUTAGES

The current version of BioVision’s plan to manage power outages should be expanded to provide a detailed process to be followed by both BioVision and the MRC. The following plan is proposed for consideration by the Project Advisory Group (PAG):

1. Power disruption occurs; 2. BioVision will notify the MRC’s nominated contact person of the disruption

to power and request that waste deliveries to the RRF be halted until further notice;

3. MRC will arrange for the diversion of waste collection vehicles to deliver waste to landfill;

4. BioVision will arrange for inbound waste collection vehicles and outbound logistics vehicles to exit the plant;

5. BioVision will close the external RRF doors; 6. BioVision will contact their power supply account manager to determine

the cause and extent of the power disruption; 7. BioVision will inform the MRC as to the cause and extent of the power

disruption and the estimated duration of the outage; 8. BioVision will contact the standby generator provider to arrange for its hire

and delivery to the RRF, if the estimated duration of the outage is greater than 6 hours. BioVision will also contact the standby supplementary drive system provider to arrange for its hire and delivery to the RRF, if the estimated duration of the outage is greater than 6 hours. If the estimated duration is less than 6 hours, BioVision will advise their standby generator provider and standby supplementary drive system provider of the outage and confirm the availability of generating plant and supplementary drive system, should the need arise;

9. Should the actual disruption to the supply of power extend beyond 6 hours, BioVision will inform the MRC contact person, mobilise the backup generator to site and maintain the operation of the odour management system. BioVision would also contact the standby supplementary drive system provider to arrange for its hire and delivery to the RRF to secure the ability to rotate the composters, in case the power outage extended beyond 48 hours;

10. Should the disruption to the supply of power extend beyond 48 hours, BioVision will inform the MRC contact person and may commence the process of emptying organic material from the RRF and transporting it to the nominated MRC landfill. The process for removal of materials from the facility is outlined in Section 4 of this report; and

11. BioVision will prepare a process start up plan for the RRF to be implemented when power supply resumes. This plan will outline additional changes to the Waste Delivery Schedule required for the start up period and will be presented to the Project Advisory Group for approval. These changes, if required, will be in addition to the deemed changes to the Waste Delivery Schedule discussed below.

The Waste Delivery Schedule prepared under clause 12.1 of the RRFA by the Contractor shall contain a clause such that, in the event of a power outage, the waste to be delivered to the RRF is deemed to be amended so that:

1. No tonnes are scheduled to be delivered on the days on which the RRF

cannot receive waste due to the power outage; and 2. Waste up to the Maximum Daily Amount of Processible Waste is

scheduled to be delivered on the days from the RRF being in full operation following the power outage, until the lost tonnage has been

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 58



caught up. The parties must agree a Waste Delivery Schedule each year and this deeming provision should be included in the Waste Delivery Schedule (clause 12.1(e) of the RRFA).

For clarity, it should be agreed between the parties that BioVision will not breach its obligations under the RRFA if it has advised the MRC’s nominated contact person of a power outage and requested that waste deliveries be halted until further notice, in accordance with this Plan.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 59



6. CONTRACTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DEALING WITH POWER OUTAGES

As noted in Section 2 above, a power outage is likely to result in a disruption to the supply of waste to the RRF. In terms of the RRFA, if the delivery of waste cannot be reorganised so that the waste is delivered at a time during the same day when there is no power outage, the RRF would not be available, ie not able to receive the scheduled tonnes of waste for that day. If the power failure is due to a fault in the generation or distribution of power to the site then the RRF would be unavailable due to circumstances that are beyond the reasonable control of either the MRC or BioVision. This circumstance has the potential of being a force majeure event. This would occur if it was to result in BioVision being fully or partially unable to meet its obligations under the RRFA or the Lease. Two circumstances under which a force majeure event would arise are, if the duration or timing of a power outage is such that it is not reasonably possible to adjust the scheduled tonnes for the remainder of the year so as to process 100,000 tonnes of waste in the year in question (clause 12.1(d) of the RRFA), or if BioVision is unable to comply with the KPIs (clause 12.5(a)(2) of the RRFA). Under these circumstances, BioVision (as the affected party) will be relieved from performing those of its obligations that it is unable to perform (clause 26.2(a) of the RRFA). In this case, BioVision will not be in breach of the KPIs or the requirement to receive 100,000 tonnes per annum of waste. The Fee will not be adjusted (clause 16.4(a) of the RRFA) as a consequence of not complying with the KPIs. 6.1 Failure to Process 100,000 tpa of Waste

If the period of disruption is short, eg less than 48 hours, then BioVision has the ability to process additional waste tonnes following resumption of the power supply, and so still meet its obligation to process 100,000 tonnes of waste in the year. (Clause 12 of the RRFA and Clause 1 of Annexure I of the RRFA). This can be achieved by the MRC delivering quantities up to the Maximum Daily Amount of Processible Waste (430 tonnes) for the number of days necessary to make up the short fall and so achieve the planned tonnages for the year. The spare capacity of the RRF (the difference between the normally Scheduled Tonnes for a working day and the Maximum Daily Amount) is approximately 30 tonne per day, or 150 tonne per week. If a power disruption was to occur for the duration of a normal working day, then it would take approximately 13 days of operating at the Maximum Daily Amount for the short fall in tonnes to be received at the RRF. The provisions in Clause 12 of the RRFA and Clause 1 of Annexure I of the RRFA have the effect of ensuring that BioVision receives the full Fee otherwise payable to it over a year, if the effects of the unavailability of the RRF can be rectified by utilising the Maximum Daily Amount of the RRF. This would occur if Additional Tonnes are processed to meet the obligation to receive 100,000 tonnes of waste during that year. In such cases a force majeure event will not have occurred in respect of the obligation to receive 100,000 tonnes of waste per annum. If the duration or timing of a power outage that causes the RRF to be unavailable, is such that it is not reasonably possible to adjust the scheduled tonnes for the remainder of the year (which commences 1 July each calendar year) so as to process 100,000 tonnes of waste in the year in question, (ie Additional Tonnes are less than the Unavailable Tonnes) then a force majeure event would arise. Whether or not a force majeure event exists will, in part, depend on when in the financial year the event occurs, and if it is possible to make up for lost tonnes in the remaining portion of the financial year. It will also depend on the duration of the power outage, and the tonnage of waste not processed during that period. It is anticipated that it would take a

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 60



period of 3 months to make up for tonnages not processed during a power outage that lasted 1 week. Calculations of the period required to process the Additional Tonnes required for power outages of 1 day and 1 week are shown in Appendix 2. As outlined in section 3 above, it is most unlikely that a power outage of more than few hours will occur, based on the past performance of Western Power’s distribution system serving Neerabup. It is therefore considered that it would be rare for a power outage to be a force majeure event, based on the inability of BioVision to have the RRF Available for 100,000 tonnes per annum. 6.2 Failure to Meet the Waste Diversion KPI

If waste material needs to be removed from the RRF as a consequence of the power outage, then:

1. Fully processed waste material will be able to be sent to market, as

usual; 2. Unprocessed or partly processed material will be classified as Residue

under the RRFA and will be disposed of by BioVision at Tamala Park landfill at the Local Council Rates (see clause 13.3(c)(2) of the RRFA). BioVision will meet the cost of disposal.

The Waste Diversion KPI is a measure of the percentage to waste diverted from landfill and is measured monthly. Therefore an increase in the amount of residue disposed to landfill in a month, as a consequence of emptying material from the RRF, is likely to cause BioVision to fail to comply with this KPI. This will cause the event to be a force majeure event. BioVision will be relieved of responsibility of complying with the Waste Diversion KPI. It will therefore not be in breach of the KPI and the Fee will not be adjusted.

BioVision will be paid the Fee for tonnes delivered to the RRF in accordance with the Waste Delivery Schedule, following resumption of operations of the RRF. This applies even if the RRF had to be emptied of material as a consequence of the power outage. Payment for services is on the basis of the waste delivered, not the waste processed. (The payment is calculated on the basis of Scheduled Tonnes less Unavailable Tonnes. Scheduled Tonnes are those tonnes scheduled to be delivered in the Waste Delivery Plan. Unavailable Tonnes are those tonnes that could not be delivered due to Unavailability (s 1(g) of Annexure I of the RRFA).

As a consequence, MRC will get no relief from the fact that the waste taken to empty the RRF was not processed.

6.3 Availability of the RRF

When a power outage occurs and waste deliveries are stopped, the Availability of the RRF may be affected. Availability of the RRF is measured on the basis of whether the RRF can receive the tonnes that are scheduled to be delivered on a Working Day. If the RRF is unable to receive the tonnes scheduled to be delivered on a Working Day, then the RRF is Unavailable for that Working Day. In this event, when an event of Force Majeure occurs and the RRF is Unavailable, then the payment obligations of clause 26.2(b) of the RRFA applies, being the obligation of the MRC to make certain payments to BioVision, notwithstanding that the RRF is not processing waste, due to an event of Force Majeure.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 61



If this payment is made, and BioVision is able to process 100,000 tpa of waste using the spare capacity of the RRF during the period within the year and following the resumption of operations of the RRF, then BioVision will receive a double payment during that year. It will receive payments under clause 26.2(b) while the RRF is Unavailable and then receive payments under section 1 of Annexure I for processing the full amount of waste during the year. This problem can be overcome as follows. As part of its mitigation strategy, as soon as the power outage occurs, BioVision will be obliged to notify the MRC not to deliver waste for the duration of the outage. The Waste Delivery Schedule prepared under clause 12.1 by the Contractor should contain a clause such that, in the event of a power outage, the waste to be delivered to the RRF is deemed to be amended so that:

• No tonnes are scheduled to be delivered on the days on which the RRF

cannot receive waste due to the power outage; and

• Waste to the Maximum Daily Amount of Processible Waste is scheduled to be delivered on the days from the RRF being in full operation following the power outage, until the lost tonnage has been caught up. The parties must agree a Waste Delivery Schedule each year and this deeming provision should be included in the Waste Delivery Schedule (clause 12.1(e) of the RRFA).

With these provisions in the Waste Delivery Schedule, then the RRF will not be Unavailable during a power outage as the requirements of the schedule will not be breached. Consideration needs to be given to how the deemed Performance Score of Compliance (PSC) is to be measured during the month in which a power outage occurs. The Waste Diversion (WD) KPI may be affected by the power outage due to the requirement to remove material from the RRF. In this circumstance, the WD KPI score for the period of the power outage plus 31 Days after the resumption of the RRF operations, shall be taken to be the average of the WD KPI scores for the 3 monthly billing periods prior to the power outage event.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 62



7. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS TO MRC

If a force majeure event occurs, the commercial principle that is usually applied (and which was applied in the case of the RRFA) is that the costs should lie where they fall. That is, the event is neither party’s fault, and both are likely to be disadvantaged (including financially) as a result of it. For example, in the event of a power outage, waste deliveries will be diverted to landfill at Tamala Park, and the disposal costs will be borne by the MRC. Also, if the RRF is emptied of material due to an extended power outage, then material removed from the RRF will be disposed of as Residue at Tamala Park, and the costs will be borne by BioVision. However, BioVision will be relieved of its obligation to achieve the KPIs, particularly relating to waste diversion, to the extent that it is caused by the additional Residue being disposed at Tamala Park through emptying the RRF. Based on this principle, both parties are contractually responsible for their own costs incurred in responding to the power outage. BioVision’s responsibility extends to the hiring of plant and machinery required to maintain the operation of the RRF, as well as any costs associated with the removal and disposal of materials from the facility. The Local Council Rate would apply for materials removed from the RRF, ie the rates charged by the MRC to Participants for the disposal of waste to Tamala Park. As outlined in section 6 above, and subject to the clauses recommended in Section 6.3 above being included in the Waste Delivery Schedule, the Fee will not be adjusted due to a power outage unless BioVision is unable to receive and process 100,000 tpa of waste. The financial impacts of a disruption of the Availability of the RRF due to a power outage affecting the ability of BioVision to receive 100,000 tonnes per annum of waste have been assessed and details are shown in Appendix 2. Power outages lasting 1 day and 1 week have been considered, to determine the Fee paid to BioVision by the MRC. Two scenarios were then assessed; if the tonnes not processed due to the power outage (Unavailable Tonnes) are subsequently processed as Additional Tonnes (ie 100,000 tonnes processed in the year), and if less than 100,000 tonnes are processed in the year and hence a Force Majeure event occurs. If the power outage lasts for 1 day, it would take approximately three weeks to process the required Additional Tonnes (400 tonnes). This should be possible in most situations within the current financial year. It is therefore considered that in most situations where a power outage of less that 1 day’s duration occurs, a force majeure event will not result. Appendix 2 shows the effects of a power outage of 1 week, to illustrate the impact of timing of the event within the financial year. It should be noted that, as detailed in section 3 above, there is little likelihood of the RRF experiencing a power outage of 1 week, based on the past performance of the Western Power’s distribution system near Neerabup. If the power outage occurs more than three months before the end of a financial year and lasts for a week, then it is possible for BioVision to process sufficient Additional Tonnes to offset the Unavailable Tonnes that would result. If the power outage is not a force majeure event, ie BioVision was able to make up for scheduled tonnes of waste not processed during the outage (Additional Tonnes = Unavailable Tonnes), then MRC will not be financially disadvantaged, in relation to the handling of Processible Waste, over the course of the year. BioVision will have been paid in full for the 100,000 tonnes of waste it processed in the year.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 63



If a force majeure event was to occur, the MRC would be obliged to pay to BioVision the Fee, comprising the Capital Cost, adjusted to reflect the average performance of BioVision over the preceding 6 months, the Fixed Operating Cost assuming that the RRF is Available for the period of force majeure, and the Variable Operating Cost for tonnes actually processed (refer to clause 26.2(b) of the RRFA). At the time of Financial Close (November 2007) the Gate Fee per tonne of was:

• Capital Cost Rate - $70.12/tonne • Fixed Operating Cost Rate – $29.35/tonne • Variable Cost Rate - $36.01/tonne • Total - $135.48/tonne

Provided that no Processible Waste is scheduled to be delivered to the RRF during a power outage, a power outage will not be determined to be a force majeure until close to the end of the year when it becomes apparent that the Contractor cannot process 100,000 tonnes of Processible Waste. At that time, the MRC will be required to pay BioVision the Capital Cost and Fixed Operating Cost for the shortfall in tonnes processed (Unavailable Tonnes – Additional Tonnes). As no waste will have been received at the RRF for the duration of the power outage, the Variable Operating Cost will not be payable. Assuming that the performance of BioVision was in line with the KPI's during the previous 6 months, then the MRC will be obliged to pay BioVision the Fee, which at Financial Close in November 2007, equated to $99.47 per tonne of waste scheduled, but not processed in the year. If BioVision was to receive any payment under the project’s business interruption insurance policy, then those funds would need to be paid to MRC. It is unlikely that a force majeure event, associated with a power outage, would be covered by business interruption insurance as the policy has a deductible period of 10 days. That is, a payment is not made for the first 10 days of business disruption. As power outages are likely to only last for a period of less than one day, the business disruption insurance is unlikely to have any impact in this matter.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 64



8. OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING PERMANENT STANDBY POWER

BioVision has provided the following summary of provisions for emergency power and advice on the costs and implications of providing permanent stand by power capacity for the RRF. “Summary of present provisions for emergency power to the MRC Resource Recovery Facility For emergency power purposes MCC-002 located within Switchroom 2 incorporates a 1600 Amp circuit breaker which has provisions via copper bus bar tags to connect to an emergency generator set with the output capacity of around 1100kVA maximum. The connections to the copper bus bar tags would be by installing the cabling from the generator set into the switchroom and into the floor trench up to the tags within the MCC-002. The other MCC's within the facility; MCC-001 and MCC-003 are interconnected to MCC-002 via castell keyed circuit breakers. The castell keyed circuit breakers are of each 500 Amp rating; this would enable MCC-001 and MCC-003 to power up equipment to the rating of 290kW. MCC-002 would be able to power up equipment to the value of the operating generator minus the 2 x 290kW (2x500Amps) being utilised by MCC-001 and MCC-003. All switching for loading of the emergency generator would be by manual control under a controlled procedure as implemented by the operator. With the main 185 kW extraction fans powered over two MCC's (MCC-002 & MCC-003) it would be possible to have 2 of these operating under an emergency power situation; along with other equipment throughout the plant up to the kW/kVA rating of the generator being used (1100kVA maximum). It will not be possible to operate the composters on the emergency power generator set as the composters are powered from MCC-001 and the maximum emergency power available through the existing system to MCC-001 is 500 Amps per phase as previously indicated. In addition to the 2 off 185kW fans in operation all lighting throughout the facility could also be connected. The three pricing options required for consideration for the emergency power back-up for the MRC Resource Recovery Facility are as follows:

1. 1MW back-up as presently designed; 2. 2MW back-up system; 3. 3MW back-up system.

Pricing details 1. The cost to supply and install a permanent emergency 1 MVA

generator set to the present installation is in the range of $400,000.00 to $500,000.00, this would cover the following

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 65



provisions:

Supply and installation of a standby 1MW generator including an acoustic enclosure;

Interconnections to the existing MCC-002 circuit breaker and change-over facility;

Diesel tank provisions at the base of the generator for 48 hours continuous operation.

2. The cost to supply and install permanent emergency power to the

value of 2 MW to the present installation is in the range of $1,000,000.00 to $1,200,000.00, this would cover the following provisions:

Supply and installation of (2) two off 1MVA generator sets

including acoustic enclosures for each set - one set located at MCC-001 and one set at MCC-002;

Interconnections to the existing MCC-002 circuit breaker and change-over facility as detailed in option 1;

Diesel tank provisions at the base of the generator sets for 48 hours continuous operation;

New change-over switchboard to be located within Switchroom 1, new connections and modification to the existing systems to accommodate the new change-over facility within Switchroom 1.

3. The cost to supply and install permanent emergency power to the

value of 3 MW to the present installation is in the range of $1,500,000.00 to $1,800,000.00, this would cover the following provisions:

Supply and installation of (3) three off 1MVA generator sets

including acoustic enclosures for each set - one set located at MCC-001, one set at MCC-002 and one set at MCC-003;

Interconnections to the existing MCC-002 circuit breaker and change-over facility as detailed in option 1;

Diesel tank provisions at the base of the generator sets for 48 hours continuous operation;

New change-over switchboard to be located within Switchroom 1, new connections and modification to the existing systems to accommodate the new change-over facility within Switchroom 1;

New change-over switchboard to be located within Switchroom 3, new connections and modification to the existing systems to accommodate the new change-over facility within Switchroom 3;

Options 2 and 3 above will require a degree of reconfiguration of the existing castell key system to ensure the MCC’s are not interconnected with multiple generators in operation. The above figures are broad brush figures which have been based on assumptions and are without any preliminary engineering to fully determine exact requirements therefore they would be subject to fluctuation. With options 2 and 3 there would be the opportunity to operate the composters in an emergency power situation.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 66



The budgets do not include for any automatic load shedding of loads; all load shedding is manual control under a controlled procedure as implemented by the operator. Should auto Load shedding be required then an additional 30% should be added to the figures. Additionally with the options 2 and 3 and with any respect to auto load shedding there would be implications with respect to the present building schedules and there could be possible delays in the construction program.” Table 3 summarises the options for providing permanent standby power supplies.

Table 3: Options for Permanent Standby Power

Option Power Capacity

Level of Operation Estimated Costs

1 1,000 kW Odour management system

$0.4 - $0.5 million

2 2,000 kW Odour management system and composters

$1.0-1.2 million

3 3,000 kW Full RRF operations $1.5 - $1.8 million

Comments BioVision has made financial provision to hire temporary backup power (approximately 1,000kW) in the event of power failures that last more than 6 hours. The design of the RRF allows for the connection of a power source sufficient to operate the odour management system to the degree necessary to enable the management of odours, while Processible Waste is diverted to landfill and full power is restored. It would be possible to provide a permanent stand by power plant of this capacity (Option 1 in Table 3), rather than relying on hiring in a power plant in the event of an outage. This amount of power would be sufficient to operate the odour management, along with lighting and other equipment up to the capacity of the generator being used. If it were decided to make provision for the connection of additional temporary power to enable more of the RRF to operate during the power outage, then modifications would need to be made to the design of the electrical system of the RRF to accommodate the additional temporary power. The critical element of the RRF that would have the most short term impacts if not functioning, is the odour management system. The odour management system includes the system of aerating the compost in the maturation hall. Without this system there is a risk that odour would build up in the RRF and potentially escape to the atmosphere. There is also a risk that the waste and compost material in the RRF would, in time, become anaerobic and result in spontaneous combustion. This system would need to be operational within hours of a power failure to ensure that these risks are managed and odour does not become a problem. In the event that a reduced amount of power were available (Option 2 in Table 3), the operational advantages of having sufficient power to operate the odour management system and to also turn the composters (2,000kW) relate to increased ease in emptying material from the composters when evacuating material from the RRF. This would also decrease the risk of material in the composters becoming anaerobic. The RRF would not receive and process waste during such an event so the advantages to the MRC are minimal. If the total power supply to run the RRF (3,000kW) remained available (Option 3 in Table 3) then it would be possible for the operations of the RRF to be largely unaffected.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 67



As noted above in Sections 2 and 3, the provision of approximately 1100kW of power should allow for the satisfactory management of the foreseeable power outage events, without the need to evacuate material from the RRF, given the history of power outage events, outlined in Section 3.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 68



9. CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be drawn from this study: 1. Based upon historical information, provided by Western Power, it appears

that there is a low probability of major disruptions to the power supply in the Neerabup area;

2. Detailed information on the frequency and duration of power outages in

industrial areas, such as Neerabup, suggests that power outages greater than one day are unlikely to occur;

3. The reliability of power supply to the RRF site will improve significantly,

upon the completion of the permanent power feed from the Wanneroo network;

4. Western Power operates an incident management plan, to address major

power outage events, as outlined in Section 3 of this report;

5. BioVision is required to arrange for standby power to be available to

operate the RRF should a power interruption occur on those days agreed to in consultation with the Project Advisory Group;

6. During the rest of the year, BioVision is required to hire in temporary

power in the event of a power outage, if it exceeds 6 hours in duration. The temporary power will be sufficient to operate the odour management system to a suitable level of operation during short – term disruptions. The RRF electrical power system has been configured to enable temporary power to be directed to other parts of the plant and operate them, eg composters, compost turners, etc, as required;

7. In the unlikely event that power outages in excess of 6 hours and up to 48

hours were to occur, BioVision will be able to manage the situation without major disruption, other than the cessation of waste deliveries to the RRF;

8. If a power outage lasts for more than 48 hours, BioVision may remove

waste and compost material from the RRF and send it to landfill. The decision as to whether the material will be removed from the RRF will be made by BioVision, giving consideration to its obligations under its operating license;

9. The provision of approximately 1,100kW of power should allow for the

satisfactory management of any foreseeable power outage events, given the history of power outage durations in the Neerabup area;

10. BioVision should be able to utilise the surplus capacity of the RRF to

‘catch up’ for the lost processing of waste that would occur in most anticipated power outages;

11. If BioVision were to catch up for lost processing of waste due to a power

outage, and the RRF does not have to be emptied of material, a force

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 69



majeure event will not have occurred, and BioVision and the MRC will not be financially disadvantaged on a net revenue/cost basis;

12. If an event occurs which is not the fault of either party, the commercial

principle that is usually applied (and which was applied in the case of the RRFA) is that the costs should lie where they fall. That is, the event is neither party’s fault, and both are likely to be disadvantaged (including financially) as a result of it;

13. The Waste Delivery Schedule prepared by BioVision under clause 12.1 of

the RRFA should contain a clause such that waste to be delivered is deemed to be amended so that : i. no waste is scheduled to be delivered on the days on which the

RRF cannot receive waste due to the power outage, and ii. Waste to the Maximum Daily Amount of Processible Waste is

scheduled to be delivered on the days from the RRF being in full operation following the power outage, until the lost tonnes have been caught up;

14. If an extended power outage was to occur, such that BioVision was not

able to catch up within the financial year, utilising the RRF’s surplus capacity, then a force majeure event will have occurred. The MRC would then need to pay BioVision the Capital Cost Rate and Fixed Operating Cost Rate ($99.47 in November 2007 price) for the scheduled tonnes not processed, after allowing for the Additional Tonnes that were processed;

15. Cost estimates received from BioVision for the provision and installation of

permanent standby power units for 1,100kW, 2,000kW and 3,000kW are in excess of the costs likely to be incurred by the MRC during any anticipated power outage;

16. It is considered that providing permanent backup power for the RRF is not

warranted given the associated costs and benefits to the MRC and the low probability of extended power outages in the Neerabup Industrial Area; and

17. The Project Advisory Group should adopt a detailed plan for dealing with

power outages, to ensure all parties understand their responsibilities and the processes to be followed in such an event. A draft plan is shown in Section 5 of this report.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 70



10. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Mindarie Regional Council:

I. Does not seek changes to the strategy adopted by BioVision and reflected in the RRFA to manage interruptions to the operation of the RRF due interruptions to the supply of power to the RRF Site;

II. Does not support a variation to the RRFA to fund the provision of a permanent standby backup power supply for the RRF;

III. Requires BioVision to use the surplus capacity of the RFF to ‘catch up’ for the lost processing of waste that would occur in most anticipated power outage events, in accordance with the RRFA;

IV. Requires the Waste Delivery Schedule prepared by BioVision under clause 12.1 of the RRFA to contain a clause such that waste to be delivered is deemed to be amended so that :

i. no waste is scheduled to be delivered on the days on which the

RRF cannot receive waste due to the power outage event, and

ii. Waste to the Maximum Daily Amount of Processible Waste is scheduled to be delivered on the days from the RRF being in full operation following the power outage, until the lost tonnes have been caught up;

V. Recognises that if an extended power outage was to occur, such that

BioVision was not able to catch up within the financial year, utilising the RRF’s surplus capacity, then a force majeure event will have occurred. The MRC would then need to pay BioVision the Capital Cost Rate and Fixed Operating Cost Rate ($99.47 in November 2007 price) for the scheduled tonnes not processed, after allowing for the Additional Tonnes that were processed;

VI. Seeks the agreement of BioVision, through the PAG, for both parties to adopt a detailed plan, as shown in Section 5 of this report, for dealing with power outages at the RRF.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 71

Appendix 1: RRF Operating Processes

11. APPENDIX 1: RRF OPERATING PROCESSES

Waste material is received from Member Councils of the MRC in a waste receival hall within the RRF. The waste is held in a receival pit prior to feeding into the process. Pre-treatment sorting is undertaken to remove reject material. Surge capacity and three-day storage are also provided. From the Facility’s receival area, waste is fed to the composters by means of a grapple crane. The composters are driven by plinth mounted friction drive electric motors. The output from the composters is fed to a large trommel screen, where non-biodegradable material is separated to obtain crude compost and residual material. An electromagnetic conveyor belt is used to separate ferrous metals from the residual material for recycling. The crude compost from the primary refining is placed in bays within the maturation hall for a controlled composting process. The bays measure 3 metres wide by 2.4 metres high. A shuttle and tripper belt conveyor automatically feeds the front section of each bay at a constant level. During the 28 days composting period, a compost turner progressively moves the product towards the outlet of the bays. When the product reaches the end of the bay it is moved to secondary refining. Each bay is divided into three aeration zones, each zone having its own air supply from below. Temperature-measuring devices are installed to monitor temperature evolution as compost matures. This process is carried out to maintain aerobic conditions and optimum temperatures during the composting process. During the agitating process, water is added to the compost to maintain its moisture content at the optimal level, while dust generated during the agitating process is also kept to a minimum. The compost is moved from the maturation floor into secondary refining where it is prepared for market. In secondary refining the material passes through screens, inclined conveyors, magnetic separators and pulverisers, all designed to take the small impurities out of the compost. A critical element of the RRF is the odour management system. Odour is generated from most of the waste treatment processes within the RRF. Foul air needs to be captured and cleaned prior to discharge to the atmosphere. Air from within the RRF is captured by a ventilation system and passed through a biofilter. The biofilter removes odours by passing the foul air through a medium of bark and compost. Specialised microbial flora grows on the surface of the medium and consumes the odorous elements in the air, as it passes through the biofilter. All of the stationary equipment in the RRF, including the waste receival equipment, the composter, the materials handling and screening equipment and the odour management system, are powered by electricity. Therefore the operation of the RRF is dependent on a continuous supply of electricity.

Mindarie Regional Council Version 4B 21 Commercial in Confidence ITEM 8.1.2


Page 72

Appendix 2: Financial

Mindarie Region

Implications of Power Outage

al Council Version 4B 22 Commercial in Confidence

12. APPENDIX 2: FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF POWER OUTAGE

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 73

App

endi

x 2:

Fin

anci

al Im

plic

atio

ns o

f Pow

er O

utag

e

Tonn

es

G

ate

Fee

(Fin

anci

al

Clo

se -

Nov

200

7)

$/

tonn

e $/

tonn

e FM

Day

W

eek

Mon

th

Year

Cap

ital

$

70.1

2 $

7

0.12

S

ched

uled

Ton

nes

400

2000

8,

333.

33

100,

000

Fi

xed

$

2

9.35

$

2

9.35

M

axim

um T

onne

s 43

0 21

50

8,95

8.33

10

7,50

0

Var

iabl

e

$

36

.01

$

-

Tota

l Gat

e Fe

e

$

135

.48

$

99.

47

MR

C C

ost I

mpl

icat

ions

(F

orce

Maj

eure

)

Scen

ario

U

nava

ilabl

e To

nnes

Wor

king

day

s to

pr

oces

s ad

ditio

nal

tonn

ages

Wor

king

day

s pe

r mon

th

(ave

)

Mon

ths

requ

ired

to

proc

ess

addi

tiona

l to

nnag

es

1

day

outa

ge

400

13.3

21

.7

0.6

1

wee

k ou

tage

20

00

66.7

21

.7

3.1

A

ssum

e th

at th

e po

wer

out

age

last

s fo

r 1

wee

k

U

nava

ilabl

e to

nne

fee

is p

aid

by M

RC

to B

ioV

isio

n w

hen

mat

eria

l is

proc

esse

d. A

ssum

ed s

prea

d ov

er re

mai

ning

mon

ths

Opt

ion

1 - A

dditi

onal

Ton

nes

= U

nava

ilabl

e To

nnes

(No

Forc

e M

ajeu

re e

vent

)

Ann

ual A

mou

nts

Mon

th

1-7

8 9

10

11

12

Tota

l Ton

nes

Proc

esse

d FM

Pay

men

t ($

)

Tota

l Pa

ymen

t ($

) A

vaila

ble

Tonn

es

8,33

3.33

6,

333.

33

8,33

3.33

8,

333.

33

8,33

3.33

8,

333.

33

98,0

00

0 $1

3,27

7,04

0 U

nava

ilabl

e To

nnes

0

2000

0

0 0

0 2,

000

0 $

-

Add

ition

al T

onne

s 0

0 65

0 65

0 65

0 50

2,

000

0 $

270,

960

Tota

l Fee

s $

1,1

29,0

00

$

85

8,04

0 $1

,217

,062

$

1,21

7,06

2 $1

,217

,062

$

1,13

5,77

4 10

0,00

0 -

$13,

548,

000

Min

darie

Reg

iona

l Cou

ncil

Ver

sion

4B

23

Com

mer

cial

in C

onfid

ence

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 74

App

endi

x 2:

Fin

anci

al Im

plic

atio

ns o

f Pow

er O

utag

e

O

ptio

n 2

- Add

ition

al T

onne

s <

Una

vaila

ble

Tonn

es (F

orce

Maj

eure

eve

nt o

ccur

s) -

3 m

onth

s re

mai

ning

A F

orce

Maj

eure

fee

is p

aid

for t

he to

nnes

not

pro

cess

ed (i

e U

nava

ilabl

e To

nnes

min

us A

dditi

onal

Ton

nes)

Mon

th

1-8

9 10

11

12

To

tal T

onne

s Pr

oces

sed

FM P

aym

ent

($)

Tota

l Pay

men

t ($)

A

vaila

ble

Tonn

es

8,33

3.33

6,

333.

33

8,33

3.33

8,

333.

33

8,33

3.33

98

,000

$

- $1

3,27

7,04

0 U

nava

ilabl

e To

nnes

0

2000

0

0 0

2000

$

- $

- A

dditi

onal

Ton

nes

0 0

650

650

650

1950

$4

,974

$

269,

160

Tota

l Fee

s $

1,1

29,0

00

$

85

8,04

0 $1

,217

,062

$

1,21

7,06

2 $

1,21

7,06

2 99

,950

$

4,97

4 $

13,5

46,2

00

O

ptio

n 2

- Add

ition

al T

onne

s <

Una

vaila

ble

Tonn

es (F

orce

Maj

eure

eve

nt o

ccur

s) -

1 m

onth

rem

aini

ng

Ann

ual A

mou

nts

Mon

th

1-10

11

12

To

tal T

onne

s Pr

oces

sed

FM

Paym

ent

($)

Tota

l Pay

men

t ($)

A

vaila

ble

Tonn

es

8,33

3.33

6,

333.

33

8,33

3.33

98

,000

$

-

$13,

277,

040

Una

vaila

ble

Tonn

es

0 20

00

0 20

00

$

-

$

-

A

dditi

onal

Ton

nes

0 0

650

650

$ 13

4,28

5 $

222,

347

Tota

l Fee

s $

1,1

29,0

00

$

85

8,04

0 $1

,217

,062

98

,650

$1

34,2

85

$ 13

,499

,387

Min

darie

Reg

iona

l Cou

ncil

Ver

sion

4B

24

Com

mer

cial

in C

onfid

ence

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 75

ATTACHMENT TWO

TO ITEM 8.1.2


1 JULY 2010

MRC POWER OUTAGE PROCEDURE

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 76

POWER OUTAGE PROCEDURE Aim: To identify activities to be undertaken by the MRC and BV in the event of a power outage at the RRF. Principals: The guiding principals surrounding a power outage event are as follows:

• Activities to be undertaken to minimise environmental impact (predominantly odour emissions from the facility)

• Activities to be undertaken to minimise facility availability and waste processing ability

• Activities to be undertaken to minimise the financial impact to related parties

• Each party covers the cost associated with its respective responsibility Responsibility: Responsibility is defined as an activity to be undertaken by a party in the event of a power outage. Responsibility relates to the execution of the activity and the payment of all costs associated with the activity. Procedure: Figure 1 sets out the various activities that are to occur and the order in which these activities are carried out. Table 1 sets out the responsibility allocated to each party. Table 1 – Responsibility Allocation

Responsible Party

Activity

MRC • Waste diversion from RRF. • Monitor power outage process/activities. • Receive facility “residue” (includes unprocessed waste in the

event of a clean out). • Re-commence delivery when requested by BV.

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 77

BV • Identify power outage.

• Liaise with Western Power. • Liaise with MRC. • Stop waste delivery to RRF. • Minimise Odour emissions (close doors, etc). • Monitor consequences of power outage

- Odour emissions

- Anaerobic conditions • Arrange backup power and equipment as necessary. • Clean out RRF if necessary. • Re-commence operations on return of power. • Request MRC to re-commence waste delivery.

Impact on Facility Availability: The duration of the power outage and when during the Contract Year the event occurred will determine the ability of BV to “catch up” the lost Availability. Based on facility performance, (early 2010) it is unlikely that the facility will be able to be operated at 10% to 15% extra capacity over an extended duration. This could be maintained for a short period of two to three weeks, but difficult beyond that. It is feasible that the facility could operate at 5% extra capacity (2,100t/wk) over an extended period. The intention would be for both parties to endeavour to catch up lost Availability as a result of the power outage. The extent to which the facility is able to catch up will be governed by the reasonable additional capacity of the process. Financial Impact:

• Each party covers the cost associated with the execution of its respective responsibility

• Payment mechanism is as defined in the RRFA

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 78

Figure 1. POWER OUTAGE

OCCURS

BV notify MRCwaste delivery

halted

BV removes allwaste delivery

vehicles from site

BV contact Western Power to assess the duration of the

power outage

MRC divert allwaste to landfill

BV close allexternal doors

BV advise MRC ofanticipated duration of

the power outage

Power outageestimated @

> 48 hrs

Power outageestimated @

24hrs but < 48 hrs

Power outageestimated

@ < 24 hours

RRF remainsin “Lockdown”

BV arranges thehire of a 1MW

standby generatorand

supplementarydrive system

Standby generatorinstalled on sitewithin 24hrs andsupplementary drive system

installed on sitewithin 48hrs

Odour management

system reactivated


BV arranges thehire of a 1MV

standby generator

BV confirms theavailability of a

standby supplementary drive system

Standby generatorarrives on siteASAP and the

odour management

system reactivated


BV confirms theavailability of a1MW standby

generator

Power outageextends beyond

24hrs

Power returnswithin 24 hrs

Facility start upprocedure

initiated by BV

Facility fullyfunctional

BV advise MRCto recommencewaste deliveries

BV and MRC assess the impact

of the poweroutage on thewaste delivery

schedule

BV monitor repairsituation with

Western Power

BV monitor odourconditions on site

No odourproblems

Odour emissionsstarting to occur

Powerreturns

BV monitor odourand aerobicconditions

Odour emissionsor anaerobic

conditions causeconcern

BV commenceremoval of allmaterial from

the RRF

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 79

ATTACHMENT THREE

TO ITEM 8.1.2


1 JULY 2010

BIOVISION POWER OUTAGE PROCEDURE

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 80

Author: Casimiro da Fonseca Mindarie Facility

Procedure Power Failure Reaction

Emission date: 11/11/08

PAGE 1

Document Identification No: 900OPS004PROC

REVISION DETAILS

REVISION

Number

Date

Description

Authorized by

Signed

001 26/03/08 Initial Review

1.0 Purpose This procedure describes the process for to be followed in the event of a power failure. Its purpose is to ensure that power failures are dealt with in a way to guarantee effective odour management and minimize business interruption 2. 0 Scope It is applicable to the Neerabup facility. 3.0 Responsibility This process can be handled by all staff trained in this procedure. The Plant manager is responsible for ensuring that the procedure is carried out. 4.0 Detailed procedure Refer to the following flow chart and text

Revision Number 001 Power failure reaction Revision Date 11/11/08 Authorised:Casimiro da Fonseca Issue Date11/11/08 Issued: Casimiro da Fonseca G:\GOVERNANCE\Meetings-10\ARC 20100611\Attachment 3 to Item 8.1.2.DOC Page 1 of 4

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 81

1Power

interruption

2Advise MRC, cancel trucks

Power Failure Reaction

procedure

3Contact power

supplier


9Exit trucks, shut

all doors

4< 24 hrs?

10Power back

on?

6Exit trucks, shut

doors, hire generators (3

MW)

12Resume normal

operations

NO

NO

YES

YES

NO 5>24hrs but <

48hrs?

YES

8Exit trucks, shut doors, hire 1MW

generator

7Connect

generators, start up plant and/or

ventilation system

11Maintain Status

Quo

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 82


5.0 Process steps

1. Power interruption A power interruption has occurred.

2. Advise MRC, cancel trucks Contact the MRC representative, advise of the failure and request MSW trucks to be diverted to landfill till further notice. Responsibility: Operations team leader

3. Contact power supplier. Power supplier is to be contacted, to supply all details of the occurrence, and how long it will take for power to be re-established. Responsibility: Operations team leader

4. < 24 hours? Is the duration of the failure expected to be less than 24 hours?

5. >24 hrs but < 48 hrs?

Is failure expected to last between 24 hours and 48 hours?

6. Exit trucks, shut doors, hire generators (3 MW) All trucks in the building are to be exited, and all doors closed ASAP. Hire generators with a total capacity of 3MW minimum. Responsibility: Operations team leader

7. Connect generators, start up plant and / or ventilation system Position generators, connect them, test, start up ventilation system and then all plant. Responsibility: Electrician, electrical contractor, Operations team leader.

8. Exit trucks, shut doors, hire 1MW generator Exit all trucks, shut all doors and hire a generator to supply power to the ventilation system fans

Responsibility: Operations team leader, Maintenance team leader

9. Exit trucks, shut all doors Exit trucks, shut all doors Responsibility: Operations team leader

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 83


10. Power back on?

Is the power back on line?

11. Maintain status quo Continue as is situation.

12. Resume normal operations

Advise MRC to re-route the trucks back to the RRF. Initiate normal operations, running the relevant tests prior to resumption. Responsibility: Operations team leader

ITEM 8.1.2


Page 84

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL PAGE 85-92 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA – 1 JULY 2010

CONFIDENTIAL ITEM ITEM 8.1.3 RRFA WASTE DIVERSION TARGET File No: WST/179 (d/10/4166) Attachment(s): Nil Author: Ian Watkins

THIS ITEM IS CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR PUBLIC VIEWING.

SEPARATE COVER TO ELECTED MEMBERS

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL PAGE 93 – 109 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA – 1 JULY 2010

CONFIDENTIAL ITEM ITEM 8.1.4 FUTURE LANDFILL SITE INVESTIGATION AND PROPOSAL TO

PURCHASE LAND File No: WST/31 (D/10/4160) Attachment(s): 1. Property Business Plan Author: Ian Watkins

THIS ITEM IS CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR PUBLIC VIEWING.

SEPARATE COVER TO ELECTED MEMBERS

ITEM 8.1.5 RECORDING OF MEETINGS OF THE MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL File No: GOV/34 (D/10/4123) Attachment(s): Nil Author: Kathleen van Son

SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide information to the Council with regard to the establishment of an audio recording capability for Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) meetings. BACKGROUND At the Special Council Meeting held on 6 May 2010, the following motion was tabled:

1. That Mindarie Regional Council acquires a high quality audio recording system suitable for the purpose of recording council meetings as a matter of urgency.

2. To facilitate the accurate recording of minutes and to improve governance, Mindarie Regional Council, as a matter of priority, introduce a requirement for the audio recording of all council and committee meetings.

3. That the appropriate administrative arrangements be put into place to ensure the maintenance and integrity of such recordings in accordance with the Council’s obligations under the State Records Act 2000.

The proposal to provide an audio recording capability for the Mindarie Regional Council meetings should be evaluated against the following criteria:

1. ability of administration to provide an audio recording service at each location

2. cost of purchasing an audio recording system 3. ability of administration to not only record Member Council meetings but to

manage the recordings within MRC’s Information Management procedures Information has previously been sought by the MRC with regard to sourcing audio recording equipment for recording Council meetings. At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 1 July 2004, a request was raised by the Council to investigate the possibility of recording MRC Council meetings. Consultant Ms Rhonda Evans was retained to conduct this report which was presented to Council. The approach taken was to survey the seven member councils to gain an understanding of their approach to the recording of meetings. The survey commenced with the following questions:

1. Does your Council have procedures relating to the recording of meetings? 2. Does your Council have facilities to tape meetings?

ITEM 8.1.5


Page 110

3. If you have facilities, could you provide a service to tape meetings of the Mindarie Regional Council, and if so would fees apply?

Following consideration of this work, no further action occurred.

DETAIL The approach taken for this proposal has been to speak to Hansard staff at the West Australian Parliament. The system utilised at the West Australian Parliament is called ‘For the Record” (FTR) and is deemed to be of a very high quality. A quotation was also sought from one service provider, VizCom Technologies, who also promote the audio system called ‘For The Record’ (FTR). This system is also currently installed at various MRC’s Member Councils as listed below. VizCom Technology Quotation

Component Cost 1 x FTR Hearings 1 x FTR Foot Pedal 1 x FTR software installation 1 x FTR training (Governance Officer) SUB TOTAL COST $4,907.80 1 x Laptop (to be purchased by MRC) $3,000.00 best est. TOTAL COST $7,907.80 pls gst

Member Council Audio Capabilities Currently, the MRC Council meetings are held at all seven Member Council Chambers. The audio system, if purchased, is required to be mobile and compatible with the seven member Councils’ individual audio systems and equally; will need to support the ability to transcribe the recordings. Provision by the individual councils for recording MRC Council meetings will have to be made to accommodate this system. Further investigation with each of the Member Councils has revealed that if purchased, FTR would be compatible. After consultation with each of the Member Councils’ Governance areas, the following audio systems are currently being utilised to record Council meetings:

• City of Joondalup - Currently utilises FTR digital audio recording system

• City of Perth - Currently utilises FTR digital audio recording system

• City of Stirling - Currently utilises Marantz Professional Digital System

• City of Wanneroo - Currently utilises FTR digital audio recording system

ITEM 8.1.5


Page 111

• Town of Cambridge - Currently utilises FTR Hearings digital recording system

• Town of Victoria Park - Do not record Council meetings

• Town of Vincent - Currently utilises Auto Log digital audio recording system

Information Management and Archives The Mindarie Regional Council utilises Trim as an Electronic Document Records Management system and adheres to the WA State Records Office, General Disposal Authority for Local Government (GDALG), under section 4.4 which states that tape recordings of Council meetings need to be retained in custody for a recommended period of 30 years. It is worth noting however, that section 4.4 of the GDALG is currently under review. Utilising the FTR System, the digital recorded minutes will be transferred to MRC’s Network Server for storage, access and archive and recorded in Trim. CONSULTATION Consultation on this proposal was sought from VizCom Technologies in Osborne Park and Hansard staff at the West Australian Parliament. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Not required POLICY IMPLICATIONS A policy on audio recording of Mindarie Regional Council meetings will be required. Should Council approve the purchase of a quality audio recording system, MRC would adhere to the purchasing thresholds within Policy 24B, Purchasing Policy and Tender guide. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Not Applicable FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Should Council agree to progress the arrangement of purchasing a quality audio recording system, an adjustment will be need to be made within the MRC 2010/11 Financial Budget with final adjustments made at the mid year review in 2011. COMMENT The MRC Governance Officer would transport the digital audio recording system to each of the Member Councils for all meetings and would require adequate time to set up the equipment, this could also require support from each Member Council IT department.

ITEM 8.1.5


Page 112

It is prudent to note that transporting equipment on a regular basis could give rise to damage over time. MRC OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That Council:




AGENDA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING – 11 JUNE 2010 The Group discussed the following:

• wear and tear of equipment while transporting audio equipment to Council meetings

• possibility of utilising member Council audio equipment and MRC being provided the recordings of meetings

MRC RECOMMENDATION: That Council:




ITEM 8.1.5


Page 113

ITEM 8.1.6 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIODS ENDED 31 MARCH 2010 AND 30 APRIL 2010 File No: FIN/5-02 (D/10/4124) Attachment(s): 1. Financial Statement for the period ended 31 March 2010 2. Financial Statement for the period ended 30 April 2010 Author: Kalwant Dhillon

SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide financial reporting to meet statutory requirements and to provide useful information to stakeholders of the Council. BACKGROUND Financial Statements as at 31 March 2010 and 30 April 2010 are attached and show separate columns for Actual and Adopted/Revised Budget figures. Reporting requirements are defined by regulations 34 and 35 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. There is scope in these regulations to provide other reporting that the Local Government considers appropriate. The financial statements presented for each month consist of:

• Operating Statement by Nature

• Operating Statement by Function

• Statement of Financial Position

• Statement of Investing Activities

• Information on Borrowings DETAIL The reports attached are for the months ended 31 March 2010 and 30 April 2010 and are at Attachments One and Two to this Item.

• Statement of Income and Expenditure. Pages 2 to 3 of the Attachment. These statements have been adjusted to include a number of year-to-date estimates that are not finalised until the end of the financial year. These are as follows:

- Deferred Excavation Consumed

- Site Rehabilitation Provision

- Site Monitoring Provision

These are based on the estimated rates per tonne calculated with reference to estimated excavation cost of various stages of the landfill and the life of the landfill. An adjustment is made (if necessary) at the end of the year based on a survey carried out to assess the “air space” remaining.

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 114

• Operating Statements by Function and Type. At page 4 of the Attachment. This shows a summary of operating income and expenditures. The Operating Statement by Function may be useful to the reader as a snapshot of the business operations

A complete suite of Financial Statements including Operating Statement and Statement of Financial Position are reported on a monthly basis and include accruals that may be based on estimates to provide meaningful reporting to stakeholders. These reports are at Attachment One and Two to this Item.

MRC OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Financial Statements as attached at Attachment One and Two for the months ended 31 March 2010 and 30 April 2010 be noted.

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 115

ATTACHMENT ONE

TO ITEM 8.1.6


1 JULY 2010

FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 MARCH 2010

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 116

MANAGEMENT FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS

FOR THE MONTH ENDED 31 MARCH 2010

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 117

Description Adopted Budget

Revised Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual $ Variance % Variance Note

Revenue form Ordinary Activities User Charges User Charges - City of Perth 1,930,400 1,930,400 1,447,803 1,316,658 User Charges - City of Waneroo 7,570,900 7,570,900 5,678,172 5,844,381 User Charges - City of Joondalup 7,418,100 7,418,100 5,563,575 5,356,849 User Charges - City of Stirling 8,376,000 8,376,000 6,282,000 6,553,975 User Charges - Town of Cambridge 1,224,000 1,224,000 918,000 896,194 User Charges - Town of Vincent 1,687,800 1,687,800 1,265,850 1,186,499 User Charges - Town of Victoria Park 1,728,200 1,728,200 1,296,153 1,122,259 User Charges - RRF Residues 1,980,000 1,980,000 1,485,000 1,106,744 Total Member User Charges 31,915,400 31,915,400 23,936,553 23,383,558 (552,995) -2.31% User Charges - City of South Perth 337,100 337,100 252,828 16,229 (236,599) -93.58% 1 User Charges - Casual Tipping Fees 5,018,140 5,018,140 3,889,060 3,447,508 (441,552) -11.35% 2 Total User Charges 37,270,640 37,270,640 28,078,441 26,847,296 (1,231,145) -4.38% Service Charges Sale of Recyclable Materials 240,000 240,000 180,000 374,666 194,666 108.15% Sale of Limestone Gas Power Generation Sales 550,000 550,000 304,000 297,350 (6,650) -2.19% Grants & Subsidies 320,000 320,000 320,000 360,000 40,000 12.50% Contributions, Reimbursments & Donations 340,100 340,100 274,969 173,939 (101,030) -36.74% 3 Interest Earnings 369,200 369,200 276,903 396,502 119,599 43.19% Other Revenue 10,200 10,200 7,653 73,716 66,063 863.23%

39,100,140 39,100,140 29,441,966 28,523,469 (918,497) -3.12%Expenses from Ordinary Activities Employee Costs 4,300,140 4,300,140 3,298,332 3,273,361 24,971 0.76% Materials and Contracts Consultants and Contract Labour 804,600 923,600 726,555 695,480 31,075 4.28% Communications and Public Consultation 722,800 722,800 546,488 241,167 305,321 55.87% Landfill Expenses 1,057,400 927,400 631,636 660,549 (28,913) -4.58% Office Expenses 259,500 264,500 213,677 166,795 46,882 21.94% Information Systems 399,300 399,300 273,300 226,268 47,032 17.21% Building Maintenance 129,200 112,200 93,394 75,906 17,488 18.72% Plant and Equipment Operating and Hire 1,027,800 1,215,800 1,004,640 946,833 57,807 5.75% RRF Operations 15,355,000 13,174,000 9,371,348 8,316,215 1,055,133 11.26% Waste Minimisation 316,000 316,000 292,174 323,841 (31,667) -10.84% 4 Utilities 131,300 115,300 104,725 77,781 26,944 25.73% Depreciation 1,159,080 1,079,080 809,316 779,813 29,503 3.65% Borrowing Cost Expenses 1,417,000 1,351,000 1,033,803 996,413 37,390 3.62% Insurance 127,400 143,400 143,400 143,899 (499) -0.35% DEP Landfill Levy 4,699,700 4,850,700 2,970,799 3,212,352 (241,553) -8.13% 5 Land Lease/Rental 590,000 590,000 437,251 429,762 7,489 1.71% Other Expenditure Member Costs 149,500 154,500 92,003 61,856 30,147 32.77% Administration 159,000 159,000 119,259 115,586 3,673 3.08% Amortisation (LandFill) 4,054,200 4,339,200 3,325,650 3,279,249 46,401 1.40% Amortisation (RRF) 534,600 534,600 400,950 400,950 0 0.00%

37,393,520 35,672,520 25,888,700 24,424,078 1,464,622 5.66%

Profit on Sale of Assets 27,800 27,800 6,100 9,994 3,894 63.84%Loss on Sale of Assets 28,700 28,700 28,700 8,116 20,584 71.72%

(900) (900) (22,600) 1,879 (16,690) 73.85%

Changes in Net Assets Resulting from Operations 1,705,720 3,426,720 3,530,666 4,101,270 570,604 16.16%

Mindarie Regional CouncilINCOME STATEMENT BY NATURE AND TYPE

For the month ended 31 March 2010

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 118

NOTES FOR VARIATIONS - INCOME STATEMENT BY NATURE AND TYPE

Note # Description of Item Nature of Variance where actual is 10% and $5,000 from YTD Budget

1 User Charges - City of South Perth City of South Perth has gone for a tender and they are sending their waste to a commercial landfill.

2 User Charges - Casual Tipping Fees The drop is mainly attributable to the increase in fees as well as seasonal factors.

3 Contributions, Reimbursements & DonationsThe drop in revenue is due to the fact that Tox Free invoices are now directly sent to WALGA for payment. The hazardous waste at Mindarie Regional Council is collected by Tox Free. WALGA has government funding for this cost.

4 Waste Minimisation The additional expenditures will be funded by additional grants expected fom Department of Environment and Conservation this financial year.

5 DEP Landfill Levy

Increase is firstly due to RRF which was not operating from late September 2009 to January 2010, hence, more tonnages of waste were going to Landfill in the seven months to 31st January 2010. Secondly, DEP Levy rate was increased on 1st July 2009 from $7/tonne to $8/tonne and again to $28/tonne on the 1st January 2010. The adjustment in rate increase at the 1st July 2009 was not budgeted due to announcement by DEC after budget approval whilst 1st January 2010 increase was included in the budget. Thirdly, due to the variation in tonnes over first half of the Financial Year and second half of the Financial Year rates were different.

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 119


Revised Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual $ Variance % Variance

Revenues from Ordinary Activities

Operating RevenuesCommunity Ammenties 39,100,140 39,100,140 29,441,966 28,523,469 (918,497) -3.12%Total Operating Revenues 39,100,140 39,100,140 29,441,966 28,523,469 (918,497) -3.12%

Profit on Disposal of AssetsCommunity Ammenties 27,800 27,800 6,100 9,994 3,894 63.84%Total Profit (Loss) on Disposal of Assets 27,800 27,800 6,100 9,994 3,894 63.84%

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

Operating ExpensesGovernance 149,500 154,500 92,003 61,856 30,147 32.77%Community Ammenties 18,604,020 19,017,020 13,816,756 13,729,359 87,397 0.63%Other Property and Sevices 1,868,000 1,976,000 1,574,790 1,320,236 254,554 16.16%Resource Recovery Facility 15,355,000 13,174,000 9,371,348 8,316,215 1,055,133 11.26%Total Operating Expenses 35,976,520 34,321,520 24,854,897 23,427,665 1,427,232 5.74%

Loss on Disposal of AssetsCommunity Ammenties 28,700 28,700 28,700 8,116 20,584 71.72%Total Profit (Loss) on Disposal of Assets 28,700 28,700 28,700 8,116 20,584 71.72%

Borrowing Costs ExpenseCommunity Ammenties 880,400 814,400 621,900 622,312 (412) -0.07%Resource Recovery Facility 536,600 536,600 411,903 374,101 37,802 9.18%Total Borrowing Costs Expense 1,417,000 1,351,000 1,033,803 996,413 37,390 3.62%

NET RESULT 1,705,720 3,426,720 3,530,666 4,101,270 570,604 16.16%

Mindarie Regional CouncilINCOME STATEMENT BY DEPARTMENT


ITEM 8.1.6


Page 120

DescriptionACTUAL

2009/2010 MovementACTUAL

2008/2009CURRENT ASSETS Cash 1,271,015 1,125,322 145,693 Investments 13,050,178 1,736,002 11,314,175 Debtors 3,917,548 1,924,737 1,992,811 Stock 19,953 11,026 8,927 Prepayments 194,512 (57,951) 252,462 Other Current Assets 411,283 (228,132) 639,415TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 18,864,488 4,511,003 14,353,484

NON-CURRENT ASSETS Land 2,658,127 0 2,658,127 Buildings & Improvements 1,632,092 (122,144) 1,754,235 Furniture & Equipment 246,866 (30,667) 277,533 Plant & Equipment 3,241,320 (320,807) 3,562,127 Infrastructure - Other 429,341 (36,932) 466,273 Infrastructure - Excavation 6,806,957 (3,279,249) 10,086,206 Infrastructure - RRF 8,595,772 380,629 8,215,143 Infrastructure - Rehabilitation 2,320,719 0 2,320,719 Work In Progress - Excavation 13,019,239 3,409,151 9,610,088 Work In Progress - Other 16,344 16,344 0 Other Non Current Assets 2,014,547 (78,453) 2,093,000TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS 40,981,324 (62,127) 41,043,451

TOTAL ASSETS 59,845,812 4,448,877 55,396,935

CURRENT LIABILITIES Creditors 5,198,015 3,368,334 1,829,681 Provisions 532,266 43,640 488,626 Loans Leases Overdrafts 599,855 (1,832,870) 2,432,725 Accruals 210,957 (1,413,672) 1,624,629 Other Current Liabilities 0 0 0TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 6,541,094 165,432 6,375,661

NON CURRENT LIABILITIES Loans Leases Overdrafts 19,501,151 0 19,501,151 Other Non Current Liabilities 4,965,045 42,937 4,922,108TOTAL NON CURRENT LIABILITIES 24,466,196 42,937 24,423,259

TOTAL LIABILITIES 31,007,290 208,369 30,798,920

NET ASSETS 28,838,522 4,240,507 24,598,015

EQUITYRetained Surplus 26,416,374 4,101,270 22,315,104Reserves 137,999 0 137,999Council Contribution 2,284,149 139,237 2,144,911TOTAL EQUITY 28,838,522 4,240,507 24,598,015

Mindarie Regional CouncilBalance Sheet


ITEM 8.1.6


Page 121

Description Adopted Budget Revised Budget YTD Actual% to Revised

Budget NotePLANT, VEHICLES AND MACHINERIESPlant and VehiclesReplacement of Operation's Foreman Vehicle 38,500 38,500 35,100 91.17%Replacement of Operation's Manager Vehicle 47,900 47,900 0Replacement of Fire Vehicle 45,500 45,500 43,340 95.25%Replacement of Executive Vehicle 51,000 51,000 51,975 101.91%Replacement of Executive Vehicle 50,000 50,000 37,380 74.76%Replacement of Skid Steer Loader No.2 85,000 85,000 0Replace 2x 30m3 Transfer Bins 27,000 27,000 22,560 83.56%Replacement of Workshop Vehicle 29,500 29,500 34,900 118.31% 1Vehicle Tray - Welder's Vehicle 7,000 7,000 0New Utility Vehicle-Marketing and Education 44,000 44,000 40,346 91.70%Replacement of Water Truck 0 200,000 0

425,400 625,400 265,602 42.47%Machinery and EquipmentNew Tarpomatic System 240,000 240,000 0New LGF Monitoring System 20,000 20,000 0New Paint Can Crusher 30,000 30,000 10,440 34.80%Upgrade Recycling Centre Cameras 7,000 7,000 6,480 92.57%Chemical Toilet Facilities 15,000 15,000 16,563 110.42%New Laser Level 0 6,000 0New Leak Detector / Gas Detector 0 2,000 0Ground Monitor 0 4,000 0Weighbridge DVR Recorder Upgrade 0 6,000 0

312,000 330,000 33,483 10.15%

TOTAL PLANT, VEHICLES AND MACHINERIES 737,400 955,400 299,085 31.30%

FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENTComputer EquipmentReplacement of Laptop (Operations Manager) 3,500 3,500 0Replacement of Desktop PC (Finance Officer-Reporting) 1,500 1,500 785 52.34%Replacement of Desktop PC (Foreman) 1,500 1,500 864 57.59%Replacement of Desktop PC (Envrironmental Officer) 1,500 1,500 785 52.34%Replacement of Laptop (Administration Manager) 2,500 2,500 2,149 85.96%Replacement of Laptop (Waste Education Officer) 2,500 2,500 2,149 85.96%Various Replacement Printers and Computing Equipments 15,000 15,000 11,953 79.69%New Desktop PC (Finance Officer-Accts Payable) 1,500 1,500 0Additional UPS System (Admin and Recycling) 2,000 2,000 0Replacement of Servers at Administration Building 0 50,000 0

31,500 81,500 18,685 22.93%Office Furniture and EquipmentReplacement of Furniture and Equipment 26,400 26,400 17,791 67.39%Purchase of New Office Equipment 13,000 13,000 03x Storage Cabinets 5,000 5,000 2,771 55.42%

44,400 44,400 20,562 46.31%

TOTAL FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT 75,900 125,900 39,247 31.17%

LAND AND BUILDINGSLandbrought forward item:Land Purchase (New Landfill Site) 12,000,000 12,000,000 0

12,000,000 12,000,000 0 0.00%BuildingsWorkshop Extension (Work in Progress) 250,000 350,000 0Ground Maintenance Shed 10,000 10,000 0

260,000 360,000 0 0.00%

TOTAL LAND AND BUILDINGS 12,260,000 12,360,000 0 0.00%

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCILSTATEMENT OF INVESTING ACTIVITIES


ITEM 8.1.6


Page 122


Budget Note



INFRASTRUCTUREOperationsLitter Control Fences (Work in Progress) 75,000 75,000 16,344 21.79%Reticulation 7,000 7,000 0Upgrade Recycling Centre Water Main 10,000 19,000 0brought forward item:Surveillance and Boom Gate 15,000 15,000 13,780 91.87%

107,000 116,000 30,124 25.97%Resource Recovery FacilitySite Infrastructure 829,000 829,000 703,126 84.82%

829,000 829,000 703,126 84.82%

TOTAL INFRASTUCTURE 936,000 945,000 733,251 77.59%

LANDFILL EXCAVATIONSExcavation - Phase3 Stage2 (Work In Progress)Construction 8,208,700 3,508,700 0Design 300,000 300,000 126,232Excavation/Earthworks 7,720,000 3,520,000 3,268,907MRC Project Manager 40,000 40,000 7,123Siteworks, Survey, Etc. 20,000 20,000 6,890TOTAL LANDFILL EXCAVATIONS 16,288,700 7,388,700 3,409,151 46.14%

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 123

NOTES FOR VARIATIONS - STATEMENT OF INVESTING ACTIVITIES


1 Replacement of Workshop Vehicle

The cost over run was due to fittings of additional accessories required for operational purposes. Savings from the replacement of Foreman and Fire vehicle will cover the cost.

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 124

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

ON

BO

RR

OW

ING

S

(a)

Loan

Sch

edul

e an

d In

tere

st E

xpen

se

Act

ual

Prin

cipa

l R

epay

men

tsPr

inci

pal

Out

stan

ding

Inte

rest

R

epay

men

tsN

ote

Valu

e of

Loa

n A

ppro

ved

Mat

ures

Inte

rest

R

ates

Prin

cipa

l 01

/07/

2009

Prin

cipa

l D

raw

n D

own

to 3

1/03

/201

0A

ctua

l to

31/0

3/20

10A

ctua

l to

31/0

3/20

10A

ctua

l to

31/0

3/20

10C

omm

unity

Am

eniti

esTa

mal

a Pa

rk L

andf

illLo

an 8

- B

uild

ing

Upg

rade

650,

000

May

-14

6.45

%37

6,43

50

49,1

3432

7,30

117

,173

2Lo

an 1

2 - C

onst

ruct

ion

Sta

ge 2

Pha

se 2

15,0

00,0

00M

ar-1

25.

98%

11,2

49,9

690

1,25

0,01

09,

999,

958

327,

452

3Lo

an 1

3 - R

edra

w fo

r Pha

se 3

Lan

dfill

6,60

0,00

00

00

00

Loan

14

- New

Lan

dfill

Pur

chas

e12

,000

,000

00

00

0R

egio

nal R

esou

rce

Rec

over

y Fa

cilit

yLo

an 1

1 - R

RF

Land

Pur

chas

e3,

500,

000

May

-25

5.97

%1,

940,

815

013

9,23

71,

801,

578

232,

270

2Lo

an 1

0a -

RR

F In

frast

ruct

ure

2,00

0,00

0M

ar-2

56.

16%

1,76

6,65

80

61,1

561,

705,

502

69,7

962

Loan

10b

- R

RF

Infra

stru

ctur

e (In

tere

st O

nly)

2,60

0,00

0V

aria

ble

2,60

0,00

00

02,

600,

000

76,1

731

Loan

10c

- R

RF

Infra

stru

ctur

e4,

000,

000

Jun-

147.

97%

4,00

0,00

00

333,

333

3,66

6,66

722

8,13

3TO

TAL

46,3

50,0

0021

,933

,877

01,

832,

870

20,1

01,0

0695

0,99

6Fa

cilit

y Fe

e45

,417

Tota

l Bor

row

ing

Cos

ts99

6,41

3

Not

e 1:

Loa

n 10

b - $

2,60

0,00

0 ha

s a

varia

ble

rate

of 4

.31%

for t

he m

onth

of M

arch

201

0N

ote

2: T

otal

Loa

n In

tere

st a

ccru

ed fo

r Mar

ch 2

010

= $3

5,52

9.94

Not

e 3:

Prin

cipa

l pay

men

ts a

re m

ade

quar

terly

.

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 125

ATTACHMENT TWO

TO ITEM 8.1.6


1 JULY 2010

FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 30 APRIL 2010

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 126

MANAGEMENT FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS

FOR THE MONTH ENDED 30 APRIL 2010

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 127


Revised Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual $ Variance % Variance Note

Revenue form Ordinary Activities User Charges User Charges - City of Perth 1,930,400 1,930,400 1,608,670 1,453,928 User Charges - City of Waneroo 7,570,900 7,570,900 6,309,080 6,460,137 User Charges - City of Joondalup 7,418,100 7,418,100 6,181,750 5,980,138 User Charges - City of Stirling 8,376,000 8,376,000 6,980,000 7,387,262 User Charges - Town of Cambridge 1,224,000 1,224,000 1,020,000 1,010,303 User Charges - Town of Vincent 1,687,800 1,687,800 1,406,500 1,323,414 User Charges - Town of Victoria Park 1,728,200 1,728,200 1,440,170 1,241,016 User Charges - RRF Residues 1,980,000 1,980,000 1,650,000 1,354,919 Total Member User Charges 31,915,400 31,915,400 26,596,170 26,211,117 (385,053) -1.45% User Charges - City of South Perth 337,100 337,100 280,920 16,229 (264,691) -94.22% 1 User Charges - Casual Tipping Fees 5,018,140 5,018,140 4,265,421 3,924,024 (341,397) -8.00% 2 Total User Charges 37,270,640 37,270,640 31,142,511 30,151,370 (991,141) -3.18% Service Charges Sale of Recyclable Materials 240,000 240,000 200,000 389,319 189,319 94.66% Sale of Limestone Gas Power Generation Sales 550,000 550,000 550,000 539,402 (10,598) -1.93% Grants & Subsidies 320,000 320,000 320,000 360,000 40,000 12.50% Contributions, Reimbursments & Donations 340,100 340,100 296,010 182,272 (113,738) -38.42% 3 Interest Earnings 369,200 369,200 307,670 458,431 150,761 49.00% Other Revenue 10,200 10,200 7,670 81,016 73,346 956.28%

39,100,140 39,100,140 32,823,861 32,161,809 (662,052) -2.02%Expenses from Ordinary Activities Employee Costs 4,300,140 4,300,140 3,632,459 3,643,081 (10,622) -0.29% Materials and Contracts Consultants and Contract Labour 804,600 923,600 792,038 747,097 44,941 5.67% Communications and Public Consultation 722,800 722,800 594,428 318,732 275,696 46.38% Landfill Expenses 1,057,400 927,400 689,304 727,229 (37,925) -5.50% Office Expenses 259,500 264,500 230,626 185,131 45,495 19.73% Information Systems 399,300 399,300 288,300 248,142 40,158 13.93% Building Maintenance 129,200 112,200 99,310 83,144 16,166 16.28% Plant and Equipment Operating and Hire 1,027,800 1,215,800 1,071,807 1,047,339 24,468 2.28% RRF Operations 15,355,000 13,174,000 10,466,683 9,436,141 1,030,542 9.85% Waste Minimisation 316,000 316,000 316,000 408,453 (92,453) -29.26% 4 Utilities 131,300 115,300 108,250 81,334 26,916 24.86% Depreciation 1,159,080 1,079,080 899,240 867,522 31,718 3.53% Borrowing Cost Expenses 1,417,000 1,351,000 1,139,870 1,123,445 16,425 1.44% Insurance 127,400 143,400 143,400 143,899 (499) -0.35% DEP Landfill Levy 4,699,700 4,850,700 3,597,432 3,923,525 (326,093) -9.06% 5 Land Lease/Rental 590,000 590,000 488,168 478,177 9,991 2.05% Other Expenditure Member Costs 149,500 154,500 96,420 61,856 34,564 35.85% Administration 159,000 159,000 132,510 138,855 (6,345) -4.79% Amortisation (LandFill) 4,054,200 4,339,200 3,663,500 3,617,099 46,401 1.27% Amortisation (RRF) 534,600 534,600 445,500 445,500 0 0.00%

37,393,520 35,672,520 28,895,245 27,725,702 1,169,543 4.05%

Profit on Sale of Assets 27,800 27,800 6,100 9,994 3,894 63.84%Loss on Sale of Assets 28,700 28,700 28,700 8,116 20,584 71.72%

(900) (900) (22,600) 1,879 (16,690) 73.85%

Changes in Net Assets Resulting from Operations 1,705,720 3,426,720 3,906,016 4,437,986 531,970 13.62%


For the month ended 30 April 2010

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 128

NOTES FOR VARIATIONS - INCOME STATEMENT BY NATURE AND TYPE


1 User Charges - City of South Perth City of South Perth has gone for a tender and they are sending their waste to a commercial landfill.

2 User Charges - Casual Tipping Fees The drop is mainly attributable to the increase in fees as well as seasonal factors.

3 Contributions, Reimbursements & DonationsThe drop in revenue is due to the fact that Tox Free invoices are now directly sent to WALGA for payment. The hazardous waste at Mindarie Regional Council is collected by Tox Free. WALGA has government funding for this cost.

4 Waste Minimisation The additional expenditures will be funded by additional grants expected fom Department of Environment and Conservation this financial year.

5 DEP Landfill Levy

Increase is firstly due to RRF which was not operating from late September 2009 to January 2010, hence, more tonnages of waste were going to Landfill in the seven months to 31st January 2010. Secondly, DEP Levy rate was increased on 1st July 2009 from $7/tonne to $8/tonne and again to $28/tonne on the 1st January 2010. The adjustment in rate increase at the 1st July 2009 was not budgeted due to announcement by DEC after budget approval whilst 1st January 2010 increase was included in the budget. Thirdly, due to the variation in tonnes over first half of the Financial Year and second half of the Financial Year rates were different.

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 129


Revised Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual $ Variance % Variance

Revenues from Ordinary Activities

Operating RevenuesCommunity Ammenties 39,100,140 39,100,140 32,823,861 32,161,809 (662,052) -2.02%Total Operating Revenues 39,100,140 39,100,140 32,823,861 32,161,809 (662,052) -2.02%

Profit on Disposal of AssetsCommunity Ammenties 27,800 27,800 6,100 9,994 3,894 63.84%Total Profit (Loss) on Disposal of Assets 27,800 27,800 6,100 9,994 3,894 63.84%

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

Operating ExpensesGovernance 149,500 154,500 96,420 61,856 34,564 35.85%Community Ammenties 18,604,020 19,017,020 15,486,965 15,665,315 (178,350) -1.15%Other Property and Sevices 1,868,000 1,976,000 1,705,307 1,438,945 266,362 15.62%Resource Recovery Facility 15,355,000 13,174,000 10,466,683 9,436,141 1,030,542 9.85%Total Operating Expenses 35,976,520 34,321,520 27,755,375 26,602,257 1,153,118 4.15%

Loss on Disposal of AssetsCommunity Ammenties 28,700 28,700 28,700 8,116 20,584 71.72%Total Profit (Loss) on Disposal of Assets 28,700 28,700 28,700 8,116 20,584 71.72%

Borrowing Costs ExpenseCommunity Ammenties 880,400 814,400 685,900 681,308 4,592 0.67%Resource Recovery Facility 536,600 536,600 453,970 442,137 11,833 2.61%Total Borrowing Costs Expense 1,417,000 1,351,000 1,139,870 1,123,445 16,425 1.44%

NET RESULT 1,705,720 3,426,720 3,906,016 4,437,986 531,970 13.62%

Mindarie Regional CouncilINCOME STATEMENT BY DEPARTMENT


ITEM 8.1.6


Page 130

DescriptionACTUAL

2009/2010 MovementACTUAL

2008/2009CURRENT ASSETS Cash 2,093,338 1,947,645 145,693 Investments 13,050,178 1,736,002 11,314,175 Debtors 4,061,662 2,068,850 1,992,811 Stock 14,751 5,824 8,927 Prepayments 121,438 (131,024) 252,462 Other Current Assets 573,313 (66,103) 639,415TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 19,914,679 5,561,195 14,353,484

NON-CURRENT ASSETS Land 2,658,127 0 2,658,127 Buildings & Improvements 1,618,771 (135,464) 1,754,235 Furniture & Equipment 239,294 (38,239) 277,533 Plant & Equipment 3,202,583 (359,543) 3,562,127 Infrastructure - Other 425,378 (40,895) 466,273 Infrastructure - Excavation 6,469,107 (3,617,099) 10,086,206 Infrastructure - RRF 8,618,275 403,132 8,215,143 Infrastructure - Rehabilitation 2,320,719 0 2,320,719 Work In Progress - Excavation 13,076,704 3,466,616 9,610,088 Work In Progress - Other 31,739 31,739 0 Other Non Current Assets 2,005,830 (87,170) 2,093,000TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS 40,666,528 (376,922) 41,043,451

TOTAL ASSETS 60,581,208 5,184,273 55,396,935

CURRENT LIABILITIES Creditors 4,912,862 3,083,181 1,829,681 Provisions 531,870 43,243 488,626 Loans Leases Overdrafts 545,051 (1,887,674) 2,432,725 Accruals 945,299 (679,329) 1,624,629 Other Current Liabilities 0 0 0TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 6,935,082 559,421 6,375,661

NON CURRENT LIABILITIES Loans Leases Overdrafts 19,501,151 0 19,501,151 Other Non Current Liabilities 4,969,736 47,628 4,922,108TOTAL NON CURRENT LIABILITIES 24,470,887 47,628 24,423,259

TOTAL LIABILITIES 31,405,970 607,049 30,798,920

NET ASSETS 29,175,238 4,577,223 24,598,015

EQUITYRetained Surplus 26,753,090 4,437,986 22,315,104Reserves 137,999 0 137,999Council Contribution 2,284,149 139,237 2,144,911TOTAL EQUITY 29,175,238 4,577,223 24,598,015

Mindarie Regional CouncilBalance Sheet


ITEM 8.1.6


Page 131


Budget NotePLANT, VEHICLES AND MACHINERIESPlant and VehiclesReplacement of Operation's Foreman Vehicle 38,500 38,500 35,100 91.17%Replacement of Operation's Manager Vehicle 47,900 47,900 0Replacement of Fire Vehicle 45,500 45,500 43,340 95.25%Replacement of Executive Vehicle 51,000 51,000 51,975 101.91%Replacement of Executive Vehicle 50,000 50,000 37,380 74.76%Replacement of Skid Steer Loader No.2 85,000 85,000 0Replace 2x 30m3 Transfer Bins 27,000 27,000 22,560 83.56%Replacement of Workshop Vehicle 29,500 29,500 34,900 118.31% 1Vehicle Tray - Welder's Vehicle 7,000 7,000 0New Utility Vehicle-Marketing and Education 44,000 44,000 40,346 91.70%Replacement of Water Truck 0 200,000 0

425,400 625,400 265,602 42.47%Machinery and EquipmentNew Tarpomatic System 240,000 240,000 0New LGF Monitoring System 20,000 20,000 0New Paint Can Crusher 30,000 30,000 10,440 34.80%Upgrade Recycling Centre Cameras 7,000 7,000 6,480 92.57%Chemical Toilet Facilities 15,000 15,000 16,563 110.42%New Laser Level 0 6,000 4,600 76.67%New Leak Detector / Gas Detector 0 2,000 0Ground Monitor 0 4,000 0Weighbridge DVR Recorder Upgrade 0 6,000 5,380 89.67%

312,000 330,000 43,463 13.17%

TOTAL PLANT, VEHICLES AND MACHINERIES 737,400 955,400 309,065 32.35%

FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENTComputer EquipmentReplacement of Laptop (Operations Manager) 3,500 3,500 0Replacement of Desktop PC (Finance Officer-Reporting) 1,500 1,500 785 52.34%Replacement of Desktop PC (Foreman) 1,500 1,500 864 57.59%Replacement of Desktop PC (Envrironmental Officer) 1,500 1,500 785 52.34%Replacement of Laptop (Administration Manager) 2,500 2,500 2,149 85.96%Replacement of Laptop (Waste Education Officer) 2,500 2,500 2,149 85.96%Various Replacement Printers and Computing Equipments 15,000 15,000 11,953 79.69%New Desktop PC (Finance Officer-Accts Payable) 1,500 1,500 0Additional UPS System (Admin and Recycling) 2,000 2,000 0Replacement of Servers at Administration Building 0 50,000 0

31,500 81,500 18,685 22.93%Office Furniture and EquipmentReplacement of Furniture and Equipment 26,400 26,400 17,791 67.39%Purchase of New Office Equipment 13,000 13,000 03x Storage Cabinets 5,000 5,000 2,771 55.42%

44,400 44,400 20,562 46.31%

TOTAL FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT 75,900 125,900 39,247 31.17%

LAND AND BUILDINGSLandbrought forward item:Land Purchase (New Landfill Site) 12,000,000 12,000,000 0

12,000,000 12,000,000 0 0.00%BuildingsWorkshop Extension (Work in Progress) 250,000 350,000 0Ground Maintenance Shed 10,000 10,000 0

260,000 360,000 0 0.00%

TOTAL LAND AND BUILDINGS 12,260,000 12,360,000 0 0.00%



ITEM 8.1.6


Page 132


Budget Note



INFRASTRUCTUREOperationsLitter Control Fences (Work in Progress) 75,000 75,000 31,739 42.32%Reticulation 7,000 7,000 5,837 83.39%Upgrade Recycling Centre Water Main 10,000 19,000 0brought forward item:Surveillance and Boom Gate 15,000 15,000 0 0.00%

107,000 116,000 37,576 32.39%Resource Recovery FacilitySite Infrastructure 829,000 829,000 761,462 91.85%

829,000 829,000 761,462 91.85%

TOTAL INFRASTUCTURE 936,000 945,000 799,039 84.55%

LANDFILL EXCAVATIONSExcavation - Phase3 Stage2Construction 8,208,700 3,508,700 0Design 300,000 300,000 183,697Excavation/Earthworks 7,720,000 3,520,000 3,268,907MRC Project Manager 40,000 40,000 7,123Siteworks, Survey, Etc. 20,000 20,000 6,890TOTAL LANDFILL EXCAVATIONS 16,288,700 7,388,700 3,466,616 46.92%

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 133

NOTES FOR VARIATIONS - STATEMENT OF INVESTING ACTIVITIES


1 Replacement of Workshop Vehicle

The cost over run was due to fittings of additional accessories required for operational purposes. Savings from the replacement of Foreman and Fire vehicle will cover the cost.

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 134

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

ON

BO

RR

OW

ING

S

(a)

Loan

Sch

edul

e an

d In

tere

st E

xpen

se

Act

ual

Prin

cipa

l R

epay

men

tsPr

inci

pal

Out

stan

ding

Inte

rest

R

epay

men

tsN

ote

Valu

e of

Loa

n A

ppro

ved

Mat

ures

Inte

rest

R

ates

Prin

cipa

l 01

/07/

2009

Prin

cipa

l D

raw

n D

own

to 3

1/03

/201

0A

ctua

l to

31/0

3/20

10A

ctua

l to

31/0

3/20

10A

ctua

l to

31/0

3/20

10C

omm

unity

Am

eniti

esTa

mal

a Pa

rk L

andf

illLo

an 8

- B

uild

ing

Upg

rade

650,

000

May

-14

6.45

%37

6,43

50

49,1

3432

7,30

118

,908

2Lo

an 1

2 - C

onst

ruct

ion

Sta

ge 2

Pha

se 2

15,0

00,0

00M

ar-1

25.

98%

11,2

49,9

690

1,25

0,01

09,

999,

958

375,

873

3Lo

an 1

3 - R

edra

w fo

r Pha

se 3

Lan

dfill

6,60

0,00

00

00

00

Loan

14

- New

Lan

dfill

Pur

chas

e12

,000

,000

00

00

0R

egio

nal R

esou

rce

Rec

over

y Fa

cilit

yLo

an 1

1 - R

RF

Land

Pur

chas

e3,

500,

000

May

-25

5.97

%1,

940,

815

013

9,23

71,

801,

578

241,

110

2Lo

an 1

0a -

RR

F In

frast

ruct

ure

2,00

0,00

0M

ar-2

56.

16%

1,76

6,65

80

78,9

231,

687,

735

78,4

722

Loan

10b

- R

RF

Infra

stru

ctur

e (In

tere

st O

nly)

2,60

0,00

0V

aria

ble

2,60

0,00

00

02,

600,

000

86,4

761

Loan

10c

- R

RF

Infra

stru

ctur

e4,

000,

000

Jun-

147.

97%

4,00

0,00

00

370,

370

3,62

9,63

027

7,19

0TO

TAL

46,3

50,0

0021

,933

,877

01,

887,

674

20,0

46,2

021,

078,

029

Faci

lity

Fee

45,4

17To

tal B

orro

win

g C

osts

1,12

3,44

5

Not

e 1:

Loa

n 10

b - $

2,60

0,00

0 ha

s a

varia

ble

rate

of 5

.52%

for t

he m

onth

of A

pril

2010

Not

e 2:

Tot

al L

oan

Inte

rest

acc

rued

for A

pril

2010

= $

28,7

16.2

8N

ote

3: P

rinci

pal p

aym

ents

are

mad

e qu

arte

rly.

ITEM 8.1.6


Page 135

ITEM 8.1.7 LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE MONTHS ENDED 31 MARCH 2010 AND 30 APRIL 2010 File No: FIN/5-02 (D/10/4125) Attachment(s): 1. List of payments made for the month ended 31 March 2010 2. List of payments made for the month ended 30 April 2010 Author: Kalwant Dhillon

SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide details of payments made during the periods identified. It is also a requirement as part of the delegation given to the Chief Executive Officer, to make payments from the Municipal Fund, that a list of payments made since the last Ordinary Council meeting be presented to Council. COMMENT The lists of payments for the months ended 31 March 2010 and 30 April 2010 are at Attachment One and Two to this Item and are presented for endorsement. Payments have been made in accordance with delegations that allow payments between meetings and are subsequently required to be presented to the next Council meeting following such payments. Further, at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 15 October 2009, the Council delegated to the Chief Executive Officer the exercise of its power to make payments from the Municipal Fund. This delegation has been renewed upon annual reviews. In order to satisfy the requirements of Clause 13(2) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, a list of payments made must be submitted to the next Council meeting following such payments. It should be noted that generally all payments are GST inclusive and Mindarie Regional Council is able to claim this tax as an input credit when remittance of GST collected is made each month. Months Ended Account Vouchers Amount 31 March 2010 General Municipal 5339 – 5534

DP 363 – DP 377 EFT 229 – EFT 232 $3,025,104.75

30 April 2010 General Municipal 5535 – 5717 DP 378 – DP 392 EFT 233 – EFT 236 $3,084,343.38

MRC OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council endorse the list of payments made, as per the delegation made to the Chief Executive Officer, for the months ended 31 March 2010 and 30 April 2010.

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 136

ATTACHMENT ONE

TO ITEM 8.1.7


1 JULY 2010

LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE MONTH ENDED 31 MARCH 2010

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 137

Che

que

Post

ing

Dat

eD

ocum

ent

No.

Vend

or N

ame

Des

crip

tion

Che

que

Am

ount

2/03

/201

053

39A

ster

on P

ortfo

lio S

ervi

ces

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$330

.28

2/03

/201

053

40C

BU

SS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$3

19.0

72/

03/2

010

5341

CH

ILD

SU

PPO

RT

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt A

llow

ance

pay

men

t - D

educ

tion

mad

e fro

m s

taff

sala

ry$4

92.3

02/

03/2

010

5342

Hea

lth In

sura

nce

Fund

of W

AS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$3

81.1

02/

03/2

010

5343

HES

TA S

UPE

R F

UN

DS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$1

,412

.41

2/03

/201

053

44H

OST

PLU

SS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$4

2.32

2/03

/201

053

45M

inda

rie R

egio

nal C

ounc

il St

aff L

otto

Acc

oun t

Sta

ff lo

tto -

Ded

ucte

d fro

m s

taff

sala

ry$3

70.0

02/

03/2

010

5346

Port

folio

focu

s - P

rem

ium

Ret

irem

ent S

ervi

ces

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$3,4

85.0

02/

03/2

010

5347

RES

T Su

pera

nnua

tion

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$437

.02

2/03

/201

053

48Sp

ectr

um S

upe r

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$45.

142/

03/2

010

5349

WA

LGS

PLA

N P

TY L

T DS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$3

3,70

0.79

2/03

/201

053

50W

ESTS

CH

EME

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$823

.64

2/03

/201

053

53O

PTU

S C

OM

MU

NIC

ATI

ON

STe

leph

one

Exp

ense

s $2

,061

.52

3/03

/201

053

54PE

TTY

CA

S HP

etty

cas

h re

imbu

rsem

ent

$587

.00

8/03

/201

053

55PE

TTY

CA

S HP

etty

cas

h re

imbu

rsem

ent

$789

.30

9/03

/201

053

56M

ULT

IPR

OG

RA

MM

ING

PTY

LT D

Com

pute

r Sys

tem

s M

aint

enan

ce N

ov'0

9,D

ec'0

9 &

Jan

'10

$48,

611.

1210

/03/

2010

5357

NO

RTH

SID

E N

ISSA

NP

urch

ase

of re

plac

emen

t veh

icle

PLA

NT6

9$3

8,71

0.00

11/0

3/20

1053

58A

UST

RA

LIA

PO

ST -

PER

T HP

ost o

ffice

box

rene

wal

ser

vice

fee

$79.

5011

/03/

2010

5359

Bun

ning

s B

uild

ing

Supp

lies

Exp

enda

ble

Tool

s$6

10.4

311

/03/

2010

5360

EMR

CC

olle

ctio

n of

mat

tress

es$2

,365

.00

11/0

3/20

1053

61H

ITA

CH

I CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

MA

CH

INER

YR

epai

rs &

mai

nten

ance

of A

rticu

late

d du

mp

truck

$2,3

80.2

811

/03/

2010

5362

Joon

dalu

p O

ffice

Nat

iona

lS

tatio

nery

and

Prin

ting

$692

.89

11/0

3/20

1053

63JO

ON

DA

LUP

RES

OR

TC

EA

G M

eetin

g ex

pens

es$7

18.0

011

/03/

2010

5364

Kap

ish

Ptyl

Ltd

TRIM

Exp

lore

r Lic

ense

s$5

,742

.00

11/0

3/20

1053

65M

AG

NET

IC A

UTO

MA

TIO

N P

TY L

T DM

agne

tic A

utom

atio

n B

oom

gate

- R

RF

$5,8

30.0

011

/03/

2010

5366

Ofa

Fot

uC

ontra

ct la

bour

- A

ustra

lia D

ay S

urve

y$1

65.0

011

/03/

2010

5367

Ric

hard

s M

inin

g Se

rvic

eS

taff

Trai

ning

$4

80.0

011

/03/

2010

5368

TELS

TRA

Tele

phon

e E

xpen

ses

$357

.87

11/0

3/20

1053

69M

iche

lle M

yers

Con

tract

labo

ur -

Aus

tralia

Day

Sur

vey

$520

.00

11/0

3/20

1053

70A

ir W

ell P

umps

Pty

Lt d

Leac

hate

Sys

tem

Man

agem

ent -

Bor

e 2

$47,

364.

5512

/03/

2010

5371

Cla

ire C

herie

Con

tract

labo

ur -

Aus

tralia

Day

Sur

vey

$285

.00

15/0

3/20

1053

72C

athy

Gib

son

Pur

chas

e Le

ave

sche

me

paym

ent

$2,1

27.9

615

/03/

2010

5373

Min

darie

Reg

iona

l Cou

ncil

Staf

f Lot

to A

ccou

n tS

taff

lotto

- D

educ

ted

from

sta

ff sa

lary

$370

.00

16/0

3/20

1053

74R

ydge

s C

ronu

lla B

each

Sta

ff tra

inin

g - r

adia

tion

mon

itorin

g$1

,284

.00

16/0

3/20

1053

75N

ovot

el T

win

Wat

ers

Res

ort

Sta

ff co

nfer

ence

- ro

ad m

arki

ng$5

37.0

016

/03/

2010

5376

Dev

co H

oldi

ngs

Pty

Ltd

Out

boun

d W

eigh

brid

ge re

pairs

$21,

540.

2018

/03/

2010

5377

Bio

visi

on 2

020

Pty

Ltd

Sho

rtpay

men

t - J

uly'

09 C

ontra

ctor

fees

(RR

F)$2

5,14

0.74

18/0

3/20

1053

78Ja

snea

tC

lean

ing

of B

uild

ings

$125

.40

18/0

3/20

1053

79Po

ppy

van

Oor

de-G

rain

ger

Was

te M

anag

emen

t Edu

catio

n - B

atte

ry la

unch

cos

tum

es/d

esig

n$8

00.0

019

/03/

2010

5380

Joon

dalu

p O

ffice

Nat

iona

lS

tatio

nery

and

Prin

ting

$157

.33

19/0

3/20

1053

81Fu

ji Xe

rox

Aus

tral

ia P

ty L

t dP

hoto

copi

er L

ease

$4

13.3

119

/03/

2010

5383

MU

LTIP

RO

GR

AM

MIN

G P

TY L

T DC

ompu

ter S

yste

ms

Mai

nten

ance

& R

RF

expe

nses

- Fe

b'10

$7,5

97.6

519

/03/

2010

5384

IW P

roje

cts

Con

tract

Lab

our E

xter

nal -

RR

F$1

6,60

4.61

19/0

3/20

1053

85D

epar

tmen

t of E

nviro

nmen

t & C

onse

rvat

ion

Tarp

omat

ic W

orks

App

rova

l App

licat

ion

$1,6

90.0

0

Sche

dule

of P

aym

ent f

or M

arch

201

0C

ounc

il M

eetin

g - 1

Jul

y 20

10

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 138

19/0

3/20

1053

86H

SE C

ontr

ol P

ty L

tdC

ontra

ct L

abou

r Ext

erna

l $1

6,50

0.00

19/0

3/20

1053

87C

ALT

EX A

UST

RA

LIA

PET

RO

LEU

M P

T YP

lant

- Fu

el a

nd O

il$5

71.4

819

/03/

2010

5388

AU

STR

ALI

A P

OST

- PE

RT H

Pos

tage

& F

reig

ht

$436

.62

19/0

3/20

1053

89Fu

ji Xe

rox

Aus

tral

ia P

ty L

t dP

hoto

copy

ing

Exp

ense

s - S

uppo

rt se

rvic

es

$96.

4219

/03/

2010

5390

Can

celle

d C

ance

lled

$0.0

022

/03/

2010

5391

PETT

Y C

AS H

Pet

ty c

ash

reim

burs

emen

t$7

64.1

019

/03/

2010

5392

MU

LTIP

RO

GR

AM

MIN

G P

TY L

T DC

ompu

ter S

yste

ms

Mai

nten

ance

incl

udin

g R

RF

$10,

610.

4222

/03/

2010

5393

TOTA

LLY

WO

RK

WEA

RS

taff

Uni

form

$487

.69

22/0

3/20

1053

94M

CIN

ERN

EY F

OR

DP

urch

ase

of re

plac

emen

t car

- pa

ymen

t afte

r tra

de in

PLA

NT7

3$1

3,24

5.25

22/0

3/20

1053

95A

IR M

ET S

CIE

NTI

FIC

PTY

LT D

GE

M20

00 L

FG M

onito

r hire

$165

.00

22/0

3/20

1053

96A

nim

al P

est

Man

agem

ent

Serv

ice s

Bui

ldin

g M

aint

enan

ce -

Pes

t Con

trol

$1,2

76.0

022

/03/

2010

5397

Bio

Bag

Aus

tral

asia

Pty

Ltd

Bio

bags

,Bio

bins

pur

chas

e$3

,102

.00

22/0

3/20

1053

98C

astle

Sec

urity

& E

lect

rical

Pt y

Bui

ldin

g S

ecur

ity m

obile

resp

onse

$542

.50

22/0

3/20

1053

99C

ity o

f Wan

nero

oC

olle

ctio

n of

add

ition

al b

ins

$475

.20

22/0

3/20

1054

00C

oast

al S

wee

ping

Cle

anin

g ex

pens

es -

RR

F$3

53.1

022

/03/

2010

5401

Cor

pora

te E

xpre

ss A

ustr

alia

Lim

ited

Com

pute

r con

sum

able

s $2

2.00

22/0

3/20

1054

02C

oven

trys

Exp

enda

ble

Tool

s$2

,309

.47

22/0

3/20

1054

03D

omai

n C

ater

ing

Was

te M

anag

emen

t Edu

catio

n$1

52.8

022

/03/

2010

5404

DR

IVE

IN E

LEC

TRIC

SA

ir-co

n re

pairs

- In

tern

atio

nal T

ruck

$5,1

91.7

522

/03/

2010

5405

DU

STE X

Sup

ply

Dus

tex

liqui

d co

ncen

trate

$14,

272.

5022

/03/

2010

5406

Exce

l Win

dow

Cle

anin

gC

lean

ing

of B

uild

ings

win

dow

s$3

30.0

022

/03/

2010

5407

Gle

nmar

ri Pt

y Lt

dP

hosp

hite

via

folia

spr

ay/s

tem

inje

ctio

n $5

,100

.00

22/0

3/20

1054

08Ja

snea

tC

lean

ing

of B

uild

ings

$107

.14

22/0

3/20

1054

09K

INR

OSS

SU

PA IG

AS

taff

Am

eniti

es$4

45.0

322

/03/

2010

5410

LGIS

PR

OPE

RT Y

Mun

icip

al P

rope

rty In

sura

nce

prem

ium

$3,7

81.8

222

/03/

2010

5411

MO

BIL

E M

AST

ERS

Ref

it 2

way

and

UH

F to

Pat

rol f

ire u

te$1

84.8

022

/03/

2010

5412

MS

Hel

en G

riffit

hsR

eim

burs

emen

t of t

rave

lling

exp

ense

s - C

EA

G m

eetin

g$4

9.53

22/0

3/20

1054

13N

ever

fail

Sprin

gwat

er L

tdS

taff

Am

eniti

es$9

8.10

22/0

3/20

1054

14N

orth

ern

Dis

tric

ts P

est M

anag

emen

tB

uild

ing

Mai

nten

ance

- P

est C

ontro

l$1

54.0

022

/03/

2010

5415

Patte

r Mer

chan

ts W

A P

ty L

tdTe

leph

one

Exp

ense

s $4

6.90

22/0

3/20

1054

16ST

JO

HN

AM

BU

LAN

CE

Sta

ff tra

inin

g$1

,344

.60

22/0

3/20

1054

17St

aff L

ink

Con

tract

Lab

our h

ire$1

,986

.20

22/0

3/20

1054

18Ve

olia

Env

ironm

enta

l Ser

vice

sB

in h

ire -

Bul

ky w

aste

min

imis

atio

n pr

ojec

t$1

19.1

622

/03/

2010

5419

WA

Loc

al G

over

nmen

t Ass

ocia

tion

Adv

ertis

ing

expe

nses

$3,3

29.9

622

/03/

2010

5420

Wat

er D

ynam

ics

Ser

vice

/repl

ace

sprin

kler

s$8

72.2

622

/03/

2010

5421

WES

T C

OA

ST C

OLL

EGE

OF

TAF E

Sta

ff Tr

aini

ng

$138

.00

22/0

3/20

1054

22W

OR

K C

LOB

BER

Saf

ety

glas

ses

$175

.50

22/0

3/20

1054

23LA

ND

FILL

GA

S &

PO

WER

PTY

LT D

Ele

ctric

ity e

xpen

ses

$3,5

90.9

224

/03/

2010

5424

Aln

ew E

lect

rical

Ser

vice

sS

pare

key

for e

lect

ric g

ate

on-s

ite$4

2.00

24/0

3/20

1054

25C

LEA

N S

WEE

PA

cces

s R

oad

Mai

nten

ance

$1,1

34.3

824

/03/

2010

5426

Cou

pler

s M

alag

aR

ecyc

ling

Con

tract

ors

$191

.52

24/0

3/20

1054

27D

ig E

arth

Con

trac

ting

Sta

ff tra

inin

g$8

50.0

024

/03/

2010

5428

Hay

s Sp

ecia

list R

ecru

itmen

t (A

ustr

alia

) P/ L

Con

tract

labo

ur h

ire -

tem

pora

ry s

taff

$915

.75

24/0

3/20

1054

29H

eggi

es P

ty L

tdC

onsu

ltanc

y - L

andf

ill G

as M

igra

tion

$3,3

55.0

024

/03/

2010

5430

KD

Aire

Mec

hani

cal a

nd E

lect

rical

Ser

vice

sB

uild

ing

Mai

nten

ance

$3

,508

.45

24/0

3/20

1054

31M

il-te

k W

aste

Sol

utio

nsS

uppl

y an

d In

stal

l Can

cru

sher

s$1

1,48

4.00

24/0

3/20

1054

32R

L &

Son

s Tr

ansp

ort

Was

te M

inim

isat

ion

proj

ect -

Cle

an2S

tream

$885

.50

24/0

3/20

1054

33R

ed 1

1 Pt

y Lt

dC

ompu

ter c

onsu

mab

les

$293

.82

24/0

3/20

1054

34Si

gma

Che

mic

als

Bio

dies

el fo

r fue

l tan

ks o

n-si

te$1

32.0

0

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 139

24/0

3/20

1054

35Th

e H

UB

Mar

ketin

g C

omm

unic

atio

n Pt

y Lt

dC

onsu

ltanc

y - W

aste

Min

imis

atio

n pr

ojec

t$3

,129

.50

24/0

3/20

1054

36W

esTr

ac P

ty L

tdE

ngin

e O

il fo

r on-

site

pla

nt v

ehic

les

$1,3

99.1

324

/03/

2010

5437

Yakk

a Pt

y Lt

dS

taff

Uni

form

s/P

rote

ctiv

e C

loth

ing

$361

.50

24/0

3/20

1054

38Ya

kka

Pty

Ltd

Pro

tect

ive

Clo

thin

g S

afet

y ve

sts

$278

.08

24/0

3/20

1054

39Ya

kka

Pty

Ltd

Pro

tect

ive

Clo

thin

g S

afet

y ve

sts

$472

.74

24/0

3/20

1054

40D

ept o

f Pla

nnin

g &

Infr

astr

uctu

re F

rem

antle

Offi

ceV

ehic

le s

earc

h$4

3.50

24/0

3/20

1054

41C

ance

lled

Can

celle

d$0

.00

25/0

3/20

1054

42B

unni

ngs

Bui

ldin

g Su

pplie

sLa

nsca

ping

- R

RF

$3,1

73.7

925

/03/

2010

5443

NA

TIO

NW

IDE

OI L

Rec

yclin

g C

ontra

ctor

s - w

aste

oil

$425

.70

25/0

3/20

1054

44TE

LSTR

ATe

leph

one

expe

nses

$412

.50

25/0

3/20

1054

45C

ity o

f Joo

ndal

upLe

ase

Fee

for L

ot 1

18 M

arm

ion

Ave

for A

pril

10$8

,876

.11

25/0

3/20

1054

46To

wn

of V

ince

n tLe

ase

Fee

for L

ot 1

18 M

arm

ion

Ave

for A

pril

10$4

,438

.06

25/0

3/20

1054

47C

ity o

f Per

thLe

ase

Fee

for L

ot 1

18 M

arm

ion

Ave

for A

pril

10$4

,438

.06

25/0

3/20

1054

48C

ity o

f Stir

ling

Leas

e F

ee fo

r Lot

118

Mar

mio

n A

ve fo

r Apr

il 10

$17,

752.

2325

/03/

2010

5449

City

of W

anne

roo

Leas

e F

ee fo

r Lot

118

Mar

mio

n A

ve fo

r Apr

il 10

$8,8

76.1

125

/03/

2010

5450

Tow

n of

Cam

brid

g eLe

ase

Fee

for L

ot 1

18 M

arm

ion

Ave

for A

pril

10$4

,438

.06

25/0

3/20

1054

51To

wn

of V

icto

ria P

ark

Leas

e F

ee fo

r Lot

118

Mar

mio

n A

ve fo

r Apr

il 10

$4,4

38.0

625

/03/

2010

5452

Envi

rote

ch D

rillin

g Pt

y Lt

dLa

ndfil

l Gas

Mon

itorin

g - D

rillin

g$3

4,53

1.75

26/0

3/20

1054

53PE

TTY

CA

S HP

etty

cas

h re

imbu

rsem

ent

$846

.15

26/0

3/20

1054

54C

HIL

D S

UPP

OR

TC

hild

Sup

port

Allo

wan

ce p

aym

ent -

Ded

uctio

n m

ade

from

sta

ff sa

lary

$492

.30

26/0

3/20

1054

55H

ealth

Insu

ranc

e Fu

nd o

f WA

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$381

.10

26/0

3/20

1054

56M

inda

rie R

egio

nal C

ounc

il St

aff L

otto

Acc

oun t

Sta

ff lo

tto -

Ded

ucte

d fro

m s

taff

sala

ry$3

70.0

026

/03/

2010

5457

-547

5C

ance

lled

Can

celle

d - N

ote

1$0

.00

30/0

3/20

1054

76A

RM

AG

UA

RD

Cas

h co

llect

ion

fee

$648

.87

31/0

3/20

1054

77A

ir Li

quid

e W

A P

ty L

t dN

itrog

en g

as -

bottl

e hi

re$8

9.86

31/0

3/20

1054

78A

lanc

e N

ewsp

aper

& M

agaz

ine

Del

iver

yS

ubsc

riptio

ns$2

3.55

31/0

3/20

1054

79C

AR

DN

O (W

A) P

TY L

T DC

onsu

ltanc

y - D

amag

ed c

ompo

ster

s at

RR

F$2

,442

.00

31/0

3/20

1054

80C

ity o

f Wan

nero

oC

olle

ctio

n of

rubb

ish

bins

$356

.40

31/0

3/20

1054

81C

omm

and

A C

omE

FTP

OS

mac

hine

repa

irs a

t wei

ghbr

idge

$335

.50

31/0

3/20

1054

82C

oupl

ers

Mal

aga

Leac

hate

Sys

tem

Man

agem

ent

$631

.37

31/0

3/20

1054

83C

ube

Con

sulti

ng P

ty L

tdS

ubsc

riptio

ns -

INX

sys

tem

s In

cont

rol &

In T

uitio

n$7

86.5

031

/03/

2010

5484

EMR

CC

olle

ctio

n of

mat

tress

es$2

,310

.00

31/0

3/20

1054

85Fr

eehi

llsLe

gal E

xpen

ses

$17,

033.

5631

/03/

2010

5486

Fuji

Xero

x A

ustr

alia

Pty

Lt d

Pho

toco

pier

Lea

se

$356

.40

31/0

3/20

1054

87G

eofa

bric

s A

ust.

Pty

Ltd

Rol

l of g

rass

root

s $9

79.0

031

/03/

2010

5488

GO

LDER

ASS

OC

IATE

S PT

Y LT

DC

onsu

ltanc

y - A

nnua

l com

plia

nce

audi

t$2

2,04

1.64

31/0

3/20

1054

89G

reat

Sou

ther

n Sa

nds

Pla

nt h

ire -

Dum

p tru

ck$6

,160

.00

31/0

3/20

1054

90H

& L

GLA

SSFi

t gla

ss p

anes

to B

omag

com

pact

or$3

90.0

031

/03/

2010

5491

HEA

LTH

ON

TH

E M

OV E

Erg

omov

e as

sess

men

ts &

repo

rts$3

43.7

531

/03/

2010

5492

Inst

ant P

rodu

cts

Gro

upS

ervi

ce o

f mob

ile to

ilets

on-

site

$187

.00

31/0

3/20

1054

93Ja

snea

tC

lean

ing

of B

uild

ings

$1

,463

.00

31/0

3/20

1054

94Jo

hn K

ing

Con

sulta

nts

Con

sulta

ncy

- Com

post

er C

rack

s$4

,950

.00

31/0

3/20

1054

95K

eyno

te C

onfe

renc

esW

aste

Con

fere

nce

- 201

0$2

13.0

031

/03/

2010

5496

L &

T V

enab

les

Exp

enda

ble

Tool

s$1

32.3

231

/03/

2010

5497

LAK

E A

NN

E C

ON

SULT

AN

CY

Con

sulta

ncy-

HR

M$6

10.0

031

/03/

2010

5498

LGIS

WO

RK

CA

RE

Wor

kcar

e pr

emiu

m$1

3,43

4.30

31/0

3/20

1054

99M

EEC

Wat

er S

uppl

y Ta

nk C

onne

ctio

ns -

RR

F$1

3,91

7.20

31/0

3/20

1055

00M

ERC

UR

YC

ourie

r cha

rges

$1,0

43.8

331

/03/

2010

5501

MO

BIL

E M

AST

ERS

Fitti

ng o

f tw

o w

ay a

nd U

HF

for w

aste

edu

catio

n ve

hicl

e$3

,078

.35

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 140

31/0

3/20

1055

02M

ULT

IPR

OG

RA

MM

ING

PTY

LTD

RR

F - I

T se

t up

serv

ices

$140

.99

31/0

3/20

1055

03N

ATI

ON

AL

TYR

E SP

unct

ure

repa

irs -

Dum

p tru

ck a

nd c

ater

pilla

r loa

der

$676

.50

31/0

3/20

1055

04N

ever

fail

Sprin

gwat

er L

tdS

taff

Am

eniti

es

$99.

3531

/03/

2010

5505

NEW

CA

STLE

WEI

GH

ING

SER

VIC

ES P

TW

aste

man

Sof

twar

e su

ppor

t $1

1,74

2.50

31/0

3/20

1055

06Pe

rthw

aste

Pty

Ltd

Ass

embl

y &

dis

tribu

tion

of B

iobi

ns$1

6,32

4.92

31/0

3/20

1055

07Po

st N

ewsp

aper

s Pt

y Lt

dA

dver

tisin

g ex

pens

es -

Was

te E

duca

tion

Cen

tre$5

20.9

631

/03/

2010

5508

QU

INN

S R

OC

K C

AB

INET

S &

MA

INTE

NB

obca

t Hire

- R

RF

Land

scap

e$2

,898

.50

31/0

3/20

1055

09Q

UIN

NS

RO

CK

EA

RTH

MO

VIN

GC

allo

ut F

itter

for T

ana

360

$198

.00

31/0

3/20

1055

10R

ed 1

1 Pt

y Lt

dP

urch

ase

of c

ompu

ter e

quip

men

t$9

75.3

731

/03/

2010

5511

Rel

ianc

e Pe

trol

eum

Dis

tilla

te$3

3,30

2.62

31/0

3/20

1055

12SB

S Si

ms

Gro

upE

-Was

te R

ecyc

ling

Con

tract

ors

$12,

228.

4331

/03/

2010

5513

Staf

f Lin

kC

ontra

ct L

abou

r hire

$971

.10

31/0

3/20

1055

14SU

RVE

Y G

RA

PHIC

SP

rofe

ssio

nal s

ervi

ces

- Tam

ala

Par

k A

eria

l Sur

vey

$9,7

27.3

031

/03/

2010

5515

SYN

NO

TT M

ULH

OLL

AN

D M

AN

AG

EMEN

T C

ontra

ct la

bour

- M

arke

ting

& w

aste

edu

catio

n$1

2,36

4.00

31/0

3/20

1055

16TE

LSTR

ATe

leph

one

Exp

ense

s$2

,100

.35

31/0

3/20

1055

17C

ance

lled

Can

celle

d$0

.00

31/0

3/20

1055

18Ti

nt-a

-Car

- C

lark

son

Tint

ing

win

dow

s fo

r Tan

a G

360

$498

.00

31/0

3/20

1055

19U

RS

Con

sulta

ncy

- RR

F In

frast

ruct

ure

$3,6

74.0

031

/03/

2010

5520

Vent

oura

s A

dver

tisin

g &

Des

ign

RR

F -

broc

hure

des

ign

& a

rtwor

k$8

69.0

031

/03/

2010

5521

Woo

dhou

se L

egal

Lega

l Exp

ense

s $1

,608

.20

31/0

3/20

1055

22C

LEA

N S

WEE

PA

cces

s R

oad

Mai

nten

ance

$859

.38

31/0

3/20

1055

23C

ompu

ter I

nfor

mat

ion

Serv

ices

TRIM

Sup

port

$2,2

00.0

031

/03/

2010

5524

OPT

US

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

Tele

phon

e E

xpen

ses

$748

.24

31/0

3/20

1055

25W

esTr

ac P

ty L

tdR

epai

rs &

mai

nten

ance

of M

ulti-

terr

ain

load

er &

Cat

erpi

llar 9

66H

load

er$6

,078

.78

31/0

3/20

1055

26D

RA

GE

SIG

NS

Was

te M

anag

emen

t Edu

catio

n - H

ouse

Hol

d H

azar

dous

Was

te$1

87.0

031

/03/

2010

5527

Equi

libriu

m C

omm

unic

atio

nH

ouse

Hol

d H

azar

dous

Was

te b

roch

ure

- Was

te E

duca

tion

Cen

tre$2

64.0

031

/03/

2010

5528

GH

D P

TY L

T DW

aste

Min

imis

atio

n pr

ojec

t - In

frast

ruct

ure

Was

te m

anag

emen

t$1

,652

.34

31/0

3/20

1055

29H

odge

& C

olla

rdA

rchi

tect

ural

con

sulta

nt -

Tend

er P

repa

ratio

n$2

,244

.00

31/0

3/20

1055

30H

odge

& C

olla

rdA

rchi

tect

ural

con

sulta

nt -

Tend

er P

repa

ratio

n$5

,720

.00

31/0

3/20

1055

31W

este

rn P

lant

Hire

(WA

) Pty

Ltd

Pla

nt h

ire -

JCB

Fas

trac

$4,5

65.0

031

/03/

2010

5532

Wes

tern

Pla

nt H

ire (W

A) P

ty L

tdP

lant

hire

- S

kid

Ste

er$1

,232

.00

31/0

3/20

1055

33En

cycl

e C

onsu

lting

Pty

Ltd

Was

te m

inim

isat

ion

proj

ect -

Sky

wor

ks w

aste

ass

essm

ents

$9,5

86.5

031

/03/

2010

5534

AU

SRA

LIA

N P

C U

SER

Sub

scrip

tions

$74.

95To

tal C

hequ

e Pa

ymen

ts$7

33,6

61.4

8

1/03

/201

0D

P-0

0363

Iinet

Lim

ited

Inte

rnet

VO

IP c

harg

e$4

01.2

91/

03/2

010

DP

-003

64N

atio

nal A

ustr

alia

Ban

kN

atio

nal O

nlin

e Fe

e$5

2.00

15/0

3/20

10D

P-0

0365

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

Loan

12

repa

ymen

t$5

65,1

60.0

015

/03/

2010

DP

-003

66N

atio

nal A

ustr

alia

Ban

kN

AB

Con

nect

Fee

$20.

0015

/03/

2010

DP

-003

67N

atio

nal A

ustr

alia

Ban

kB

ill D

raw

dow

n Fe

e$1

50.0

022

/03/

2010

DP

-003

68N

atio

nal A

ustr

alia

Ban

kLo

an F

acili

ty F

ee$9

,999

.96

22/0

3/20

10D

P-0

0369

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

Cre

dit C

ard

paym

ent

$10,

627.

1022

/03/

2010

DP

-003

70A

ustr

alia

n Ta

xatio

n O

ffice

BA

S F

ebru

ary

2010

$110

,310

.00

24/0

3/20

10D

P-0

0371

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

Ove

rdra

ft Fa

cilit

y fe

e$4

,000

.00

26/0

3/20

10D

P-0

0372

Com

mon

wea

lth B

ank

Loan

10B

repa

ymen

t$8

,596

.38

30/0

3/20

10D

P-0

0373

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

Loan

10C

repa

ymen

t$6

1,68

9.95

30/0

3/20

10D

P-0

0374

Can

celle

d C

ance

lled

$0.0

030

/03/

2010

DP

-003

75N

atio

nal A

ustr

alia

Ban

kB

ill D

raw

dow

n Fe

e $1

50.0

031

/03/

2010

DP

-003

76N

atio

nal A

ustr

alia

Ban

kA

ccou

nt K

eepi

ng F

ee$1

43.3

0

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 141

31/0

3/20

10D

P-0

0377

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

Faci

lity

Fee

Loan

10C

$4,5

83.3

3To

tal D

irect

Pay

men

ts$7

75,8

83.3

1

12/0

3/20

10E

FT-0

0229

Can

celle

dC

ance

lled

$0.0

012

/03/

2010

EFT

-002

30M

RC

Pay

roll

Em

ploy

ee W

ages

$107

,696

.67

26/0

3/20

10E

FT-0

0231

MR

CP

ayro

ll E

mpl

oyee

Wag

es$1

10,8

11.9

729

/03/

2010

EFT

-002

32B

iovi

sion

202

0 Pt

y Lt

dC

ontra

ctor

s fe

es -

RR

F$1

,297

,051

.32

Tota

l EFT

Pay

men

t s$1

,515

,559

.96

Sum

mar

y Sc

hedu

le o

f Pay

men

ts

Che

que

Paym

ents

Che

que

No.

533

9 to

553

4$7

33,6

61.4

8

Elec

tron

ic P

aym

ents

DP-

003

63 to

DP-

003

77$7

75,8

83.3

1EF

T- 0

0229

to E

FT- 0

0232

$1,5

15,5

59.9

6

Gra

nd T

otal

$3,0

25,1

04.7

5

Not

e 1:

-Th

e ca

ncel

led

cheq

ues

rela

te to

che

que

prin

ting

issu

es o

n N

avis

ion

whi

ch h

ave

now

bee

n re

solv

ed.

CER

TIFI

CA

TE O

F C

HIE

F EX

ECU

TIVE

OFF

ICER

This

sch

edul

e of

acc

ount

s w

hich

was

pas

sed

for p

aym

ent,

cove

ring

vouc

hers

as

abov

e w

hich

was

subm

itted

to e

ach

mem

ber o

f Cou

ncil

on 1

st J

uly

2010

has

bee

n ch

ecke

d an

d is

fully

sup

port

edby

vou

cher

s an

d in

voic

es w

hich

are

sub

mitt

ed h

erew

ith a

nd w

hich

hav

e be

en d

uly

cert

ified

as

to th

e re

ceip

t of g

oods

and

the

rend

ition

of s

ervi

ces

and

as to

pric

es, c

ompu

tatio

ns, a

nd

cost

ing

and

the

amou

nts

due

for p

aym

ent.

CH

IEF

EXEC

UTI

VE O

FFIC

E R

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 142

ATTACHMENT TWO

TO ITEM 8.1.7


1 JULY 2010

LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE MONTH ENDED 30 APRIL 2010

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 143

Che

que

Post

ing

Dat

eD

ocum

ent

No.

Vend

or N

ame

Des

crip

tion

Che

que

Am

ount

1/04

/201

055

35R

EPC

O A

UTO

PA

RTS

-Cla

rkso

nP

lant

- R

epai

r and

Mai

nten

ance

$480

.77

1/04

/201

055

36C

abch

arge

Aus

tral

ia L

tdTr

avel

ling

Exp

ense

s$7

9.53

1/04

/201

055

37C

oven

trys

Exp

enda

ble

Tool

s$7

38.7

01/

04/2

010

5538

Hyd

er C

onsu

lting

Pty

Ltd

Was

te m

inim

isat

ion

proj

ect -

Inte

grat

ed R

egio

nal P

lan

$14,

132.

911/

04/2

010

5539

Med

vet S

cien

ce P

ty L

tdD

rug

and

Alc

ohol

test

s$8

80.0

01/

04/2

010

5540

MPL

Lab

orat

orie

sA

naly

sis

of w

aste

wat

er tr

eatm

ent p

lant

$1,1

74.2

51/

04/2

010

5541

TUR

NK

EY IN

STR

UM

ENTS

PTY

LTD

Sup

ply

of O

siris

airb

orne

par

ticle

dus

t mon

itors

$5,8

24.5

01/

04/2

010

5542

Ber

twis

tle H

oldi

ngs

Pty

Ltd

Con

sulta

ncy

- Bra

ndin

g$1

,100

.00

1/04

/201

055

43D

isar

ect

Pur

chas

e of

offi

ce e

quip

men

t$3

96.0

01/

04/2

010

5544

Wes

beam

Pty

Ltd

RR

F la

ndsc

apin

g m

ater

ials

$550

.00

1/04

/201

055

45C

.M.I.

Saf

e C

o.P

urch

ase

of n

ew s

afe

for w

eigh

brid

ge$4

,500

.00

1/04

/201

055

46A

ster

on P

ortfo

lio S

ervi

ces

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$381

.33

1/04

/201

055

47A

ustr

alia

n Su

per A

dmin

istr

atio

nS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$1

47.4

11/

04/2

010

5548

CB

US

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$324

.05

1/04

/201

055

49H

ESTA

SU

PER

FU

ND

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$786

.23

1/04

/201

055

50H

OST

PLU

SS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$6

7.71

1/04

/201

055

51Po

rtfo

liofo

cus

- Pre

miu

m R

etire

men

t Ser

vice

sS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$1

,967

.00

1/04

/201

055

52R

EST

Supe

rann

uatio

nS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$4

37.0

21/

04/2

010

5553

Spec

trum

Sup

erS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$6

1.35

1/04

/201

055

54W

ALG

S PL

AN

PTY

LTD

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$36,

341.

721/

04/2

010

5555

WES

TSC

HEM

ES

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$7

18.1

87/

04/2

010

5556

AR

TPR

OO

F PR

INTI

NG

CO

Y PT

Y LT

DP

rintin

g of

ann

ual r

epor

ts$9

,217

.00

7/04

/201

055

57C

anno

n H

ygie

ne A

ustr

alia

Pty

Ltd

Gen

eral

Hyg

iene

Mai

nten

ance

$7

85.1

57/

04/2

010

5558

Dat

a#3

Mic

roso

ft O

ffice

Ann

ual l

icen

ses

$8,3

38.3

07/

04/2

010

5559

DEL

OIT

TEFi

nanc

ial W

orks

hop

Sep

tem

ber'0

9$1

7,01

6.14

7/04

/201

055

60Sa

lmat

Med

iaFo

rce

Flye

rs fo

r Joo

ndal

up H

ouse

hold

Haz

ardo

us (H

HW

) Day

$2

,785

.86

7/04

/201

055

61SA

PMEA

Con

fere

nce

- LG

MA

Nat

iona

l Con

gres

s 20

10$1

,715

.00

7/04

/201

055

62SA

PMEA

Con

fere

nce

- LG

MA

Nat

iona

l Con

gres

s 20

10$1

,715

.00

8/04

/201

055

63A

mbe

r Pro

pert

y M

aint

enan

ceTa

mal

a P

ark

- Bui

ldin

g cl

eani

ng s

uppl

ies

$231

.94

9/04

/201

055

64M

inda

rie R

egio

nal C

ounc

il St

aff L

otto

Acc

ount

Sta

ff lo

tto -

Ded

ucte

d fro

m s

taff

sala

ry$3

70.0

09/

04/2

010

5565

BR

YAN

T M

EDIA

Des

ign

annu

al re

port,

artw

ork

for p

ress

adv

ertis

emen

ts &

sig

nage

at R

RF

$9,5

15.0

012

/04/

2010

5566

AC

TIO

N L

OC

K S

ERVI

CE

Pad

lock

s fo

r HH

W c

ompo

und

$405

.00

12/0

4/20

1055

67A

IR M

ET S

CIE

NTI

FIC

PTY

LTD

Land

fill G

as M

onito

rs -

Hire

cha

rge

$660

.00

12/0

4/20

1055

68A

RTP

RO

OF

PRIN

TIN

G C

OY

PTY

LTD

Prin

ting

of b

roch

ures

- W

aste

Edu

catio

n$4

63.0

012

/04/

2010

5569

Aus

tral

ian

Inst

itute

of M

anag

emen

tS

taff

Trai

ning

$565

.00

12/0

4/20

1055

70B

ULL

IVA

NTS

PTY

LTD

Exp

enda

ble

Tool

s$6

41.3

012

/04/

2010

5571

Cas

tle S

ecur

ity &

Ele

ctric

al P

tyB

uild

ing

Sec

urity

$1,5

29.9

012

/04/

2010

5572

Cha

uffe

ur S

ervi

ces

Bus

tour

of T

amal

a P

ark

- Edu

catio

n C

entre

$200

.00

12/0

4/20

1055

73C

MA

Rec

yclin

gFl

uro

light

recy

clin

g$2

,299

.11

12/0

4/20

1055

74C

OM

MU

NIT

Y N

EWSP

APE

R G

RO

UP

Adv

ertis

emen

t exp

ense

s in

loca

l new

spap

ers

$7,7

16.7

212

/04/

2010

5575

Cor

pora

te E

xpre

ss A

ustr

alia

Lim

ited

Com

pute

r con

sum

able

s$2

90.0

012

/04/

2010

5576

Cub

e C

onsu

lting

Pty

Ltd

Sub

scrip

tions

- IN

X s

yste

ms

Inco

ntro

l & In

Tui

tion

$786

.50

12/0

4/20

1055

77D

ata#

3A

crob

at S

tand

ard

Lice

nces

$237

.07

12/0

4/20

1055

78D

irect

Nat

iona

lO

ffice

Equ

ipm

ent M

aint

enan

ce$1

65.0

012

/04/

2010

5579

Dom

ain

Cat

erin

gC

ater

ing

expe

nses

- E

arth

care

rs c

ours

e$1

,102

.50

Sche

dule

of P

aym

ent f

or A

pril

2010

Cou

ncil

Mee

ting

- 1 J

uly

2010

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 144

12/0

4/20

1055

80D

UST

EXTr

ansp

orta

tion

of p

ick

up b

ins

from

site

$247

.50

12/0

4/20

1055

81EM

RC

Col

lect

ion

of m

attre

sses

$1,0

89.0

012

/04/

2010

5582

Fuji

Xero

x A

ustr

alia

Pty

Ltd

Con

sum

able

s - r

ecyc

led

pape

r $2

19.4

512

/04/

2010

5583

GC

M E

nviro

Pty

Ltd

Rep

lace

men

t of n

ew e

ngin

e fo

r Tan

a G

360

$31,

432.

6112

/04/

2010

5584

Gre

enw

orld

Indo

or G

arde

nsM

onth

ly p

lant

rent

al$3

96.8

412

/04/

2010

5585

Jasn

eat

Cle

anin

g se

rvic

es -

Tam

ala

Par

k bu

ildin

gs$7

39.6

412

/04/

2010

5586

Joon

dalu

p O

ffice

Nat

iona

lS

tatio

nery

and

Prin

ting

$755

.12

12/0

4/20

1055

87Ju

nkbu

ster

sD

ispl

ay a

t Ear

th C

arer

s co

urse

$165

.00

12/0

4/20

1055

88C

ance

lled

Can

celle

d$0

.00

12/0

4/20

1055

89L

& T

Ven

able

sE

xpen

dabl

e To

ols

$159

.55

12/0

4/20

1055

90LI

NC

STR

ATE

GIC

Ann

ual W

ebsi

te h

ostin

g ch

arge

s$7

92.0

012

/04/

2010

5591

MA

CH

INE

SEC

UR

ITY

CO

VER

SS

ecur

ity c

over

s fo

r Tan

a G

360

$1,3

75.0

012

/04/

2010

5592

Mag

icor

p Pt

y Lt

dTe

leph

one

Exp

ense

s - V

oice

mai

l mes

sage

sub

scrip

tion

$103

.40

12/0

4/20

1055

93N

ever

fail

Sprin

gwat

er L

tdS

taff

Am

eniti

es$3

29.9

512

/04/

2010

5594

Nor

ther

n D

istr

icts

Pes

t Man

agem

ent

Bui

ldin

g M

aint

enan

ce -

Pes

t Con

trol

$154

.00

12/0

4/20

1055

95O

RS

GR

OU

PW

elln

ess

Pro

gram

s$1

56.1

512

/04/

2010

5596

PETR

OL

PUM

P R

EPA

IRS

Sup

ply

and

fit n

ew p

ump

mot

or fo

r ons

ite fu

el ta

nks

$1,0

87.4

612

/04/

2010

5597

Pow

er In

dust

rial S

uppl

ies

Saf

ety

glas

ses,

glo

ves,

ear

plug

s$2

,186

.25

12/0

4/20

1055

98TI

LT T

RA

Y R

ENTA

LTr

ansp

orta

tion

of S

kid

Ste

er lo

ader

to s

ervi

ce c

entre

$430

.38

12/0

4/20

1055

99TO

TALL

Y W

OR

KW

EAR

Sta

ff U

nifo

rms/

Pro

tect

ive

Clo

thin

g $1

28.2

112

/04/

2010

5600

Tow

n of

Cam

brid

geB

oule

vard

Cen

tre h

all b

ooki

ng$5

38.0

012

/04/

2010

5601

WA

Loc

al G

over

nmen

t Ass

ocia

tion

Adv

ertis

emen

t exp

ense

s $4

16.1

412

/04/

2010

5602

WES

T C

OA

ST C

OLL

EGE

OF

TAFE

Sta

ff Tr

aini

ng$6

9.00

12/0

4/20

1056

03W

ILSO

N S

ECU

RIT

YS

tatic

gua

rd fo

r wei

ghbr

idge

$4

,039

.13

12/0

4/20

1056

04A

ir W

ell P

umps

Pty

Ltd

Mon

thly

site

insp

ectio

n of

airw

ell p

ump

$686

.80

12/0

4/20

1056

05A

nim

al P

est

Man

agem

ent

Serv

ices

Fera

l cat

trap

ping

& fo

x ba

it pr

ogra

m

$1,9

22.8

012

/04/

2010

5606

Ani

mal

Pes

t M

anag

emen

t Se

rvic

esFe

ral c

at tr

appi

ng&

fox

bait

prog

ram

$2

,194

.50

12/0

4/20

1056

07A

ustr

alia

n R

adia

tion

Serv

ices

Pty

Ltd

Stro

be li

ght &

cab

le fo

r Rad

iatio

n de

tect

ors

$688

.60

12/0

4/20

1056

08In

stan

t Pro

duct

s G

roup

Was

te E

duca

tion

Toile

t Hire

$397

.54

12/0

4/20

1056

09Iro

n M

ount

ain

Aus

tral

ia P

ty L

tdR

ecor

ds m

aint

enan

ce$4

.53

12/0

4/20

1056

10M

cken

na H

ampt

onIn

sura

nce

advi

ce -

RR

F C

ompo

ster

Cra

cks

$412

.50

12/0

4/20

1056

11Pe

rthw

aste

Pty

Ltd

Was

te m

inim

isat

ion

proj

ect -

Cle

an2S

tream

$2,7

74.6

412

/04/

2010

5612

STEV

E'S

MO

BIL

E TY

RE

SER

VIC

ER

epla

ce ty

res

- Hin

o B

in tr

uck

$560

.00

12/0

4/20

1056

13Th

e H

UB

Mar

ketin

g C

omm

unic

atio

n Pt

y Lt

dC

onsu

ltanc

y - W

aste

Min

imis

atio

n pr

ojec

t $9

,802

.98

12/0

4/20

1056

14Vi

bra

Indu

stria

l Filt

ratio

nC

lean

air

filte

rs fo

r ons

ite p

lant

$687

.39

12/0

4/20

1056

15A

LIN

TA G

AS

Gas

$146

.60

13/0

4/20

1056

16M

ULT

IPR

OG

RA

MM

ING

PTY

LTD

Com

pute

r Sys

tem

s M

aint

enan

ce$8

,447

.96

14/0

4/20

1056

17C

ity o

f Per

thR

ates

reim

burs

emen

t 200

9/20

10$5

,232

.81

14/0

4/20

1056

18JU

ST S

PEC

TAC

LES

CLA

RK

SON

Wel

lnes

s P

rogr

ams

$542

.00

14/0

4/20

1056

19A

RM

AG

UA

RD

Cas

h co

llect

ion

fee

$784

.84

14/0

4/20

1056

20A

UST

RA

LIA

PO

ST -

PER

THP

osta

ge &

Fre

ight

$5

07.4

214

/04/

2010

5621

HSE

Con

trol

Pty

Ltd

Con

tract

Lab

our E

xter

nal -

Env

ironm

enta

l Man

agem

ent

$13,

619.

1014

/04/

2010

5622

IW P

roje

cts

Con

tract

Lab

our E

xter

nal -

RR

F &

exc

avat

ion

wor

ks$1

8,98

1.60

14/0

4/20

1056

23C

ALT

EX A

UST

RA

LIA

PET

RO

LEU

M P

TYP

lant

- Fu

el a

nd O

il$6

45.0

214

/04/

2010

5624

CLE

AN

SW

EEP

Acc

ess

Roa

d M

aint

enan

ce

$859

.38

14/0

4/20

1056

25D

ig E

arth

Con

trac

ting

Sta

ff Tr

aini

ng$8

,500

.00

14/0

4/20

1056

26H

ays

Spec

ialis

t Rec

ruitm

ent (

Aus

tral

ia) P

/LC

ontra

ct L

abou

r Ext

erna

l - R

ecep

tioni

st$2

,747

.25

14/0

4/20

1056

27B

T Eq

uipm

ent P

ty L

tdR

epai

rs &

mai

nten

ance

to B

omag

com

pact

or$4

,402

.75

14/0

4/20

1056

28B

unni

ngs

Bui

ldin

g Su

pplie

sE

xpen

dabl

e To

ols

$592

.06

14/0

4/20

1056

29K

INR

OSS

SU

PA IG

AS

taff

Am

eniti

es$6

08.4

8

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 145

15/0

4/20

1056

30W

esTr

ac P

ty L

tdR

epai

rs &

mai

nten

ance

to C

ater

pilla

r 966

H lo

ader

$17,

253.

2515

/04/

2010

5631

CPA

AU

STR

ALI

AC

onfe

renc

e &

Tra

inin

g$5

,795

.00

19/0

4/20

1056

32SY

NER

GY

Util

ities

$74.

8020

/04/

2010

5633

GO

LDER

ASS

OC

IATE

S PT

Y LT

DTa

mal

a P

ark

Sta

ge 2

Pha

se 3

con

stru

ctio

n$3

1,87

5.25

23/0

4/20

1056

34A

dvan

ced

Traf

fic M

anag

emen

t (W

A) P

ty L

tdTr

affic

con

trol a

t wei

ghbr

idge

$2,8

72.1

023

/04/

2010

5635

Ala

nce

New

spap

er &

Mag

azin

e D

eliv

ery

Per

iodi

cals

/ Pub

licat

ions

$59.

4523

/04/

2010

5636

Aus

tral

ian

Inst

itute

of M

anag

emen

tS

taff

Trai

ning

$415

.00

23/0

4/20

1056

37B

elrid

ge B

us C

hart

erTo

urs

- Edu

catio

n ce

ntre

$616

.00

23/0

4/20

1056

38B

T Eq

uipm

ent P

ty L

tdE

ngin

e C

oola

nt$1

,026

.03

23/0

4/20

1056

39B

unni

ngs

Bui

ldin

g Su

pplie

sS

ite O

pera

ting

$475

.04

23/0

4/20

1056

40C

anno

n H

ygie

ne A

ustr

alia

Pty

Ltd

Gen

eral

Hyg

iene

Mai

nten

ance

$7

85.1

523

/04/

2010

5641

CA

TALY

SEM

RC

Sta

keho

lder

Sur

vey

2010

$42,

515.

0023

/04/

2010

5642

Cha

uffe

ur S

ervi

ces

Tour

s - E

duca

tion

cent

re$2

00.0

023

/04/

2010

5643

City

of S

tirlin

gC

ounc

il M

eetin

g E

xpen

ses

- PA

G m

eetin

g$3

5.00

23/0

4/20

1056

44C

ity o

f Wan

nero

oC

olle

ctio

n of

add

ition

al c

arts

- w

aste

man

agem

ent

$357

.00

23/0

4/20

1056

45C

lark

Equ

ipm

ent S

ales

Pty

Ltd

Coo

ling

syst

em p

arts

for L

each

ate

Com

pres

sor

$269

.34

23/0

4/20

1056

46C

LEA

N S

WEE

PA

cces

s R

oad

Mai

nten

ance

$6

87.5

023

/04/

2010

5647

CM

A R

ecyc

ling

Fluo

ro R

ecyc

ling

$888

.25

23/0

4/20

1056

48C

omm

and

A C

omR

epai

rs &

ser

vici

ng o

f EFT

PO

S m

achi

ne &

tele

phon

e lin

es$6

54.5

023

/04/

2010

5649

Con

serv

atio

n C

ounc

il of

Wes

tern

Aus

tral

ia In

c.W

aste

Man

agem

ent E

duca

tion

- Spa

ce h

ire$1

00.0

023

/04/

2010

5650

Cov

entr

ysE

ngin

e oi

l for

Bom

ag c

ompa

ctor

$2,3

67.0

323

/04/

2010

5651

Cub

e C

onsu

lting

Pty

Ltd

Sub

scrip

tions

- IN

X s

yste

ms

Inco

ntro

l & In

Tui

tion

$786

.50

23/0

4/20

1056

52D

ELO

ITTE

Fina

ncia

l Wor

ksho

p N

ovem

ber'0

9$1

5,32

4.14

23/0

4/20

1056

53D

ig E

arth

Con

trac

ting

Sta

ff Tr

aini

ng$8

25.0

023

/04/

2010

5654

Dom

ain

Cat

erin

gC

ater

ing

expe

nses

- E

arth

care

rs c

ours

e$1

,171

.00

23/0

4/20

1056

55D

RA

GE

SIG

NS

Sig

ns &

bar

ricad

es$4

84.0

023

/04/

2010

5656

Elec

tek

Mai

nten

ance

to U

PS

con

nect

ion

$330

.00

23/0

4/20

1056

57EM

RC

Col

lect

ion

of m

attre

sses

$638

.00

23/0

4/20

1056

58Fo

rd &

Doo

nan

RR

F ai

rcon

ditio

ning

inst

allm

ent c

laim

$2,7

50.0

023

/04/

2010

5659

Fuji

Xero

x A

ustr

alia

Pty

Ltd

Pho

toco

pyin

g E

xpen

ses

$2,8

60.9

823

/04/

2010

5660

GH

D P

TY L

TDC

onsu

ltanc

y - W

orks

hop

exte

nsio

n &

min

imis

atio

n of

infra

stru

ctur

e w

aste

$6,1

30.2

523

/04/

2010

5661

HEA

LTH

ON

TH

E M

OVE

Ann

ual H

ealth

Ass

essm

ents

$7,0

04.2

523

/04/

2010

5662

Heg

gies

Pty

Ltd

Land

fill g

as m

onito

ring

- R&

D$1

,258

.13

23/0

4/20

1056

63H

ITA

CH

I CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

MA

CH

INER

YR

epai

rs &

mai

nten

ance

- A

rticu

late

d du

mp

truck

$941

.73

23/0

4/20

1056

64Iro

n M

ount

ain

Aus

tral

ia P

ty L

tdR

ecor

ds m

aint

enan

ce$4

.53

23/0

4/20

1056

65Ja

snea

tC

lean

ing

serv

ices

- Ta

mal

a P

ark

build

ings

$1,4

63.0

023

/04/

2010

5666

Joon

dalu

p O

ffice

Nat

iona

lS

tatio

nery

$282

.00

23/0

4/20

1056

67K

D A

ire M

echa

nica

l and

Ele

ctric

al S

ervi

ces

Rep

air A

ircon

$1,1

31.9

023

/04/

2010

5668

Key

note

Con

fere

nces

Was

te &

recy

cle

2010

con

fere

nce

/ Exh

ibito

r boo

th h

ire$5

,738

.00

23/0

4/20

1056

69M

agic

orp

Pty

Ltd

Tele

phon

e E

xpen

ses

- Voi

cem

ail m

essa

ge s

ubsc

riptio

n$1

03.4

023

/04/

2010

5670

MER

CU

RY

Cou

rier s

ervi

ces

$1,0

02.5

623

/04/

2010

5671

MO

BIL

E M

AST

ERS

Rep

airs

to tw

o w

ay ra

dio

syst

em$2

14.2

823

/04/

2010

5672

MU

LTIP

RO

GR

AM

MIN

G P

TY L

TDS

et u

p of

IT s

ervi

ces

at R

RF

$1,2

62.9

423

/04/

2010

5673

NA

TIO

NW

IDE

OIL

Rec

yclin

g C

ontra

ctor

s - w

aste

oil

$834

.90

23/0

4/20

1056

74N

ever

fail

Sprin

gwat

er L

tdS

taff

Am

eniti

es$2

41.0

523

/04/

2010

5675

Out

door

Clo

thin

g C

once

pts

Pty

Ltd

Was

te M

anag

emen

t Edu

catio

n - C

asua

l sta

ff un

iform

$40.

0423

/04/

2010

5676

PIR

TEK

(MA

LAG

A) P

TY L

TDR

epai

rs &

mai

nten

ance

to B

in tr

uck

$326

.34

23/0

4/20

1056

77R

ed 1

1 Pt

y Lt

dC

ompu

ter c

onsu

mab

les

$112

.70

23/0

4/20

1056

78R

elia

nce

Petr

oleu

mD

istil

late

$41,

290.

9323

/04/

2010

5679

SBS

Sim

s G

roup

E -

was

te R

ecyc

ling

Con

tract

ors

$15,

363.

63

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 146

23/0

4/20

1056

80ST

JO

HN

AM

BU

LAN

CE

Def

ibril

lato

r hea

rtsta

rt ca

se &

Ele

ctro

des

$3,9

90.0

023

/04/

2010

5681

Staf

f Lin

kC

ontra

ct L

abou

r Ext

erna

l - re

cycl

ing

cent

re &

bus

hlan

d m

anag

emen

t$5

,608

.19

23/0

4/20

1056

82SY

NN

OTT

MU

LHO

LLA

ND

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

Con

tract

labo

ur -

Mar

ketin

g &

was

te e

duca

tion

$4,2

24.0

023

/04/

2010

5683

TELS

TRA

Tele

phon

e E

xpen

ses

$412

.96

23/0

4/20

1056

84Th

e H

UB

Mar

ketin

g C

omm

unic

atio

n Pt

y Lt

dC

onsu

ltanc

y - W

aste

Min

imis

atio

n pr

ojec

t (C

lean

2Stre

am)

$3,0

51.4

023

/04/

2010

5685

WA

NN

ERO

O P

LUM

BIN

G S

ERVI

CE

Bui

ldin

g M

aint

enan

ce -

Wor

ksho

p$1

63.5

723

/04/

2010

5686

Woo

dhou

se L

egal

Ref

use

Dis

posa

l Fac

ilitie

s La

w 2

010

$7,9

66.2

023

/04/

2010

5687

WO

RK

CLO

BB

ERS

taff

Uni

form

s/P

rote

ctiv

e C

loth

ing

$254

.48

23/0

4/20

1056

88A

rtis

an M

aint

enan

ceM

aint

ence

of a

rtwor

ks a

nd fe

atur

es in

Ed

cent

re$1

,672

.00

23/0

4/20

1056

89B

lack

woo

ds &

Atk

ins

Mai

nten

ance

of a

rtwor

k at

Edu

catio

n ce

ntre

$223

.96

23/0

4/20

1056

90C

ardn

o B

SD M

einh

ardt

Joi

nt V

entu

reP

roje

ct M

anag

emen

t Fee

- R

RF

Con

stru

ctio

n Fi

nal p

aym

ent

$58,

261.

2323

/04/

2010

5691

Envi

ronm

ent H

ouse

Inco

rpor

ated

Pre

sent

ing

at E

C M

arch

trai

ning

$660

.00

23/0

4/20

1056

92LA

ND

FILL

GA

S &

PO

WER

PTY

LTD

Util

ities

$3,9

07.8

023

/04/

2010

5693

Leed

ervi

lle S

port

ing

Clu

bE

arth

car

ers

cour

se -

spac

e hi

re$2

50.0

023

/04/

2010

5694

W W

CO

NSU

LTIN

G P

TY L

TDC

onsu

ltanc

y - P

AG

mee

tings

Feb

/Mar

ch 2

010

$4,7

19.0

023

/04/

2010

5695

SBS

Sim

s G

roup

E-W

aste

Rec

yclin

g C

ontra

ctor

s$1

,662

.65

23/0

4/20

1056

96C

ity o

f Joo

ndal

upLe

ase

Fee

Lot 1

18 M

arm

ion

Ave

for M

ay 2

010

$8,8

76.1

123

/04/

2010

5697

City

of P

erth

Leas

e Fe

e Lo

t 118

Mar

mio

n A

ve fo

r May

201

0$4

,438

.06

23/0

4/20

1056

98C

ity o

f Stir

ling

Leas

e Fe

e Lo

t 118

Mar

mio

n A

ve fo

r May

201

0$1

7,75

2.23

23/0

4/20

1056

99C

ity o

f Wan

nero

oLe

ase

Fee

Lot 1

18 M

arm

ion

Ave

for M

ay 2

010

$8,8

76.1

123

/04/

2010

5700

Tow

n of

Cam

brid

geLe

ase

Fee

Lot 1

18 M

arm

ion

Ave

for M

ay 2

010

$4,4

38.0

623

/04/

2010

5701

Tow

n of

Vic

toria

Par

kLe

ase

Fee

Lot 1

18 M

arm

ion

Ave

for M

ay 2

010

$4,4

38.0

623

/04/

2010

5702

Tow

n of

Vin

cent

Leas

e Fe

e Lo

t 118

Mar

mio

n A

ve fo

r May

201

0$4

,438

.06

23/0

4/20

1057

03M

inda

rie R

egio

nal C

ounc

il St

aff L

otto

Acc

ount

Leas

e Fe

e Lo

t 118

Mar

mio

n A

ve fo

r May

201

0$3

70.0

023

/04/

2010

5704

PETT

Y C

ASH

Trav

ellin

g E

xpen

ses

$991

.70

28/0

4/20

1057

05A

ster

on P

ortfo

lio S

ervi

ces

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$314

.91

28/0

4/20

1057

06A

ustr

alia

n Su

per A

dmin

istr

atio

nS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$1

79.9

928

/04/

2010

5707

CB

US

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$321

.56

28/0

4/20

1057

08C

HIL

D S

UPP

OR

TC

hild

Sup

port

Allo

wan

ce p

aym

ent -

Ded

uctio

n m

ade

from

sta

ff sa

lary

$492

.30

28/0

4/20

1057

09H

ealth

Insu

ranc

e Fu

nd o

f WA

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$400

.00

28/0

4/20

1057

10H

ESTA

SU

PER

FU

ND

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$742

.72

28/0

4/20

1057

11Po

rtfo

liofo

cus

- Pre

miu

m R

etire

men

t Ser

vice

sS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$2

,221

.00

28/0

4/20

1057

12R

EST

Supe

rann

uatio

nS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$4

37.0

228

/04/

2010

5713

Spec

trum

Sup

erS

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$8

8.16

28/0

4/20

1057

14W

ALG

S PL

AN

PTY

LTD

Sup

eran

nuat

ion

prem

ium

$33,

895.

9228

/04/

2010

5715

WES

TSC

HEM

ES

uper

annu

atio

n pr

emiu

m$7

27.1

929

/04/

2010

5716

REC

OR

DS

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

ASS

OC

IATI

ON

OF

AU

STR

ALI

AR

MA

A b

reak

fast

- W

eb2

soci

al m

edia

tech

nolo

gy$9

2.40

29/0

4/20

1057

17W

A L

ocal

Gov

ernm

ent A

ssoc

iatio

nA

dver

tisem

ent e

xpen

ses

& p

ublic

not

ices

$5,1

20.9

6To

tal C

hequ

e Pa

ymen

ts$6

89,5

15.3

1

21/0

4/20

10D

P-0

0378

Iinet

Lim

ited

Inte

rnet

VO

IP c

harg

e$1

1.44

21/0

4/20

10D

P-0

0379

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

Mer

chan

t cha

rges

for M

arch

201

0$9

28.1

621

/04/

2010

DP

-003

80N

atio

nal A

ustr

alia

Ban

kN

atio

nal O

nlin

e A

ccou

nt F

ee$5

7.69

23/0

4/20

10D

P-0

0381

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

Cre

dit C

ard

paym

ents

$7,4

85.4

723

/04/

2010

DP

-003

82A

ustr

alia

n Ta

xatio

n O

ffice

BA

S fo

r Mar

ch 2

010

$359

,920

.00

23/0

4/20

10D

P-0

0383

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

NA

B C

onne

ct A

ccou

nt F

ee -

Mar

ch$2

0.00

26/0

4/20

10D

P-0

0384

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

NA

B C

onne

ct A

ccou

nt F

ee -

Apr

il$2

0.00

27/0

4/20

10D

P-0

0385

Com

mon

wea

lth B

ank

Loan

10

B re

paym

ent

$10,

303.

1227

/04/

2010

DP

-003

86C

omm

onw

ealth

Ban

kLo

an 1

0 A

repa

ymen

t$4

3,83

2.53

30/0

4/20

10D

P-0

0387

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

Loan

10

A C

omm

erci

al B

ill$6

1,44

0.93

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 147

30/0

4/20

10D

P-0

0388

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

Com

mon

wea

lth B

ank

Cre

dit C

ard

Fee

$40.

0030

/04/

2010

DP

-003

89N

atio

nal A

ustr

alia

Ban

kM

erch

ant C

harg

es fo

r Apr

il 20

10$1

,361

.44

30/0

4/20

10D

P-0

0390

Nat

iona

l Aus

tral

ia B

ank

Ban

k O

verd

raft

Inte

rest

pay

men

t$2

20.3

630

/04/

2010

DP

-003

91N

atio

nal A

ustr

alia

Ban

kA

ccou

nt K

eepi

ng F

ee o

n B

usin

ess

Man

agem

ent A

ccou

nt$1

72.4

030

/04/

2010

DP

-003

92N

atio

nal A

ustr

alia

Ban

kB

ill D

raw

dow

n Fe

e$1

50.0

0To

tal D

irect

Pay

men

ts$4

85,9

63.5

4

9/04

/201

0E

FT-0

0233

MR

CP

ayro

ll E

mpl

oyee

Wag

es$1

04,7

08.0

021

/04/

2010

EFT

-002

34B

iovi

sion

202

0 Pt

y Lt

dC

ontra

ctor

Fee

s - R

RF

$1,5

93,3

37.5

123

/04/

2010

EFT

-002

35M

RC

Pay

roll

Em

ploy

ee W

ages

$105

,311

.63

23/0

4/20

10E

FT-0

0236

MR

CP

ayro

ll E

mpl

oyee

Wag

es$1

05,5

07.3

9To

tal E

FT P

aym

ents

$1,9

08,8

64.5

3

Sum

mar

y Sc

hedu

le o

f Pay

men

ts

Che

que

Paym

ents

Che

que

No.

553

5 to

571

7$6

89,5

15.3

1

Elec

tron

ic P

aym

ents

DP-

003

78 to

DP-

003

92$4

85,9

63.5

4EF

T- 0

0233

to E

FT- 0

0236

$1,9

08,8

64.5

3

Gra

nd T

otal

$3,0

84,3

43.3

8

CER

TIFI

CA

TE O

F C

HIE

F EX

ECU

TIVE

OFF

ICER

This

sch

edul

e of

acc

ount

s w

hich

was

pas

sed

for p

aym

ent,

cove

ring

vouc

hers

as

abov

e w

hich

was

subm

itted

to e

ach

mem

ber o

f Cou

ncil

on 1

st J

uly

2010

has

bee

n ch

ecke

d an

d is

fully

sup

port

edby

vou

cher

s an

d in

voic

es w

hich

are

sub

mitt

ed h

erew

ith a

nd w

hich

hav

e be

en d

uly

cert

ified

as

to th

e re

ceip

t of g

oods

and

the

rend

ition

of s

ervi

ces

and

as to

pric

es, c

ompu

tatio

ns, a

nd

cost

ing

and

the

amou

nts

due

for p

aym

ent.

CH

IEF

EXEC

UTI

VE O

FFIC

ER

ITEM 8.1.7


Page 148

ITEM 8.2.1 AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING – 8 JUNE 2010 File No: COR/22 (D/10/4126) Attachment(s): 1. Minutes of Audit Committee meeting held 8 June 2010 Author: Kalwant Dhillon

BACKGROUND The Internal Audit Committee was established during the 2005/2006 financial year and it held its Inaugural meeting in June 2006. The first meeting for 2009/2010 financial year was held on 7 April 2010. DETAIL Establishment of Audit Committee The Audit Committee was established by Ordinary Council Meeting resolution on 7 July 2005. The Terms of Reference for this Committee were approved by Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 27 October 2005. Powers of the Audit Committee, as stated in the Terms of Reference, can be summarised by the following extract: “The Committee is to report to Council and provide appropriate advice and recommendations ....” In short, the Audit Committee does not have delegated authority from Council for decision making. The Audit Committee met on 8 June 2010 to consider the appointment of the Auditor. The Audit Committee reviewed the report on the submissions received in relation to the Appointment of the Auditor and recommends that Grant Thornton be appointed as the Auditor for a term of three years to conduct the Annual audits of the Council for the financial years 2009/2010 to 2011/2012. The minutes of the meeting and the report are attached. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT An Internal Audit Committee is required under the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulations. The committee is required to meet at least once a year and report any matters discussed and outcomes to the Council. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Not applicable.

ITEM 8.2.1


Page 149

AUDIT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That Council:

(i) accept the quotation submitted by Grant Thornton for the delivery of audit services with following characteristics (a) for a period of three years commencing 2009/2010 (b) maximum total hours of 120 hours per year (360 hours total) (c) maximum total cost - $54,750

(ii) appoint Michael Hillgrove and/or alternate partner of Grant Thornton as the auditor for a term of three years to conduct the Annual audits of Mindarie Regional Council for the financial years 2009/2010 to 2011/2012

ITEM 8.2.1


Page 150

ATTACHMENT ONE

TO ITEM 8.2.1


1 JULY 2010

MINUTES OF AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 8 JUNE 2010

ITEM 8.2.1


Page 151

MINUTES

AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING

TUESDAY 8 JUNE 2010

TIME: 8.00 AM

VENUE – TOWN OF VICTORIA PARK Meeting Room 3

Managing waste and recovering resources responsibly Constituent Members: Cities of Perth, Joondalup, Stirling, and Wanneroo.

Towns of Cambridge, Victoria Park and Vincent

ITEM 8.2.1


Page 152

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM

SUBJECT

PAGE NO

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 3

2 ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES 3

3 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 3

3.1 MINUTES OF AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 7 APRIL 2010 3

4 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST 3

5 MRC OFFICER REPORTS 4

5.1 APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR FOR NEXT TERM OF THREE YEARS 4

6 FUTURE MEETINGS 4

7 OTHER BUSINESS 4

8 CLOSURE OF MEETING 4

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCILAUDIT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 8 JUNE 2010 ITEM 8.2.1


Page 153

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL’S AUDIT COMMITTEE HELD AT THE TOWN OF VICTORIA PARK, 99 SHEPPERTON ROAD, VICTORIA PARK, WESTERN AUSTRALIA ON 8 JUNE 2010. 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS Cr Fishwick declared the meeting open at 8.15am. 2. ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES Councillors Cr Russell Fishwick City of Joondalup Cr David Boothman City of Stirling External Member Mr Alex Dermedgoglou Officers Mr Kevin Poynton Chief Executive Officer Mr Kalwant Dhillon Chief Financial Officer Apologies Cr Rob Butler City of Perth The Minutes have been confirmed by resolution of the Audit Committee on November 2010. ...............................................................................Chairman 3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 3.1 MINUTES OF AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 7 APRIL 2010 The Minutes of the MRC Audit Committee Meeting held on 7 April 2010 have been circulated to members of committee. RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the MRC Audit Committee Meeting held on 7 April 2010 be taken as read, confirmed and the Chairman invited to sign same as a true record of the proceedings. (Carried: 3/0) 4. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST Nil.



Page 154

5. MRC OFFICER REPORTS 5.1 APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR FOR NEXT TERM OF THREE YEARS The tenure for the existing Auditor, WHK Howarth, ended with the audit for the financial year ended 30 June 2009. The Audit Committee, at its last meeting on 7 April 2010, recommended and the Council approved at the 22 April 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting that quotations be obtained, under a Quotation process from the following list of Auditors, for the provision of external audit services to the Regional Council for the next 2 or 3 years.

• WHK Howarth • Grant Thornton • Macri Partners • Haines Norton

Three quotations were received under this process and have been evaluated independently by Alex Dermedgoglou and the report is attached under Appendix I was considered by the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee’s decision is summarised below. AUDIT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That Council:

(i) accept the quotation submitted by Grant Thornton for the delivery of audit services with following characteristics

• for a period of three years commencing 2009/2010

• maximum total hours of 120 hours per year (360 hours total)

• maximum total cost - $54,750 (ii) appoint Michael Hillgrove and/or alternate partner of Grant Thornton

as the auditor for a term of three years to conduct the Annual audits of Mindarie Regional Council for the financial years 2009/2010 to 2011/2012

6 FUTURE MEETINGS Next meeting is proposed for late November 2010. 7 OTHER BUSINESS Nil. 8 CLOSURE 8.35am



Page 155

MINUTES

STRATEGIC PROJECTS COMMITTEE

Friday 14 May 2010

TIME: 8.30AM

VENUE – Town of Cambridge

Managing waste and recovering resources responsibly Constituent Members: Cities of Perth, Joondalup, Stirling, and Wanneroo.

Towns of Cambridge, Victoria Park and Vincent


Page 156

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL


MINUTES

14 May 2010

A meeting of the Strategic Projects Committee was held at the Town of Cambridge, 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat, on Friday 14 May 2010. The meeting commenced at 8.30am.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Delegates Karen Caple (Chairman) Director City Businesses City of Wanneroo Martyn Glover (Deputy Chairman) Director Infrastructure Services City of Joondalup Chris Colyer Director Infrastructure Town of Cambridge Geoff Eves Director of Infrastructure City of Stirling Doug Forster Director of Business Units City of Perth Rick Lotznicker Director Technical Services Town of Vincent Kevin Poynton Chief Executive Officer MRC Anthony Vuleta Director Technical Services Town of Victoria Park Deputy Delegate Jane Pritchard Mgr Infrastructure Mgt Services City of Joondalup Shane Spinks Manager City Business City of Wanneroo

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCILSTRATEGIC PROJECTS COMMITTEE MINUTES - 14 MAY 2010 - 2 -


Page 157

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT

PAGE NO

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS P4

2 ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES P5

3

REPORTS OF MRC OFFICERS

P5

Item 1 – Strategic Integrated Regional Plan P6 – P97

Item 2 – Future Landfill Site Investigation P98

Item 3 – Budget 2010/2011 P99 – P142

4 FUTURE SPC MEETINGS P143

5 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING P143



Page 158

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mindarie Regional Council CEO opening the meeting at 8.30am and welcomed Bruce Wittber and Helen Hardcastle to the meeting. Bruce Wittber and the Strategic Projects Committee (SPC) discussed the following:

• The SPC minutes to be included in the Agenda of the Ordinary Council Meeting for the recommendations and progress reports to be considered

• Observers would be allowed to attend with no voting rights

• Observers would be allowed to speak at the meeting

• A mover and seconder would be required for each recommendation

• Standing Orders to be researched in regards to limitation of number of speeches to an Item at a committee meeting

• Committee Tenure is until the Council elections in October 2011

• The Chairman would have some involvement with the MRC but will not have input into the preparation of the Agenda

The Mindarie Regional Council CEO then called for nominations for Chairman and Deputy Chairman. Moved: M Glover Seconded: A Vuleta Chairman: Karen Caple (Carried: 6/0) Moved: K Poynton Seconded: R Lotznicker Deputy Chairman: Martyn Glover (Carried: 6/0)



Page 159

2 ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES

Committee Members Karen Caple (Chairman) Director City Businesses City of Wanneroo (left 9.10am) Martyn Glover (Deputy Chairman) Director Infrastructure Services City of Joondalup (Chaired meeting from 9.10am) Chris Colyer (arrived 9.40am) Director Infrastructure Town of Cambridge Doug Forster Director of Business Units City of Perth Rick Lotznicker Director Technical Services Town of Vincent Kevin Poynton Chief Executive Officer MRC Anthony Vuleta Director Technical Services Town of Victoria Park Shane Spinks Manager City Businesses City of Wanneroo (Deputy Nominee for Wanneroo from 9.10am) Observers Kalwant Dhillon Chief Financial Officer MRC Mike Tolson Operations Manager MRC Ian Watkins Project Manager MRC Lynda Nyssen Governance Officer MRC Visitors Bruce Wittber Helen Hardcastle Apologies Geoff Eves Director Infrastructure City of Stirling 3 REPORTS OF MRC OFFICERS



Page 160

ITEM 1 STRATEGIC INTEGRATED REGIONAL PLAN File No: WST/176 Attachment(s): 1. Hyder Options Report 2. Hyder TWG Workbook – 5 February 2010 3. Hyder TWG Workbook – 15 April 2010 Author: Ian Watkins

SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide the Strategic Projects Committee with an update of how the development of the Strategic Integrated Regional Plan is progressing. BACKGROUND In the Annual Business Plan 2009/2010, a Proposed Action (Objective Two: Waste/Resource Processing) was to “Develop integrated regional plan for processing of at least municipal solid waste”. This Integrated Regional Plan is to provide the MRC with guidance on how best to progress the further development of resource recovery within the region. The need for the Plan and further resource recovery is driven by State Government push towards Zero Waste to Landfill and the fact that Tamala Park has a finite capacity which is anticipated to be saturated in early 2021. Following a call for tenders, Council resolved (03/09/09) to award the development of the Integrated Regional Plan to Hyder Consulting. On 10 September 2009 Hyder was awarded the contract to perform the work. DETAIL During the course of the project, Hyder consulted widely with the MRC Administration and member Councils to gather relevant base data on which to develop various waste processing options. In late January 2010 Hyder produced an Options Report covering the following aspects:

• Methodology

• Population projections

• Waste growth projections

• Waste quantities and processing capacity

• Waste processing options

• Assessment of options The Hyder Options Report is at Attachment One to this Report. Following further analysis by Hyder, on 5 February 2010, a workshop was held with the Technical Working Group (TWG) at which Hyder presented on the following topics:

• Scenarios developed from a range of options identified

• Complementary initiatives

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCILSTRATEGIC PROJECTS COMMITTEE MINUTES - 14 MAY 2010 - 6 - ITEM 8.3.1


Page 161

• Assessment criteria The Hyder TWG workshop 5 February 2010 Workbook is at Attachment Two to this report. With the TWG Officers’ feedback from the workshop, Hyder undertook extensive scenario modelling and analysis of modelling outputs. This information was then presented to the TWG at a follow up workshop held on 15 April 2010. At this workshop Hyder presented on the following topics:

• Modelling and evaluation assumptions

• Collection and transport assumptions

• Technology assumptions

• Scenario evaluation – financial assessment

• Summary performance tables

• Detailed costing summary The Hyder TWG workshop 15 April 2010. Workbook is at Attachment Three to this report. Way Forward Following feedback from the TWG Officers and the MRC, Hyder is currently in the process of undertaking a Multiple Criteria Analysis (MCA) of the various options. Thereafter it is proposed to have a joint Elected Members and TWG workshop (date yet to be determined), at which Hyder will present on the scenarios, assumptions and evaluation. Based on feedback from the joint workshop, Hyder will complete the MCA and prepare the final Integrated Regional Plan report. Timeline for Decision Making Based on the MRC long term planning, it is anticipated that Tamala Park will reach maximum capacity by early 2021. This is based on the assumption that RRF Stage 2 will be operational by 2013/14. In order to achieve this, the following RRF Stage 2 development timeline will be required: Option 1 – Similar facility to RRF Stage 1

• June 2010 to September 2010: Identify technology (4 months)

• October 2010 to March 2012: Environmental approvals (18 months)

• October 2010 to March 2011: Compile tender (6 months)

• April 2011 to June 2011: Tender (3 months)

• July 2011 to December 2011: Tender evaluation and contract finalisation (6 months)

• January 2012 to June 2013: Construction (18 months)

• July 2013: Operations



Page 162

Comment on Option 1

• Environmental approval is only achieved after contract finalisation and three months after construction has commenced. This is a totally unacceptable situation.

• Past experience (RRF Stage 1) has proven that anticipated timelines are invariably way shorter than actual timelines due to unexpected turns of events

• The above timeline has been established to fit time available between the present and when RRF Stage 2 has been programmed to occur (and is not possible to be achieved)

• The development of RRF Stage 2 cannot be similar (in process and complexity, not technology) to RRF Stage 1 and fit within the available timeline to suit current business planning

Option 2 – Simplified facility (Sorting and Separation)

• June 2010 to March 2011: Identify technology (10 months)

• April 2011 to September 2011: Environmental approval (6 months)

• April 2011 to September 2011: Compile Tender (6 months)

• October 2011 to December 2011: Tender (3 months)

• January 2012 to June 2012: Tender evaluation and contract finalisation (6 months)

• July 2012 to June 2013: Construction (12 months)

• July 2013: Operations Comment on Option 2

• Insufficient time to develop a complicated waste processing solution, only sufficient time to develop a large–scale sorting and separation facility (bulk verge waste)

• With RRF Stage 1 operational, the vast majority of “Processable Waste” is being processed. Even with the City of Stirling “Processable Waste” there is unlikely to be sufficient organic waste to justify a second composting facility; consequently, the next largest portion of domestic waste is the bulk verge waste

• There is sufficient time available within the current business planning to develop a significant bulk verge waste sorting facility

• This type of solution could be developed in a number of stages dealing with specific components of bulk verge waste (timber/plastic/metal/e-waste/hazardous waste)

Option 3 – new technology (waste to energy)

• June 2010 to June 2011: Identify technology (1 year)

• July 2011 to June 2013: Environmental approval (2 years)

• July 2011 to June 2012: Shortlist preferred suppliers (1 year)

• July 2012 to June 2013: Compile tender (1 year)

• July 2013 to June 2014: Tender evaluation (1 year)

• July 2014 to June 2016: Construction (2 years)



Page 163

Comment on Option 3

• Due to the new technology, the environmental approval process is relatively unknown; hence a 2 year period allowed

• An assumption is that the facility will be located at Neerabup. If this is not possible, an alternative site needs to be identified by either the MRC or the contractor

• If the MRC does not own the land, the MRC Constitution would need to be changed to accommodate these arrangements

• This option will take significantly longer to implement than the time available; hence, the business planning timeline can not be complied with and as a consequence, Tamala Park is likely to reach maximum capacity more rapidly. This will have the roll-on effect of putting additional pressure on the future development of an alternative landfill facility.

Comment on the Range of Options

• based on the time available for the development of RRF Stage 2 (by July 2013), there is insufficient time to develop a complex processing facility

• to comply with the time available, the MRC will have to limit its options to more simple solutions, typically sorting and separation operations that are more readily available and acceptable to the regulators and the Community

• to develop complex processing capacity the MRC will have to extend the timeline by a few years (2 to 3) depending on the type of technology proposed

• The MRC 2010/2011 draft Budget does not contain sufficient funding to actively pursue RRF Stage 2, even a simplified solution; consequently, there will be a further slide in the time taken to progress further waste recycling in the Region

• Any delay in developing RRF Stage 2 beyond July 2013 will result in Tamala Park filling up sooner than programmed and hence increase pressure on the development of landfill capacity beyond the life of Tamala Park

• It is essential to actively progress RRF Stage 2 development immediately or divert efforts to ensuring there is sufficient landfill capacity beyond the life of Tamala Park (either contracted out or a MRC operated facility)

Available Waste Processing Solutions Typically there are the following waste processing solutions available to the MRC (in the order of complexity):

• Sorting and Separation (small and large scale)

• Composting of organics (aerobic and anaerobic)

• Waste to energy (a range of available technologies) The more complicated and innovative the solution, the longer the development timeline required to progress the project. Enviro 2020 (21 – 23 July 2010) provides Elected Members and Officers an opportunity to review and learn more about available waste processing technologies that may be represented at the conference.



Page 164

Administration Comment The development of RRF Stage 2 will reduce the quantity of waste going to landfill and hence the need to develop landfill capacity beyond the life of Tamala Park as well as provide a more environmentally sustainable waste management solution for the region. Resource recovery is the State Government’s preferred waste management solution, in preference to landfilling. Delaying the development of RRF Stage 2 simply adds pressure to the MRC limited landfill capacity; however, with adequate forward planning, this situation can be appropriately managed. Not developing further resource recovery capability will be contrary to the State Government’s preferred position on waste management as well as relegate the MRC to a lesser environmentally sustainable organisation than it could have been with further resource recovery capacity. MRC ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION That the Strategic Projects Committee receive the progress report on the development of a strategic integrated regional plan. SPC DISCUSSION The CEO advised that the project was continuing with one workshop still to proceed. Then the final Strategic Integrated Regional Plan with a suite of recommendations will be presented to Council. The committee agreed inclusions to the item as follows:

• Timeline of project

• Additional background information

• Information regarding technology assumptions

• Additional section of what Councillors would see at the Enviro Conference SPC RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Mr Doug Forster SECONDED: Kevin Poynton That the Strategic Projects Committee receive the progress report on the development of a strategic integrated regional plan. (Carried: 6/0)



Page 165

ATTACHMENT ONE

TO ITEM 1


14 MAY 2010

HYDER OPTIONS REPORT



Page 166

Mindarie Regional Council

Integrated regional plan for the processing of municipal solid waste

Options report



Page 167


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289

Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd

ABN 76 104 485 289

Level 16, 31 Queen Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia

Tel: +61 3 8623 4000

Fax: +61 3 8623 4111

www.hyderconsulting.com



Options report

Author Rebecca Cain

Checker Anne-Marie Bremner, Encycle Consulting

John King, John King Consultants

Approver Bruno Schacher

Report No 2

Date 29 January 2010

This report has been prepared for Mindarie Regional

Council in accordance with the terms and conditions of

appointment for Integrated regional plan for the processing

of municipal solid waste dated 10 September 2009. Hyder

Consulting Pty Ltd (ABN 76 104 485 289) cannot accept any

responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of

this report by any third party.



Page 168


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page i

CONTENTS

Glossary .......................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 3

2 Projections of future waste quantities ................................................... 4

2.1 Method.................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Population projections .......................................................................... 4

2.3 Waste growth projections ..................................................................... 6

2.4 Comparison of projected waste quantities and processing capacity ..... 9

3 Waste processing options .................................................................. 12

3.1 Options ............................................................................................... 12

4 Assessing the options......................................................................... 19

5 References ......................................................................................... 20

Appendices

Appendix A

Population projections

Appendix B

Base case waste projections



Page 169


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 1 http://aus.hybis.info/projects0/vc/awarded/aa002809/f_reports/02 options paper/f0002-aa002809-aar-03-options report.docx

Glossary

Municipal solid waste

Comprises:

� Household garbage collected through kerbside collection systems provided by member

councils

� Residue from resource recovery processes

� Green waste collected through bulk verge collections provided by member councils

� Inert materials collected through bulk verge collections provided by member councils

� Self haul waste deliveries to waste management facilities in the region and drop off

events such as household hazardous waste and e-waste

� Member council civil works wastes, including construction and demolition waste and

garden organics

� Member council office and workshop garbage

� Commercial garbage collected through the kerbside collection system provided by

member councils

Commercial garbage

Material collected from commercial premises through kerbside collection systems, or by specific

collection services for commercial properties using larger (>240l) bins, that is typically disposed

of to landfill or processed at a resource recovery facility. This stream is generally collected along

with residential premises as part of the household waste stream.

Commercial recycling

Material collected from commercial premises through kerbside collection systems, or by specific

collection services for commercial properties using larger (>240l) bins, that is typically sorted at

a materials recovery facility. This stream is generally collected along with residential premises

as part of the household waste stream.

Hazardous waste

Household materials that are hazardous and should not be placed in the kerbside bins. Items

include, but are not limited to, asbestos, gas bottles, batteries, fluorescent lights, fire

extinguishers, household chemicals, pharmaceuticals, radioactive materials.

Household garbage

Material collected through kerbside collection systems that is typically disposed of to landfill or

processed at a resource recovery facility.

Household recyclables

Co-mingled recyclable materials deposited in the yellow lidded bin through the kerbside

collection system which is typically sorted at a materials recovery facility.

Member council C&D waste

Materials generated from road works and construction provided by or on behalf of member

councils.



Page 170


Page 2 Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289

http://aus.hybis.info/projects0/vc/awarded/aa002809/f_reports/02 options paper/f0002-aa002809-aar-03-options report.docx

Member council office and workshop recycling

Material collected from member council offices and workshops through kerbside collection

systems that is typically sorted at a materials recovery facility. This stream is generally collected

along with residential premises as part of the household waste stream.

Member council office and workshop waste

Material collected from member council offices and workshops through kerbside collection

systems that is typically disposed of to landfill or processed at a resource recovery facility. This

stream is generally collected along with residential premises as part of the household recycling

stream.

Member council parks and gardens waste

Materials generated from parks and gardens maintenance provided by or on behalf of member

councils.

Residue from resource recovery processes

Residue from the sorting or processing of materials from sites that are owned by member

councils or service member councils. Currently, this stream consists of materials received from

the Neerabup resource recovery facility, the ATLAS resource recovery facility and the Wangara

Recycling Centre.

Self haul

Materials delivered to facilities in the region (currently Tamala Park and Balcatta transfer

station) by waste generators that are ultimately disposed of at the Tamala Park landfill. The

materials may be delivered by the household, commercial & industrial and construction &

demolition sectors in vehicles, trailers, skips or trucks.

Verge collected bulky waste

Bulky, typically inert, materials collected through verge collections provided to households by

member councils on a scheduled basis.

Verge collected green waste

Green waste collected through verge collections provided to households by member councils on

a scheduled basis.



Page 171



1 Introduction

Mindarie Regional Council’s (MRC) Strategic Plan 2009-2029 includes a strategy to ‘Develop an

integrated regional plan for the processing of at least Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)’. The Plan

will identify the waste processing capacity required to meet the projected waste generation for

identified waste streams in the region for the period to 2029.

This report presents:

� Projected future waste quantities for the duration of the Plan, assuming no major changes

in waste generation or waste management across the region

� A list of options that are available to Mindarie Regional Council and member councils for

the processing of municipal solid waste generated in the region

� Criteria against which the options will be assessed to determine their benefits and

impacts.

This report will be presented to MRC and the member councils at a workshop in late

January/early February 2010 where MRC and members can discuss and approve the options

and assessment criteria, and construct scenarios for future waste processing in the region. This

report and the workshop are the deliverables of Stage 2 of the development of the Plan. Stage 3

will involve the assessment of the options against the financial, environmental, social and other

criteria, and will inform the preparation of the Plan.

Stage 1 – Background paper

Preparation of a background paper to

provide the foundation for the development

of the Plan.

Stage 2 – Detailed analysis & scenario development

Projection of future waste quantities and

the development of waste management

and processing options to manage this

waste.

Stage 4 – Integrated regional plan

Preparation of the integrated regional

plan.

Stage 3 – Scenario modelling & evaluation

Modelling and evaluation of scenarios

(packages of options to address waste

demands) of waste management and

processing, and selection of a preferred

scenario to be adopted in the Plan.



Page 172




2 Projections of future waste quantities

This section presents projected future waste quantities over the lifespan of the Plan, assuming

there is no substantial change in waste management practices. This is referred to as the “base

case” and is based on historical waste disposal data and projected future populations for the

MRC member councils.

2.1 Method

Base case waste quantity projections were developed for each local government and each year.

The method for this entailed:

� developing population projections

� determining a ‘starting point’ for the waste projections

� comparing historical growth rates in waste generation with population growth to identify

any differences (e.g. whether waste generation increases at a faster or slower rate

compared to population growth)

� developing a base case projection taking account of population growth adjusted to

account for any difference in growth rates identified above

Historical data for waste generation across the region may differ from the data presented in the

Background paper that was issued in November 2009. Following the circulation of the

Background paper, more up to data was obtained for some councils.

2.2 Population projections

Data sources used to project population growth for each member council over the assessment

timeframe were:

• WA Population Report No. 6, Western Australia Tomorrow, Population projections for

planning regions 2004 to 2031 and local government areas 2004 to 2021 (WA Planning

Commission; 2005)

• Regional Population Growth, Australia, Publication 3218.0 (Australian Bureau of

Statistics; 2009)

To project future populations, the annual percentage changes from the WA Population Report

No 6 were calculated. Using the most recently available estimated resident population from the

Australian Bureau of Statistics (i.e. 2008) as a starting point, the population for each subsequent

year was estimated by applying the percentage change for that year to the population for the

previous year.

The projected population totals across the Mindarie region are shown for selected years in

Table 2-1. A chart of projected population growth by member council is provided in Figure 2-1.



Page 173



Table 2-1 Projected populations, Mindarie region

Year 2008 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 % Change

2009 to

2029

Cambridge 25,900 25,900 26,500 26,600 26,000 25,700 -1%

Joondalup 160,000 159,400 158,800 161,700 165,200 165,900 4%

Perth 15,100 16,300 20,800 22,800 23,800 24,200 48%

Stirling 193,300 194,100 202,200 209,000 215,800 225,300 16%

Victoria Park 31,100 31,500 33,700 35,200 37,100 38,600 23%

Vincent 30,500 30,500 31,200 32,400 33,700 35,500 17%

Wanneroo 134,300 141,200 168,600 197,600 226,400 255,900 81%

Mindarie Region 590,200 598,800 641,800 685,400 728,100 771,000 29%

Figure 2-1 Mindarie region, projected population growth by member council

As can be seen the current (2009) regional population is estimated to be 599,000. This is

projected to grow to 771,000 by 2029, an increase of 29%. Population growth varies

considerably across the region, with the highest growth expected in Wanneroo and Perth local

government areas (LGA). By contrast, population in Cambridge and Joondalup LGAs is

expected to remain relatively constant. Detailed historical and projected populations are

provided in Appendix A.

59

0,0

00

59

9,0

00

60

8,0

00

61

6,0

00

62

5,0

00

63

3,0

00

64

2,0

00

65

0,0

00

65

9,0

00

66

8,0

00

67

6,0

00

68

5,0

00

69

4,0

00

70

3,0

00

71

1,0

00

72

0,0

00

72

8,0

00

73

7,0

00

74

5,0

00

75

4,0

00

76

2,0

00

77

1,0

00

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Wanneroo

Vincent

Victoria Park

Stirling

Perth

Joondalup

Cambridge



Page 174




2.3 Waste growth projections

For the municipal sector, population and consumption patterns are the main influencing factors

in the total quantity of domestic waste and recyclables that enter the waste management

system. Historically, waste quantities have been found to increase at a faster rate than

population.

2.3.1 Projecting future growth rates

Over long time periods such as the 20 year MRC strategic planning period (2009 – 2029), the

assumed rate at which waste is projected to grow or fall above that of population has a

significant impact on final projections.

Figure 2-2 shows projections of garbage generation assuming an initial per capita growth rate of

1% per year (2009-10) trending linearly to an endpoint at 2028-29 ranging from -2% to +2%.

The results show the significant variability in endpoint projections depending on the assumed

growth rate.

Figure 2-2 Variability in garbage generation projections, based on assumed growth rate

It is difficult to predict which trend is most likely. On the one hand, there is community pressure

and government policy commitments to reducing waste, and per capita consumption of

newsprint and glass, for example, seem likely to decline. On the other hand, to date resource

efficiency efforts and declines in particular materials have made little impact on waste growth.

An analysis of historical waste quantity data provides the best indication of the likely future

growth rate.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

To

nnes g

arb

ag

e

Garbage generation grows in 2010 at the annual rate of population + 1%, subsiding in 2029 to population + ….

-2% -1% 0% 1% 2% Population



Page 175



2.3.2 Current growth rates

For this study historical waste quantity data was obtained from each member council in order to

assess current growth rates. Annual data on garbage and recyclables collection quantities was

obtained for the six year period 2003-04 to 2008-09 (except for all 2008/09 data for City of

Wanneroo and 2008/09 recycling data for Town of Victoria Park which was not available) .

A comparative analysis of total waste generation and population was undertaken for the seven

member councils over the six year timeframe. Annual gross state product was also included in

the assessment to test whether this would be a better indicator of total waste generation.

In order to compare the three indicators (population, waste quantity, gross state product) the

value for each of the indicators was adjusted to a common index of 100 for this 2003-04. The

indexed value for subsequent years was calculated by comparing the indicator value for that

year to its value in 2003-04 factored by 100. The results are shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2 Total household garbage and recyclables generation and population, 2003-04 to 2008-09,

Mindarie region

Parameter Item 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Quantity

(tonnes)

Household garbage

(Mindarie councils ex Stirling)

133,813 130,318 146,710 150,797 156,370 156,715


(Mindarie councils ex Stirling)

15,016 15,892 17,298 16,934 24,408 27,849

Household garbage (Stirling) 75,067 79,688 79,063 80,006 79,691 80,252

Total household garbage and

recyclables

223,896 225,898 243,071 247,737 260,469 264,815

Indexed garbage and

recyclables

100 101 109 111 116 118

Population Total (ex Stirling) 349,982 359,164 370,347 383,473 396,882 404,706

Stirling 181,227 183,065 185,485 189,495 193,300 194,139

Mindarie total 531,209 542,229 555,832 572,968 590,182 598,845

Indexed total 100 102 105 108 111 113

% change 2.1% 2.5% 3.1% 3.0% 1.5%

Total + 1% 3.1% 3.5% 4.1% 4.0% 2.5%

Population + 1% 531,209 547,541 566,753 589,893 613,514 628,655

Indexed population + 1% 100 103 107 111 115 118

Gross State

Product

Total 119186 123707 129996 139247 146444

Indexed gross state product 100 104 109 117 123

A plot of indexed data shows a good match between the indices for “population plus 1 %” and

household garbage and recyclables (see Figure 2-3).



Page 176




Figure 2-3 Comparison of population and waste generation indices, 2003-04 to 2008-09, Mindarie region

In developing waste projections for the Mindarie region, it has been assumed that per capita

waste generation is unlikely to increase indefinitely due to an increasingly resource-conscious

community, efficiency improvements (e.g. product light-weighting, reduced packaging), and

behavioural change initiatives. For the purpose of projecting waste quantities therefore, per

capita waste quantities are assumed to increase initially at 1% per year then decrease gradually

to zero by the end of the strategic planning period (2028-29).

2.3.3 Waste projections

Using the population data and assumptions in relation to increases in generation, base case

estimates of future council-collected waste quantities were developed for each local government

area. A summary is presented for selected years in Table 2-3. Detailed data are presented on

an annual basis for each member council in Appendix B.

Projections include garbage and recyclables collected by councils from commercial premises.

There is however considerable uncertainty over the extent to which member councils will

provide these services, which may impact on the tonnes available for future processing.

GSP indexed

population indexed

household garbage and recyclables, indexed

population indexed + 1%

90

100

110

120

130

2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

AcronymsG = GarbageR = Co-mingled recyclablesGSP = Gross State Product



Page 177



Table 2-3 Quantities of council-collected wastes, Mindarie region

Council-collected waste stream Council/Region 2008-09 2013-14 2018-19 2023-24 2028-29

Household garbage

Cambridge 9,000 9,600 10,000 10,000 9,900

Joondalup 54,600 56,900 59,700 62,100 62,700

Perth 5,900 7,900 8,900 9,500 9,600

Stirling 80,000 87,100 92,900 97,700 102,500

Victoria Park 9,900 11,000 11,900 12,800 13,300

Vincent 13,300 14,200 15,200 16,100 17,100

Wanneroo 49,000 61,100 73,900 86,100 97,900

Region 221,700 247,800 272,500 294,300 313,100

Commercial & industrial garbage Region 37,000 45,000 51,800 57,700 62,700

Verge collections - bulky waste Region 25,300 27,700 30,100 32,200 33,900

Verge collections - green waste Region 18,300 20,100 21,700 23,000 24,200

Household recycling Region 23,900 27,300 30,700 33,700 36,300

Commercial & industrial recycling Region 2,000 2,400 2,700 2,800 2,900

Note: Insufficient data are available to develop forward projections of self haul wastes, household hazardous wastes and council office and workshop wastes. Projections have also not been made for council infrastructure works wastes, as these are highly variable and are dependent on budgeted council capital works and maintenance programs.

2.4 Comparison of projected waste quantities and processing capacity

2.4.1 Household garbage

Within the Mindarie region, processing capacity for household garbage is currently provided by

the Neerabup and ATLAS resource recovery facilities (RRF). Additional processing capacity is

currently provided outside the region at the AnaeCo RRF in Shenton Park.

ATLAS resource recovery facility

The ATLAS RRF in Stirling is a sorting facility for household waste collected by the City of

Stirling. At the facility, recyclables (ferrous and non-ferrous metals, recyclable plastics and

glass) and the organic fraction (food scraps, garden organics and paper) are sorted from

household garbage. The recyclables are consolidated and sent to reprocessors for recovery.

The organic fraction is transported to an open windrow composting facility at Calingiri, some

120km north of Perth. Residue from the sorting facility is transported to Tamala Park landfill for

disposal. The processing capacity of the sorting facility is 66,000 tonne/yr. This capacity is

insufficient to handle all of Stirling’s household garbage, which is currently around

80,000 tonne/yr.

The ATLAS RRF is operated by the Atlas Group under a processing contract with the City of

Stirling, which operates a single bin system for household waste. The contract operates to

August 2013, with an optional three year extension to August 2016.

Neerabup resource recovery facility

The Neerabup RRF is a mechanical biological treatment plant for household garbage. The

facility employs a two stage aerobic composting process that converts the organic fraction of the



Page 178




garbage into compost. Metals are also separated for reprocessing. Residue from the facility is

transported to Tamala Park landfill for disposal. The processing capacity of the facility is

100,000 tonne/yr.

The Neerabup RRF is operated by Biovision 2020 under a processing contract with Mindarie

Regional Council. The facility is primarily designed to receive household garbage from areas

that have kerbside recycling programs in place that separately collect and recover packaging

materials and paper. The processing contract for the Neerabup RRF operates for a 20 year

period until 2029.

AnaeCo resource recovery facility

The Western Metropolitan Regional Council (WMRC) has entered into a commercial

arrangement with AnaeCo for the development of an RRF for processing of household garbage

at the WMRC’s Brockway Waste Transfer Station in Shenton Park. The facility includes a

materials sorting process to separate the organic-rich fraction from household garbage, with the

organic fraction conveyed to an enclosed vessel in which hybrid aerobic / anaerobic processing

occurs yielding biogas and an organic product.

The facility is being developed in two stages. At present (December 2009) Stage 1 performance

trials are complete and are being independently assessed against performance criteria. If

successful, Stage 2 development will proceed (subject to securing debt finance and

environmental approvals) which will increase the facility’s processing capacity to

55,000 tonne/yr.

Household garbage generation within WMRC region is in the order of 30,000 tonne/yr.

Assuming Stage 2 proceeds as planned there will therefore be in the order of 25,000 tonne/yr of

spare processing capacity available at the facility. The City of Stirling has entered into an

agreement to utilise the AnaeCo RRF for processing of household garbage in excess of the

capacity of the ATLAS sorting facility.

Processing capacity review

Household garbage generation in Mindarie region is currently 220,000 tonne/yr (Table 2-3).

With the inclusion of the 37,000 tonne/yr of commercial premises garbage, the total quantity of

garbage collected in the Mindarie region by member councils is 257,000 tonne/yr.

The currently contracted MSW processing capacity provided to Mindarie member councils by

the Neerabup and ATLAS RRFs is 166,000 tonne/yr. Some additional processing capacity is

provided to the City of Stirling by the Stage 1 AnaeCo RRF.

Based on the above, in the order of 90,000 of tonne/yr of council collected garbage in the region

is currently not processed and is disposed directly to landfill.

The processing contract between ATLAS and the City of Stirling ends in August 2013 or, if the

contract extension is exercised, in August 2016. At this time (August 2016), it is expected that

around 20,000 tonne/yr of processing capacity may be available to the City of Stirling at the

AnaeCo RRF, assuming it is developed as planned. The combined processing capacity

available from the AnaeCo and Neerabup RRFs will then be around 120,000 tonne/yr,

compared with total projected (household and commercial premises) garbage collected by

councils of around 306,000 tonne/yr.

A summary of contracted processing capacity and garbage generation is provided at various

time points in Table 2-4.



Page 179



Table 2-4 Comparison of available processing capacity and projected garbage generation,

Mindarie region

Item 2009-10 2015-16 2029-30

Available processing capacity

Neerabup RRF 100,000 100,000 100,000

ATLAS RRF 66,000 0 0

AnaeCo RRF < 5,000 ≈ 20,000 ≈ 20,000

Total available capacity 170,000 120,000 120,000

Projected quantity of council-collected garbage

Household garbage 227,000 258,000 317,000

Commercial premises garbage 37,000 48,000 63,000

Total garbage 264,000 306,000 380,000

Projected quantity of garbage in excess of available processing capacity

Household garbage only 57,000 138,000 197,000

Total garbage (household & commercial) 94,000 186,000 260,000



Page 180




3 Waste processing options

A wide range of options are available to the MRC for the processing of MSW. When we say

options, we are referring to discrete actions, for example, the establishment of a resource

recovery facility, implementation of an education campaign, or the adoption of a 3 bin collection

system for household waste. To meet the processing needs of the region, MRC will need to

implement multiple complementary options which together address the total quantity of MSW

generated as well as the varying nature of the individual streams that make up MSW. Such a

package of complementary options is referred to as a “scenario”.

The intention of this stage of the project – comprising of this report and a workshop in early

2010 – is to develop a comprehensive list of options available to MRC and member councils for

the processing of MSW generated in the region. Once the list of options is finalised, the impact

of each option will be assessed, which will inform the development of scenarios.

3.1 Options

The various technology, siting and logistical options that are considered to be viable are

presented in this section, sorted by waste stream or theme. Each themed table below is like a

menu from which MRC and member councils may select one or more options that address the

particular waste stream. Some options in the list are complementary and may be packaged

together in a scenario. Some options achieve the same objective or are not complementary to

other options, and these options would not be packaged together in a scenario.

The options address waste streams within the definition of MSW and household and

commercial recyclables.

These options are based on extensive background research including a solid understanding of

the waste profile of member councils, current waste management infrastructure and processing

capacities within the Mindarie region and other Perth regional councils, the legal and policy

restrictions on waste processing, as well as information gathered during meetings and

discussions with representatives from each member council. The base case modelling also

establishes MRC’s future waste processing needs and therefore also informed the options

development process.

The workshop in early 2010 will provide the opportunity for MRC or member councils to discuss

these options further and contribute any other options.

At this stage, we have outlined options at a high level. We have not identified issues such as the

timeframe for implementation, material sources, responsible authority and specific locations.

These details will be influenced by the broader scenario – that will define what options are

packaged together and how they interact with each other –and therefore will be determined at

the scenarios stage.



Page 181

Inte

gra

ted r

egio

nal pla

n for

the p

rocess

ing o

f m

unic

ipal s

olid

waste

Hyd

er

Consultin

g P

ty L

td-A

BN

76 1

04 4

85 2

89

Page 1

3h

ttp

://a

us.h

yb

is.in

fo/p

roje

cts

0/v

c/a

wa

rde

d/a

a0

02

80

9/f_

repo

rts/0

2 o

ptio

ns p

aper/

f00

02

-aa0

02

80

9-a

ar-

03

-op

tio

ns r

epo

rt.d

ocx

Garb

age p

rocess

ing

One o

r m

ore

of

the

op

tio

ns b

elo

w f

or

the p

rocessin

g o

f g

arb

age c

ou

ld b

e s

ele

cte

d.

Facto

rs influ

encin

g th

e d

ecis

ion

to a

do

pt o

ne o

r m

ore

option

s (

i.e.

est

ablis

h o

ne o

r m

ore

fa

cilit

ies)

inclu

de a

va

ilabili

ty o

f la

nd,

geog

raph

ic c

overa

ge

, fa

cili

ty c

apa

city,

fe

edsto

ck a

nd

th

e e

sta

blis

hm

ent

of oth

er

facili

tie

s

(e.g

. a p

urp

ose-b

uilt

sort

ing

facili

ty fo

r se

lf h

au

l a

nd v

erg

e b

ulk

y m

ate

ria

ls).

No

. O

pti

on

G

arb

ag

e

Rec

ycla

ble

s

Household garbage

Commercial garbage

Council garbage

Residue

Verge bulky

Self haul

Council C&D waste

Hazardous waste


Commercial recyclables

Council recyclables

1

Follo

win

g c

onclu

sio

n o

f exi

sting c

ontr

act arr

ang

em

ents

, sort

ing o

f all

mate

rials

colle

cte

d thro

ugh t

he k

erb

sid

e c

olle

ction s

yste

m fro

m C

ity o

f S

tirl

ing a

t a d

irty

MR

F

locate

d in t

he s

outh

of th

e r

egio

n.

� �

�

� �

�

2

Esta

blis

hm

ent

of a

n a

naero

bic

dig

estion facili

ty in t

he r

egio

n.

� �

�

3

Esta

blis

hm

ent

of a

n a

ero

bic

com

posting facili

ty in t

he r

egio

n.

� �

�

4

Pro

cessin

g o

f a p

roport

ion o

f m

ate

rials

gen

era

ted in t

he s

outh

ern

co

uncils

at th

e

Ana

eC

o f

acili

ty.

� �

�

5

Esta

blis

hm

ent

of a th

erm

al energ

y fr

om

waste

facili

ty, (e

.g.

gasific

ation, pyro

lysis

or

com

bustion)

in t

he r

egio

n.

� �

�

�

�

�

�

6

Pro

cessin

g o

f m

ate

rials

at a t

herm

al energ

y fro

m w

aste

facili

ty locate

d o

uts

ide o

f th

e

regio

n a

nd d

evelo

ped b

y,

or

in c

onju

nction w

ith, a

noth

er

regio

nal co

uncil

e.g

. E

MR

C.

� �

�

�

�

�

�

7

Co

nsolid

atio

n a

nd s

ort

ing o

f m

ate

rials

at sm

all-

footp

rint sort

ing a

nd t

ransfe

r fa

cili

ties

esta

blis

hed c

lose t

o t

he p

oin

t of g

enera

tion,

pri

or

to t

ransport

to landfill

or

a r

esourc

e

recovery

facili

ty.

� �

�

�



Page 182

In

tegra

ted r

egio

nal pla

n f

or

the p

rocess

ing o

f m

unic

ipal s

olid

waste

Page 1

4

Hyd

er

Consulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76 1

04 4

85 2

89

h

ttp

://a

us.h

ybis

.info

/pro

jects

0/v

c/a

wa

rde

d/a

a0

02

80

9/f_

repo

rts/0

2 o

ptio

ns p

aper/

f00

02

-aa0

02

80

9-a

ar-

03

-op

tions r

epo

rt.d

ocx

Colle

ctio

n s

yste

ms

Th

e w

aste

pro

cessin

g te

ch

nolo

gie

s s

ele

cted w

ill la

rge

ly d

ete

rmin

e th

e k

erb

sid

e c

olle

ctio

n s

yste

ms r

equ

ired

to d

eliv

er

the a

ppro

priate

fe

edsto

ck t

o

facili

ties. F

or

exa

mp

le,

if a

gre

en w

ast

e p

rocessi

ng f

acili

ty w

as e

sta

blis

he

d in th

e r

egio

n,

it m

ay

be a

ppro

pri

ate

to in

tro

du

ce a

gre

en

wast

e k

erb

sid

e b

in.

Diff

ere

nt

co

llect

ion s

yste

ms c

an b

e a

dop

ted in d

iffe

rent

me

mb

er

cou

ncils

or

ge

ogra

ph

ic a

rea

s,

influe

nced b

y th

e w

ast

e p

rofile

.

No

. O

pti

on

G

arb

ag

e

Gre

en

R

ec

ycla

ble

s

Household garbage

Commercial garbage

Council garbage

Residue

Verge inert

Self haul

Council C&D waste

Hazardous waste

Household green waste

Verge garden

Council parks & garden waste



Council recyclables

8

Ado

ption o

f a 1

bin

kerb

sid

e c

olle

ction s

yste

m c

onta

inin

g a

ll m

ate

rials

in t

he C

ity o

f

Stirl

ing.

�

�

�

9

Ado

ption o

f a 2

bin

kerb

sid

e c

olle

ction s

yste

m –

one c

onta

inin

g o

rga

nic

mate

rials

(com

pri

sing f

ood a

nd g

reen w

aste

) and th

e o

ther

conta

inin

g a

ll oth

er

mate

rials

. �

�

�

10

A

do

ption o

f a 2

bin

kerb

sid

e c

olle

ction s

yste

m –

one c

onta

inin

g r

ecyc

lable

mate

rials

(card

board

, p

aper

and r

igid

packagin

g)

and t

he o

ther

conta

inin

g a

ll oth

er

mate

rials

. �

�

�

11

A

do

ption o

f a 3

bin

kerb

sid

e c

olle

ction s

yste

m –

one c

onta

inin

g r

ecyc

lable

mate

rials

(card

board

, p

aper

and r

igid

packagin

g),

one c

onta

inin

g g

reen w

aste

and t

he o

ther

conta

inin

g a

ll oth

er

mate

rials

.

�

�

�

12

A

do

ption o

f a 3

bin

kerb

sid

e c

olle

ction s

yste

m –

one c

onta

inin

g r

ecyc

lable

mate

rials

(card

board

, p

aper

and r

igid

packagin

g),

one c

onta

inin

g o

rganic

mate

rials

(fo

od a

nd

gre

en w

aste

) and th

e o

ther

conta

inin

g a

ll oth

er

mate

rials

.

�

�

�



Page 183

Inte

gra

ted r

egio

nal pla

n for

the p

rocess

ing o

f m

unic

ipal s

olid

waste

Hyd

er

Consultin

g P

ty L

td-A

BN

76 1

04 4

85 2

89

Page 1

5h

ttp

://a

us.h

yb

is.in

fo/p

roje

cts

0/v

c/a

wa

rde

d/a

a0

02

80

9/f_

repo

rts/0

2 o

ptio

ns p

aper/

f00

02

-aa0

02

80

9-a

ar-

03

-op

tio

ns r

epo

rt.d

ocx

Recyc

lable

s

Th

ere

is

only

one m

ate

ria

ls r

eco

very

fa

cili

ty (

MR

F)

in t

he M

ind

ari

e r

eg

ion

an

d lim

ite

d s

lack c

ap

acity

at

MR

Fs

acr

oss the

Pert

h m

etr

op

olit

an a

rea. It m

ay

the

refo

re b

e a

pri

ority

for

MR

C to e

sta

blis

h M

RF

cap

acity

in the

regio

n t

o r

ed

uce tra

nsport

co

sts

an

d im

pacts

for

mem

ber

cou

ncils

.

No

. O

pti

on

H

ou

seh

old

re

cycla

ble

s

Co

mm

erc

ial

rec

ycla

ble

s

Co

un

cil

re

cycla

ble

s

13

P

urs

ue c

ontinu

ous im

pro

vem

ent

in r

ed

ucin

g r

esid

ue g

enera

ted b

y th

e W

angara

MR

F t

hro

ugh a

ctions

such a

s m

ore

inte

nsiv

e m

ate

rials

separa

tion a

nd e

ducatio

n t

o r

ed

uce c

onta

min

ation.

�

�

�

14

M

RC

to t

ake o

ver

ow

ners

hip

of W

angara

MR

F f

or

the s

ort

ing

of re

cycla

ble

s c

olle

cte

d b

y m

em

ber

councils

.

�

�

�

15

M

RC

to f

acili

tate

a c

ontr

act/s for

the r

egio

n-w

ide s

ort

ing o

f re

cycla

ble

s o

n b

ehalf o

f m

em

ber

councils

to a

chie

ve s

cale

econom

ies.

�

�

�

Gre

en w

aste

Th

e o

ptio

ns b

elo

w r

eflect th

e c

ontinu

ation o

f curr

ent

arr

an

ge

me

nts

an

d a

ltern

ative o

ption

s w

hic

h w

ou

ld m

ost

likely

be c

oord

inate

d b

y M

RC

.

No

. O

pti

on

H

ou

seh

old

gre

en

w

aste

(so

urc

e

sep

ara

ted

)

Verg

e g

reen

C

ou

ncil p

ark

s &

g

ard

en

waste

16

Co

ntinuatio

n o

f exi

sting a

rrangem

ents

for

verg

e-c

olle

cte

d g

reen w

aste

: com

merc

ial opera

tor

is

responsib

le f

or

receiv

al and p

rocessin

g o

f m

ate

rials

colle

cte

d fro

m S

tirlin

g, C

am

bri

dge,

Vic

Park

, V

incent and P

ert

h; council

esta

blis

hes a

rran

gem

ents

for

the r

eceiv

al and p

rocessin

g o

f

mate

rials

colle

cte

d f

rom

Wann

ero

o a

nd J

oondalu

p a

t a f

acili

ty in th

e r

egio

n.

�

17

Esta

blis

hm

ent

of

contr

act

for

the r

eceiv

al an

d p

rocessin

g o

f verg

e-c

olle

cte

d g

reen w

aste

fro

m

Wannero

o a

nd J

oondalu

p.

�

18

Esta

blis

hm

ent

of

contr

act

for

the r

eceiv

al an

d p

rocessin

g o

f verg

e c

olle

cte

d g

reen w

aste

fro

m

all

mem

ber

councils

.

�

19

Esta

blis

hm

ent

of

facili

ties in the r

egio

n to r

ece

ive a

nd p

rocess g

reen w

aste

fro

m a

ll m

em

ber

councils

. �

�

�



Page 184

In

tegra

ted r

egio

nal pla

n f

or

the p

rocess

ing o

f m

unic

ipal s

olid

waste

Page 1

6

Hyd

er

Consulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76 1

04 4

85 2

89

h

ttp

://a

us.h

ybis

.info

/pro

jects

0/v

c/a

wa

rde

d/a

a0

02

80

9/f_

repo

rts/0

2 o

ptio

ns p

aper/

f00

02

-aa0

02

80

9-a

ar-

03

-op

tions r

epo

rt.d

ocx

Inert

wa

ste

s

Th

e fo

llow

ing o

ptio

ns

to a

ddre

ss th

e inert

co

mp

onen

ts o

f verg

e b

ulk

y m

ate

ria

ls,

self h

au

l a

nd c

ou

ncil

C&

D w

ast

e a

re p

redo

min

an

tly

alte

rnative

me

chan

ism

s to

dri

ve m

axim

um

re

covery

and a

chie

ve

a r

esid

ue

that

is s

uitab

le f

or

dis

po

sal at

an in

ert

lan

dfill.

In a

dd

itio

n t

o th

e d

ire

ct fin

ancia

l a

nd

envir

on

men

tal be

ne

fits

of re

coveri

ng

the

se

mate

ria

ls,

div

ers

ion o

f th

e in

ert

ma

teri

als

to

an

ine

rt la

nd

fill

will

co

ntr

ibu

te t

o p

rolo

ng

ing t

he

life

of

Ta

ma

la

Park

.

No

. O

pti

on

G

arb

ag

e

Household garbage

Commercial garbage

Council garbage

Residue

Verge bulky

Self haul

Council C&D waste

Hazardous waste

20

For

verg

e c

olle

cte

d in

ert

waste

s a

nd c

ouncil

C&

D w

aste

, b

uild

min

imum

recovery

targ

ets

into

day labour

perf

orm

ance s

tand

ard

s o

r contr

acts

with

com

merc

ial opera

tors

to d

rive m

axi

mum

recovery

an

d a

chie

ve a

resid

ue t

hat

is s

uitable

for

dis

posal at a

n

inert

lan

dfill.

�

�

21

For

self h

aul w

aste

s, b

uild

min

imum

recovery

targ

ets

in t

o t

he c

ontr

acts

of

opera

tors

of

MR

C o

r m

em

ber

council

ow

ned facili

ties to d

rive m

axi

mum

recovery

and a

chie

ve a

resid

ue t

hat is

suitable

for

dis

posal at

an in

ert

landfill.

�

22

Pro

cess s

elf h

aul and v

erg

e b

ulk

y m

ate

rials

at

a p

urp

ose-b

uilt

sort

ing f

acili

ty.

�

�

23

Requir

e a

ll self h

aul d

eliv

eri

es to b

e s

ort

ed p

rior

to d

isposal th

rou

gh d

esig

n o

f fa

cili

ties

and p

ricin

g.

�

24

Restr

ict dis

posal of

inert

mate

rials

at T

am

ala

Park

to p

reserv

e landfill

space,

eith

er

thro

ugh p

ricin

g o

r oth

er

restr

ictions.

�

�

�

25

Esta

blis

h a

C&

D r

ecyc

ling f

acili

ty/ies in the r

egio

n

�



Page 185

Inte

gra

ted r

egio

nal pla

n for

the p

rocess

ing o

f m

unic

ipal s

olid

waste

Hyd

er

Consultin

g P

ty L

td-A

BN

76 1

04 4

85 2

89

Page 1

7h

ttp

://a

us.h

yb

is.in

fo/p

roje

cts

0/v

c/a

wa

rde

d/a

a0

02

80

9/f_

repo

rts/0

2 o

ptio

ns p

aper/

f00

02

-aa0

02

80

9-a

ar-

03

-op

tio

ns r

epo

rt.d

ocx

Hazard

ous w

aste

Th

e p

rovis

ion o

f h

aza

rdo

us w

aste

dro

p o

ff p

oin

ts o

r colle

ction

eve

nts

is

critical fo

r pu

blic

health a

nd s

afe

ty a

nd to r

edu

ce c

onta

min

ation o

f str

eam

s th

at

are

be

ing

pro

cess

ed a

t R

RF

s. A

ll five

of th

e o

ption

s b

elo

w a

re c

om

ple

menta

ry a

nd c

ou

ld b

e a

dop

ted

in

on

e s

cen

ario.

No

. O

pti

on

G

arb

ag

e

Household garbage

Commercial garbage

Council garbage

Residue

Verge inert

Self haul

Council C&D waste

Hazardous waste

26

Mem

ber

councils

intr

oduce g

uid

elin

es f

or

the c

orr

ect

managem

ent of cou

ncil

pre

mis

es

(off

ices a

nd w

ork

shops)

waste

s t

o m

axi

mis

e r

esourc

e r

ecove

ry a

nd e

nsure

that

garb

age is p

rocessable

at

resourc

e r

ecovery

facili

ties.

�

�

27

Mem

ber

councils

pro

vid

e r

ecyclin

g f

acili

ties a

t council

pre

mis

es inclu

din

g o

ffic

es a

nd

work

shops for

mate

rials

that

are

not

suitable

for

dis

posal in

the g

arb

age b

ins,

such a

s

fluore

scent glo

bes a

nd o

il filters

.

28

Pro

vid

e H

HW

dro

p o

ff facili

ties a

t all

MR

C o

r m

em

ber

council

waste

manag

em

ent

facili

ties a

nd c

ouncil

pre

mis

es that

receiv

e w

aste

s in t

he r

egio

n.

�

29

Pro

vid

e H

HW

dis

posal d

ays th

roug

hout

the r

egio

n, pre

fera

bly

as p

art

of

a s

tate

wid

e

pro

gra

m.

�

30

Pro

vid

e a

mo

bile

HH

W d

rop o

ff f

acili

ty,

opera

ted b

y M

RC

, th

at can c

olle

ct

mate

rials

at

hig

h tra

ffic

and e

asy t

o a

ccess a

reas s

uch a

s s

hoppin

g c

entr

es.

�



Page 186

In

tegra

ted r

egio

nal pla

n f

or

the p

rocess

ing o

f m

unic

ipal s

olid

waste

Page 1

8

Hyd

er

Consulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76 1

04 4

85 2

89

h

ttp

://a

us.h

ybis

.info

/pro

jects

0/v

c/a

wa

rde

d/a

a0

02

80

9/f_

repo

rts/0

2 o

ptio

ns p

aper/

f00

02

-aa0

02

80

9-a

ar-

03

-op

tions r

epo

rt.d

ocx

Resourc

e r

ecovery

park

s

Th

ere

are

curr

ently

limited d

rop o

ff p

oin

ts f

or

ho

useho

lders

to d

isp

ose

of

waste

in t

he M

ind

ari

e r

eg

ion

. F

or

ho

use

ho

lders

in th

e inn

er,

so

uth

ern

co

un

cils

in t

he r

eg

ion th

e c

lose

st f

acili

ties

are

outs

ide o

f th

e r

eg

ion. R

eso

urc

e r

eco

very

park

s c

ould

pro

vid

e d

rop o

ff f

aci

litie

s fo

r a

ll w

ast

e s

trea

ms, and

could

be

co-l

ocate

d w

ith o

ther

waste

man

age

men

t in

fra

str

uctu

re, su

ch a

s tra

nsf

er

station

s o

r R

RF

s.

No

. O

pti

on

G

arb

ag

e

Gre

en

R

ec

ycla

ble

s

Household garbage

Commercial garbage

Council garbage

Residue

Verge inert

Self haul

Council C&D waste

Hazardous waste

Household green waste

Verge green

Council parks & garden waste



Council recyclables

31

P

rovi

de r

esourc

e r

ecove

ry p

ark

s thro

ugho

ut

the r

egio

n for

dro

p o

ff o

f househ

old

waste

str

eam

s a

nd s

elf h

aul m

ate

rials

. Locations c

ould

inclu

de B

alc

atta tra

nsfe

r sta

tion,

Tam

ala

Park

, N

eera

bup, W

angara

, O

sborn

e P

ark

, H

erd

sm

ans,

Mala

ga.

�

�

�

�

Dis

posal

Relia

nce o

n la

ndfill

dis

po

sa

l will

re

du

ce

with

th

e e

xpan

sio

n o

f w

ast

e p

roce

ssin

g c

apa

city

in t

he r

egio

n.

Su

ccessi

ve s

tate

go

vern

ments

have

imp

lem

ente

d a

po

licy

that

pro

hib

its

develo

pm

ent

of la

ndfills

on th

e S

wan

Coa

sta

l P

lain

, m

ean

ing t

hat

the

Min

da

rie r

eg

ion w

ill b

e r

elia

nt

on

lan

dfills

loca

ted o

uts

ide o

f th

e r

egio

n. M

RC

could

adop

t on

e o

r bo

th d

isp

osal o

ptio

ns,

in

flu

enced

by

acce

ss

and t

ransport

co

sts

and

im

pa

cts

.

No

. O

pti

on

G

arb

ag

e

Household garbage

Commercial garbage

Council garbage

Residue

Verge inert

Self haul

Council C&D waste

Hazardous waste

32

Dis

posal of

resid

ue fro

m r

esourc

e r

ecovery

pro

cesses a

t S

on o

f T

am

ala

lan

dfill

locate

d in G

in G

in.

�

33

Dis

posal of

resid

ue fro

m r

esourc

e r

ecovery

pro

cesses a

t R

ed H

ill landfill.

�



Page 187



4 Assessing the options

Each option will be assessed against financial, environmental, social and risk criteria, providing

a picture of its overall benefit and impact. This will provide MRC and member councils with the

information needed to develop a preferred scenario, which will form the basis of the Integrated

Regional Plan. The criteria against which the above options will be assessed are outlined in

Table 4-5 below.

Table 4-5 Assessment criteria

Criteria Description

ENVIRONMENTAL

Waste diverted

(tonnes)

Tonnage of waste diverted from landfill.

Resource recovered

(tonnes)

Recovery of recyclable materials

Net energy balance

(qualitative)

A relative assessment of the energy produced such as electricity from biogas or waste combustion

and energy consumed, such as mains electricity, gas, liquid fuels.

Greenhouse impacts

and benefits

(qualitative)

A relative assessment of the greenhouse impacts and benefits. Impacts could include energy

consumed in construction and operation of facilities, energy consumed by waste transport,

alternative and renewable energy generated and energy saved by resource recovery.

Local environmental

impacts (qualitative)

A relative assessment of other impacts upon the local environment such as land use, dust, water

contamination, air quality and attraction of vermin.

FINANCIAL

Financial cost

($ and $/tonne)

Total costs (upfront and ongoing) over the life of the project. Costs will be presented as region

wide, per Council and per household. Cost certainty will be indicated.

SOCIAL

Community

acceptance

(qualitative)

Likely acceptance by the community (including the local community, broader community and

interest groups) based on knowledge of reactions to comparable technologies and facilities.

Behavioural change

(qualitative)

The level of behaviour change required in the community for successful implementation. For

example, changes to segregation of household wastes.

Odour and visual

amenity

(qualitative)

Impacts on the community related to facility siting and technology. Includes the potential for

different types of technologies to generate odours and the potential for successful odour control,

the typical size and potential intrusiveness and the potential for litter generation.

Traffic, noise and

congestion

(qualitative)

The potential for the transportation of waste to and from the facilities to result in noise and amenity

impacts on the community, including other road users.

RISK

Contractual

(qualitative)

Level of contractual control.

Technology related

(qualitative)

The degree of innovation, proveness of the technology or approach, operational complexity, risk,

scalability, compatibility with feedstock and flexibility in feedstock.

Geographic / location

(qualitative)

Risks associated with factors such as environmental characteristics, zoning, access and current

and future uses.



Page 188




5 References

Western Australian Planning Commission (2005), WA Population Report No. 6, Western

Australia Tomorrow, Population projections for planning regions 2004 to 2031 and local

government areas 2004 to 2021, Albert Facey House, November 2005

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009), Regional Population Growth, Australia, Publication

3218.0, Released at 11.30am (Canberra time) 23 April 2009



Page 189


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 http://aus.hybis.info/projects0/vc/awarded/aa002809/f_reports/02 options paper/f0002-aa002809-aar-03-options report.docxions report.docx

Appendix A

Population projections



Page 190

Inte

gra

ted r

egio

nal pla

n for

the p

rocess

ing o

f m

unic

ipal s

olid

waste

Page A

-1

Hyd

er

Consultin

g P

ty L

td-A

BN

76 1

04 4

85 2

89

http

://a

us.h

yb

is.in

fo/p

roje

cts

0/v

c/a

wa

rde

d/a

a0

02

80

9/f_

repo

rts/0

2 o

ptio

ns p

aper/

f00

02

-aa0

02

80

9-a

ar-

03

-op

tio

ns r

epo

rt.d

ocx

His

tori

cal

Est

ima

ted

Re

sid

en

t P

op

ula

tio

n

Est

ima

ted

Re

sid

en

t p

op

ula

tio

ns

fro

m A

BS

Ca

talo

gu

e 3

21

8.0

Re

gio

na

l Po

pu

lati

on

Gro

wth

, A

ust

ralia

, R

ele

ase

d a

t 1

1.3

0a

m (

Ca

nb

err

a t

ime

) 2

3 A

pri

l 20

09

Co

un

cil

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

Ca

mb

rid

ge

24

,63

8

2

4,8

54

25

,21

5

2

5,5

31

25

,92

4

Joo

nd

alu

p1

57

,84

0

15

7,4

15

1

57

,87

1

15

8,2

27

1

59

,98

6

Pe

rth

9,9

28

11

,26

5

1

2,4

56

13

,63

5

1

5,1

13

Sti

rlin

g1

81

,22

7

18

3,0

65

1

85

,48

5

18

9,4

95

1

93

,30

0

Vic

tori

a P

ark

28

,56

3

2

8,9

43

29

,40

4

3

0,1

56

31

,14

8

Vin

cen

t2

8,3

93

28

,95

4

2

9,5

04

30

,21

8

3

0,4

53

Wa

nn

ero

o1

00

,62

0

10

7,7

33

1

15

,89

7

12

5,7

06

1

34

,25

8

Re

gio

n5

31

,20

9

54

2,2

29

5

55

,83

2

57

2,9

68

5

90

,18

2

Ad

op

ted

Po

pu

lati

on

Pro

ject

ion

Co

un

cil

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

Ca

mb

rid

ge

25

,92

4

2

5,9

24

26

,03

1

2

6,1

37

26

,24

4

2

6,3

51

26

,45

7

2

6,5

64

26

,56

4

2

6,5

64

26

,56

4

2

6,5

64

26

,45

7

2

6,3

51

26

,24

4

2

6,1

37

26

,03

1

2

5,9

24

25

,81

7

2

5,8

17

25

,71

1

2

5,7

11

25

,71

1

2

5,7

11

Joo

nd

alu

p1

59

,98

6

15

9,3

64

1

58

,84

5

15

8,5

34

1

58

,43

1

1

58

,53

4

15

8,8

45

1

59

,26

0

15

9,7

79

1

60

,29

7

16

1,0

23

1

61

,74

9

16

2,4

74

1

63

,20

0

16

3,9

26

1

64

,54

8

16

5,1

70

1

65

,58

5

16

5,8

96

1

66

,10

3

16

6,1

03

1

65

,89

6

16

5,6

89

1

65

,37

8

Pe

rth

15

,11

3

1

6,3

44

17

,57

6

1

8,5

83

19

,47

9

2

0,1

51

20

,82

2

2

1,2

70

21

,71

8

2

2,1

66

22

,50

2

2

2,8

37

23

,17

3

2

3,3

97

23

,62

1

2

3,7

33

23

,84

5

2

3,9

57

24

,06

9

2

4,0

69

24

,18

1

2

4,1

81

24

,29

3

2

4,4

05

Sti

rlin

g1

93

,30

0

19

4,1

39

1

95

,18

7

19

6,5

50

1

98

,33

2

2

00

,21

9

20

2,2

10

2

04

,20

2

20

5,8

79

2

07

,13

7

20

8,0

81

2

09

,02

4

20

9,8

63

2

11

,01

6

21

2,3

78

2

14

,05

6

21

5,8

38

2

17

,82

9

21

9,7

16

2

21

,70

8

22

3,4

90

2

25

,27

2

22

6,8

44

2

28

,52

2

Vic

tori

a P

ark

31

,14

8

3

1,4

62

31

,77

5

3

2,1

93

32

,61

1

3

3,1

34

33

,65

7

3

4,0

75

34

,49

3

3

4,8

06

35

,01

5

3

5,2

24

35

,43

3

3

5,7

47

36

,16

5

3

6,5

83

37

,10

6

3

7,6

28

37

,94

2

3

8,2

56

38

,46

5

3

8,5

69

38

,56

9

3

8,6

74

Vin

cen

t3

0,4

53

30

,45

3

3

0,5

66

30

,67

9

3

0,7

93

31

,01

9

3

1,2

45

31

,47

2

3

1,6

98

31

,92

5

3

2,1

51

32

,37

8

3

2,4

91

32

,83

0

3

3,0

57

33

,39

6

3

3,7

36

34

,18

9

3

4,5

28

34

,86

8

3

5,2

08

35

,54

7

3

5,7

74

36

,11

3

Wa

nn

ero

o1

34

,25

8

14

1,1

59

1

47

,64

2

15

3,4

97

1

58

,83

0

1

63

,74

5

16

8,5

54

1

73

,46

9

17

8,8

02

1

84

,76

2

19

1,1

40

1

97

,62

3

20

4,2

10

2

10

,37

9

21

6,0

26

2

21

,25

4

22

6,3

77

2

31

,60

6

23

7,0

43

2

42

,89

8

24

9,1

72

2

55

,86

4

26

2,8

70

2

70

,18

9

Re

gio

n5

90

,18

2

59

8,8

45

6

07

,62

2

61

6,1

75

6

24

,72

0

6

33

,15

2

64

1,7

92

6

50

,31

2

65

8,9

32

6

67

,65

7

67

6,4

75

6

85

,39

9

69

4,1

02

7

02

,92

1

71

1,4

17

7

19

,70

8

72

8,1

03

7

36

,71

8

74

5,0

12

7

53

,72

0

76

2,3

29

7

71

,04

0

77

9,7

49

7

88

,99

1

Re

gio

n (

rou

nd

ed

)5

90

,00

0

59

9,0

00

6

08

,00

0

61

6,0

00

6

25

,00

0

6

33

,00

0

64

2,0

00

6

50

,00

0

65

9,0

00

6

68

,00

0

67

6,0

00

6

85

,00

0

69

4,0

00

7

03

,00

0

71

1,0

00

7

20

,00

0

72

8,0

00

7

37

,00

0

74

5,0

00

7

54

,00

0

76

2,0

00

7

71

,00

0

78

0,0

00

7

89

,00

0



Page 191


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 http://aus.hybis.info/projects0/vc/awarded/aa002809/f_reports/02 options paper/f0002-aa002809-aar-03-options report.docxions report.docx

Appendix B

Base case waste projections



Page 192

Inte

gra

ted r

egio

nal pla

n for

the p

rocess

ing o

f m

unic

ipal s

olid

waste

Page B

-1

Hyd

er

Consultin

g P

ty L

td-A

BN

76 1

04 4

85 2

89

http

://a

us.h

yb

is.in

fo/p

roje

cts

0/v

c/a

wa

rde

d/a

a0

02

80

9/f_

repo

rts/0

2 o

ptio

ns p

aper/

f00

02

-aa0

02

80

9-a

ar-

03

-op

tio

ns r

epo

rt.d

ocx

Ho

use

ho

ld g

arb

ag

e -

pro

ject

ion

- b

ase

ca

se

Co

un

cil

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

Ca

mb

rid

ge

9,0

44

9,1

72

9,2

96

9,4

17

9,5

35

9,6

49

9,7

59

9,8

25

9,8

88

9,9

45

9,9

97

10

,00

4

1

0,0

06

10

,00

2

9

,99

3

9

,97

9

9

,95

9

9

,93

4

9

,94

4

9

,90

8

9

,90

8

Joo

nd

alu

p5

4,5

61

54

,92

9

5

5,3

42

55

,80

1

5

6,3

07

56

,86

2

5

7,4

29

58

,00

9

5

8,5

64

59

,16

8

5

9,7

46

60

,29

7

6

0,8

21

61

,31

5

6

1,7

41

62

,13

7

6

2,4

24

62

,64

0

6

2,7

84

62

,81

7

6

2,7

39

Pe

rth

5,9

16

6,4

21

6,8

50

7,2

42

7,5

52

7,8

64

8,0

91

8,3

16

8,5

40

8,7

19

8,8

95

9,0

68

9,1

94

9,3

16

9,3

89

9,4

58

9,5

23

9,5

82

9,5

92

9,6

42

9,6

42

Sti

rlin

g7

9,9

83

81

,21

5

8

2,5

51

84

,03

8

8

5,5

45

87

,07

2

8

8,5

71

89

,90

4

9

1,0

22

91

,96

3

9

2,8

64

93

,67

7

9

4,5

86

95

,54

5

9

6,6

01

97

,66

0

9

8,7

66

99

,77

8

1

00

,78

7

10

1,6

51

1

02

,46

1

Vic

tori

a P

ark

9,8

67

10

,06

4

1

0,2

92

10

,51

8

1

0,7

75

11

,03

0

1

1,2

48

11

,46

3

1

1,6

40

11

,77

7

1

1,9

09

12

,03

7

1

2,1

94

12

,38

1

1

2,5

64

12

,77

6

1

2,9

83

13

,11

2

1

3,2

34

13

,31

3

1

3,3

49

Vin

cen

t1

3,2

68

13

,45

0

1

3,6

27

13

,79

9

1

4,0

17

14

,23

0

1

4,4

38

14

,64

0

1

4,8

37

15

,02

9

1

5,2

13

15

,33

9

1

5,5

64

15

,72

8

1

5,9

40

16

,14

4

1

6,3

94

16

,58

3

1

6,7

64

16

,93

6

1

7,0

99

Wa

nn

ero

o4

9,0

21

51

,76

2

5

4,3

05

56

,67

8

5

8,9

09

61

,10

4

6

3,3

36

65

,71

7

6

8,3

22

71

,07

6

7

3,8

61

76

,67

3

7

9,3

12

81

,73

3

8

3,9

69

86

,13

5

8

8,3

05

90

,51

8

9

2,8

49

95

,29

6

9

7,8

55

Re

gio

n2

21

,66

0

22

7,0

12

2

32

,26

3

23

7,4

92

2

42

,64

0

24

7,8

10

2

52

,87

2

25

7,8

76

2

62

,81

3

26

7,6

77

2

72

,48

7

27

7,0

95

2

81

,67

6

28

6,0

21

2

90

,19

8

29

4,2

89

2

98

,35

5

30

2,1

46

3

05

,95

5

30

9,5

63

3

13

,05

4

Co

mm

erc

ial

pre

mis

es g

arb

ag

e c

oll

ect

ed

by

co

un

cils

- p

roje

ctio

n -

ba

se

ca

se

Co

un

cil

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

Ca

mb

rid

ge

41

8

4

24

43

0

4

35

44

1

4

46

45

1

4

54

45

7

4

60

46

2

4

62

46

2

4

62

46

2

4

61

46

0

4

59

46

0

4

58

45

8

Joo

nd

alu

p-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Pe

rth

8,4

67

9,1

90

9,8

03

10

,36

4

1

0,8

08

11

,25

4

1

1,5

79

11

,90

2

1

2,2

22

12

,47

8

1

2,7

30

12

,97

8

1

3,1

58

13

,33

2

1

3,4

37

13

,53

6

1

3,6

28

13

,71

3

1

3,7

28

13

,79

9

1

3,7

99

Sti

rlin

g7

,20

4

7

,31

5

7

,43

5

7

,56

9

7

,70

5

7

,84

2

7

,97

8

8

,09

8

8

,19

8

8

,28

3

8

,36

4

8

,43

7

8

,51

9

8

,60

6

8

,70

1

8

,79

6

8

,89

6

8

,98

7

9

,07

8

9

,15

6

9

,22

9

Vic

tori

a P

ark

2,7

70

2,8

25

2,8

89

2,9

53

3,0

25

3,0

96

3,1

58

3,2

18

3,2

68

3,3

06

3,3

43

3,3

79

3,4

23

3,4

76

3,5

27

3,5

87

3,6

45

3,6

81

3,7

15

3,7

37

3,7

47

Vin

cen

t9

57

97

0

9

83

99

5

1

,01

1

1

,02

6

1

,04

1

1

,05

6

1

,07

0

1

,08

4

1

,09

7

1

,10

6

1

,12

3

1

,13

4

1

,15

0

1

,16

4

1

,18

3

1

,19

6

1

,20

9

1

,22

2

1

,23

3

Wa

nn

ero

o1

7,1

38

18

,09

6

1

8,9

85

19

,81

5

2

0,5

95

21

,36

2

2

2,1

43

22

,97

5

2

3,8

86

24

,84

9

2

5,8

22

26

,80

5

2

7,7

28

28

,57

4

2

9,3

56

30

,11

3

3

0,8

72

31

,64

5

3

2,4

60

33

,31

6

3

4,2

11

Re

gio

n3

6,9

54

38

,82

0

4

0,5

26

42

,13

1

4

3,5

85

45

,02

7

4

6,3

49

47

,70

2

4

9,1

01

50

,46

0

5

1,8

19

53

,16

8

5

4,4

13

55

,58

5

5

6,6

33

57

,65

8

5

8,6

83

59

,68

2

6

0,6

50

61

,68

7

6

2,6

77

Ve

rge

co

lle

ctio

ns

- b

ulk

y w

ast

e -

pro

ject

ion

- b

ase

ca

se

Co

un

cil

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

Ca

mb

rid

ge

1,1

45

1,1

61

1,1

77

1,1

92

1,2

07

1,2

22

1,2

35

1,2

44

1,2

52

1,2

59

1,2

66

1,2

67

1,2

67

1,2

66

1,2

65

1,2

63

1,2

61

1,2

58

1,2

59

1,2

54

1,2

54

Joo

nd

alu

p1

1,6

60

11

,73

9

1

1,8

27

11

,92

5

1

2,0

33

12

,15

2

1

2,2

73

12

,39

7

1

2,5

16

12

,64

5

1

2,7

68

12

,88

6

1

2,9

98

13

,10

3

1

3,1

95

13

,27

9

1

3,3

40

13

,38

7

1

3,4

17

13

,42

5

1

3,4

08

Pe

rth

41

44

47

50

52

54

56

58

59

60

62

63

64

65

65

66

66

66

66

67

67

Sti

rlin

g6

,31

0

6

,40

7

6

,51

3

6

,63

0

6

,74

9

6

,86

9

6

,98

8

7

,09

3

7

,18

1

7

,25

5

7

,32

6

7

,39

0

7

,46

2

7

,53

8

7

,62

1

7

,70

5

7

,79

2

7

,87

2

7

,95

1

8

,01

9

8

,08

3

Vic

tori

a P

ark

1,3

83

1,4

11

1,4

43

1,4

74

1,5

10

1,5

46

1,5

77

1,6

07

1,6

31

1,6

51

1,6

69

1,6

87

1,7

09

1,7

35

1,7

61

1,7

91

1,8

20

1,8

38

1,8

55

1,8

66

1,8

71

Vin

cen

t5

66

57

4

5

81

58

9

5

98

60

7

6

16

62

5

6

33

64

1

6

49

65

4

6

64

67

1

6

80

68

9

6

99

70

7

7

15

72

2

7

29

Wa

nn

ero

o4

,22

9

4

,46

5

4

,68

5

4

,88

9

5

,08

2

5

,27

1

5

,46

4

5

,66

9

5

,89

4

6

,13

1

6

,37

2

6

,61

4

6

,84

2

7

,05

1

7

,24

4

7

,43

0

7

,61

8

7

,80

8

8

,01

0

8

,22

1

8

,44

1

Re

gio

n2

5,3

34

25

,80

1

2

6,2

72

26

,74

9

2

7,2

31

27

,72

1

2

8,2

08

28

,69

2

2

9,1

66

29

,64

2

3

0,1

12

30

,56

1

3

1,0

05

31

,42

9

3

1,8

30

32

,22

2

3

2,5

96

32

,93

6

3

3,2

74

33

,57

4

3

3,8

54



Page 193

In

tegra

ted r

egio

nal pla

n f

or

the p

rocess

ing o

f m

unic

ipal s

olid

waste

Page B

-2

Hyd

er

Consulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76 1

04 4

85 2

89

h

ttp

://a

us.h

ybis

.info

/pro

jects

0/v

c/a

wa

rde

d/a

a0

02

80

9/f_

repo

rts/0

2 o

ptio

ns p

aper/

f00

02

-aa0

02

80

9-a

ar-

03

-op

tions r

epo

rt.d

ocx

Ve

rge

co

lle

ctio

ns

- g

ree

n w

aste

- p

roje

ctio

n -

ba

se

ca

se

Co

un

cil

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

Ca

mb

rid

ge

1,1

33

1,1

49

1,1

65

1,1

80

1,1

94

1,2

09

1,2

23

1,2

31

1,2

39

1,2

46

1,2

52

1,2

53

1,2

54

1,2

53

1,2

52

1,2

50

1,2

48

1,2

44

1,2

46

1,2

41

1,2

41

Joo

nd

alu

p4

,27

0

4

,29

9

4

,33

1

4

,36

7

4

,40

7

4

,45

0

4

,49

5

4

,54

0

4

,58

3

4

,63

1

4

,67

6

4

,71

9

4

,76

0

4

,79

9

4

,83

2

4

,86

3

4

,88

5

4

,90

2

4

,91

4

4

,91

6

4

,91

0

Pe

rth

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Sti

rlin

g9

,60

3

9

,75

1

9

,91

1

1

0,0

90

10

,27

1

1

0,4

54

10

,63

4

1

0,7

94

10

,92

8

1

1,0

41

11

,15

0

1

1,2

47

11

,35

6

1

1,4

71

11

,59

8

1

1,7

25

11

,85

8

1

1,9

80

12

,10

1

1

2,2

04

12

,30

2

Vic

tori

a P

ark

82

1

8

38

85

6

8

75

89

7

9

18

93

6

9

54

96

9

9

80

99

1

1

,00

2

1

,01

5

1

,03

0

1

,04

5

1

,06

3

1

,08

0

1

,09

1

1

,10

1

1

,10

8

1

,11

1

Vin

cen

t5

00

50

7

5

14

52

0

5

28

53

6

5

44

55

2

5

59

56

6

5

73

57

8

5

87

59

3

6

01

60

8

6

18

62

5

6

32

63

8

6

44

Wa

nn

ero

o1

,99

8

2

,10

9

2

,21

3

2

,31

0

2

,40

1

2

,49

0

2

,58

1

2

,67

8

2

,78

4

2

,89

6

3

,01

0

3

,12

5

3

,23

2

3

,33

1

3

,42

2

3

,51

0

3

,59

9

3

,68

9

3

,78

4

3

,88

3

3

,98

8

Re

gio

n1

8,3

25

18

,65

2

1

8,9

90

19

,34

2

1

9,6

98

20

,05

7

2

0,4

12

20

,74

9

2

1,0

62

21

,36

1

2

1,6

52

21

,92

4

2

2,2

03

22

,47

7

2

2,7

50

23

,02

0

2

3,2

88

23

,53

1

2

3,7

77

23

,99

1

2

4,1

96

Ho

use

ho

ld r

ecy

clin

g -

pro

ject

ion

- b

ase

ca

se

Co

un

cil

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

Ca

mb

rid

ge

2,0

13

2,0

41

2,0

69

2,0

96

2,1

22

2,1

47

2,1

72

2,1

86

2,2

00

2,2

13

2,2

25

2,2

26

2,2

27

2,2

26

2,2

24

2,2

21

2,2

16

2,2

10

2,2

13

2,2

05

2,2

05

Joo

nd

alu

p7

,71

6

7

,76

8

7

,82

6

7

,89

1

7

,96

3

8

,04

1

8

,12

1

8

,20

3

8

,28

2

8

,36

7

8

,44

9

8

,52

7

8

,60

1

8

,67

1

8

,73

1

8

,78

7

8

,82

8

8

,85

8

8

,87

9

8

,88

3

8

,87

2

Pe

rth

72

6

7

88

84

1

8

89

92

7

9

65

99

3

1

,02

1

1

,04

8

1

,07

0

1

,09

2

1

,11

3

1

,12

8

1

,14

3

1

,15

2

1

,16

1

1

,16

9

1

,17

6

1

,17

7

1

,18

3

1

,18

3

Sti

rlin

g-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Vic

tori

a P

ark

2,0

94

2,1

35

2,1

84

2,2

32

2,2

86

2,3

40

2,3

86

2,4

32

2,4

70

2,4

99

2,5

27

2,5

54

2,5

87

2,6

27

2,6

66

2,7

11

2,7

55

2,7

82

2,8

08

2,8

25

2,8

32

Vin

cen

t2

,03

7

2

,06

5

2

,09

2

2

,11

9

2

,15

2

2

,18

5

2

,21

7

2

,24

8

2

,27

8

2

,30

7

2

,33

6

2

,35

5

2

,39

0

2

,41

5

2

,44

7

2

,47

9

2

,51

7

2

,54

6

2

,57

4

2

,60

0

2

,62

5

Wa

nn

ero

o9

,30

7

9

,82

8

1

0,3

10

10

,76

1

1

1,1

84

11

,60

1

1

2,0

25

12

,47

7

1

2,9

72

13

,49

4

1

4,0

23

14

,55

7

1

5,0

58

15

,51

8

1

5,9

42

16

,35

3

1

6,7

66

17

,18

6

1

7,6

28

18

,09

3

1

8,5

79

Re

gio

n2

3,8

92

24

,62

4

2

5,3

21

25

,98

6

2

6,6

34

27

,27

9

2

7,9

14

28

,56

7

2

9,2

49

29

,95

1

3

0,6

51

31

,33

2

3

1,9

90

32

,59

9

3

3,1

62

33

,71

1

3

4,2

49

34

,75

8

3

5,2

78

35

,78

9

3

6,2

96

Co

mm

erc

ial

pre

mis

es r

ecy

cla

ble

s co

lle

cte

d b

y c

ou

nci

ls -

pro

ject

ion

- b

ase

ca

se

Co

un

cil

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

Ca

mb

rid

ge

91

92

94

95

96

97

98

99

99

10

0

1

01

10

1

1

01

10

1

1

01

10

0

1

00

10

0

1

00

10

0

1

00

Joo

nd

alu

p-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Pe

rth

1,0

04

1,0

90

1,1

62

1,2

29

1,2

82

1,3

34

1,3

73

1,4

11

1,4

49

1,4

80

1,5

10

1,5

39

1,5

60

1,5

81

1,5

93

1,6

05

1,6

16

1,6

26

1,6

28

1,6

36

1,6

36

Sti

rlin

g2

5

2

5

2

6

2

6

2

7

2

7

2

8

2

8

2

8

2

9

2

9

2

9

3

0

3

0

3

0

3

1

3

1

3

1

3

2

3

2

3

2

Vic

tori

a P

ark

15

2

1

55

15

8

1

61

16

5

1

69

17

3

1

76

17

9

1

81

18

3

1

85

18

7

1

90

19

3

1

96

19

9

2

01

20

3

2

04

20

5

Vin

cen

t7

40

75

0

7

60

77

0

7

82

79

4

8

05

81

7

8

28

83

8

8

49

85

6

8

68

87

7

8

89

90

0

9

14

92

5

9

35

94

5

9

54

Wa

nn

ero

o-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Re

gio

n2

,01

2

2

,11

2

2

,20

0

2

,28

1

2

,35

2

2

,42

2

2

,47

7

2

,53

1

2

,58

4

2

,62

8

2

,67

1

2

,70

9

2

,74

6

2

,77

9

2

,80

6

2

,83

3

2

,86

1

2

,88

3

2

,89

8

2

,91

7

2

,92

7



Page 194

ATTACHMENT TWO

TO ITEM 1


14 MAY 2010

HYDER TWG WORKBOOK – 5 FEBRUARY 2010



Page 195


Integrated regional plan

Workbook

TWG workshop 5 February 2010



Page 196

Integrated regional plan—Workbook

Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 1 h:\docs\environmental\sustainable resource use documents\rebecca temp folder\docs to keep\perth\mrc\workbook for workshop 5 feb 10.doc

AGENDA

10:30 – 10:40 Introduction John King (workshop

facilitator)

10:40 – 10:50 Presentation of scenarios Jessica North (project

manager)

10:50 – 11:20 Discussion John and Jessica

11:20 – 11:30 Presentation of complimentary

initiatives Jessica

11:30 – 11:45 Discussion John and Jessica

11:45 – 11:55 Presentation of assessment criteria Jessica

11:55 – 12:20 Discussion and weighting exercise John and Jessica

12:20 – 12:30 Summary, next steps, and meeting

closure John



Page 197



1 WELCOME Welcome to the TWG Integrated Regional Plan workshop, 5 February 2010.

The objective of the Integrated Regional Plan is:

”To establish and maintain a waste processing capability for at least that MSW generated

within the region”

The objectives of today’s workshop are:

� To review and agree on a set of possible waste processing scenarios for the Mindarie

region

� To review and agree on the criteria for assessing the scenarios, and assign weightings to

the criteria

This workbook provides key information to assist workshop participants to achieve these

objectives, and complements the workshop powerpoint presentation.

The workshop timeframe is tight; therefore, we ask that participants please keep discussions at

a strategic level – we won’t be discussing technical or logistic detail at this time. The focus will

be on the strategic direction of waste processing for MRC.

Your input from the perspective of your Council on the actions that MRC should take on behalf

of member councils is the key objective of today’s session.



Page 198



2 SCENARIOS The following three scenarios were developed from a range of options identified in consultation

with MRC. These proposed scenarios are intended to stimulate discussion and lead to the

development of three final scenarios, which will then be assessed against financial, social,

environmental and risk criteria.

The business as usual arrangements have been included as a point of reference and

comparison to the scenarios.

The core of the waste processing scenario is the garbage processing technology and the

collection system that accompanies this technology.

Business as Usual Scenario 1

“Aerobic RRF (MBT)”

Scenario 2

“Anaerobic RRF (MBT)”

Scenario 3

“Thermal treatment”

Garbage processing technology

Aerobic AWT (Neerabup RRF)

Landfill


Additional aerobic RRF

Mechanical pre-sorting of raw waste; organic fraction composted

Possible separate collection of organic waste for high-quality compost


Anaerobic AWT (MBT)

Mechanical pre-sorting of raw waste; organic fraction digested (energy recovery)

Possible separate collection of organic waste for high-quality compost


Thermal treatment RRF (gasification or incineration)

Pre-sorting of raw waste (to remove non-combustibles and bulky items) or RDF

Collection system

2 bin: dry recyclables + residuals

2 bin possibly 3 bin: dry recyclables + residuals (+ organics)

2 bin possibly 3 bin: dry recyclables + residuals (+ organics)

2 bin: dry recyclables + residuals

Recycling

Continuation of current MRF arrangements and maximise recovery rates

Possible establishment of region wide MRF arrangements







Green waste Continuation of current arrangements

Possible establishment of region wide arrangements

Continuation of current arrangements








Page 199



3 SCENARIOS DISCUSSION The following questions are intended to guide the discussion around the proposed scenarios,

and lead to agreement on three scenarios for assessment.

1 From a strategic point of view, are these the right scenarios that we should be

considering?

2 Are we missing key scenarios for consideration?

3 Are there key elements missing from these scenarios?

4 Would Councils feel comfortable promoting these scenarios to their constituencies?



Page 200



4 COMPLEMENTARY INITIATIVES The following initiatives would complement the scenarios above and address the different

elements of the waste stream. These initiatives would be common across all scenarios (i.e.

independent of the waste collection and processing options).

Possible initiatives

Other process needed

Landfill for residuals

Hazardous waste landfill for fly ash and/or air pollution control

residues if thermal treatment in place

Need for additional

infrastructure

‘Resource recovery parks’ for household waste drop-off, self-haul and possible sorting facility

Transfer stations to consolidate waste prior to transport over longer distances

Inert wastes Establish recovery targets in contracts for bulky waste collections and

transfer stations

Purpose-build a bulky waste and C&D sorting facility

Restrict disposal of inert materials at Tamala Park

Hazardous waste HHW drop-off points at all waste facilities in MRC

Mobile HHW drop-off facility



Page 201



5 COMPLEMENTARY INITIATIVES DISCUSSION

These questions are intended to guide the discussion around the proposed suite of

complementary initiatives, and lead to agreement of their inclusion for assessment.

1 Should we be dealing with these specific waste streams in the Plan?

2 From a strategic point of view, are these the right initiatives that we should be considering

to complement the three scenarios?

3 Are we missing key initiatives for consideration?



Page 202



6 CRITERIA The following criteria are proposed to guide the assessment of waste processing scenarios.

Criteria Description

ENVIRONMENTAL

Waste diverted

(tonnes)

Tonnage of waste diverted from landfill.

Resource recovered

(tonnes)

Recovery of recyclable materials

Net energy balance A relative assessment of the energy produced such as electricity

from biogas or waste combustion and energy consumed, such as

mains electricity, gas, liquid fuels.

Greenhouse impacts

and benefits

A relative assessment of the greenhouse impacts and benefits.

Impacts could include energy consumed in construction and

operation of facilities, energy consumed by waste transport,

alternative and renewable energy generated and energy saved by

resource recovery.

FINANCIAL

Financial cost

($ and $/tonne)

Total costs (upfront and ongoing) over the life of the project. Costs

will be presented as region wide, per Council and per household.

Cost certainty will be indicated.

SOCIAL

Odour and visual

amenity

Impacts on the community related to facility siting and technology.

Includes the potential for different types of technologies to generate

odours and the potential for successful odour control, the typical size

and potential intrusiveness and the potential for litter generation.

RISK

Geographic /

location

Risks associated with factors such as environmental characteristics,

zoning, access and current and future uses.



Page 203



7 CRITERIA DISCUSSION These questions are intended to guide the discussion around the proposed set of criteria, and

lead to agreement of their use in the assessment:

1 Are these the right criteria for assessing the scenarios?

2 Are we missing any key criteria?

3 Do these criteria adequately reflect the concerns of individual Councils?

4 What is the relative importance of each criterion to the assessment? (This question will be

addressed through a weighting exercise during the workshop).



Page 204

ATTACHMENT THREE

TO ITEM 1


14 MAY 2010

HYDER TWG WORKBOOK – 15 APRIL 2010



Page 205


Integrated regional plan Briefing documents

TWG workshop 15 April 2010



Page 206

Integrated regional plan—Briefing documents Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 1 http://aus.hybis.info/projects0/vc/awarded/aa002809/f_reports/06 scenarios evaluation and workshop 15april10/briefing documents for workshop 15 april 10.doc

AGENDA

8:30 Introduction and objective MRC

8:35 Recap of project stages to date Hyder

8:45 Key assumptions in scenario evaluation

Questions / comments Hyder

8:55 Results of scenario evaluation Hyder

9:15 Review and discussion of detailed results in small groups

Hyder

9:30 Selection of option for development in the Plan

MRC

9:50 Summary, next steps, and meeting closure

Hyder



Page 207


1 WELCOME

Welcome to the TWG Integrated Regional Plan scenarios evaluation workshop, 15 April 2010.

The objective of the Integrated Regional Plan is:

”To establish and maintain a waste processing capability for at least that MSW generated within the region”

The objective of today’s workshop is:

To select a residual MSW treatment option to take forward for development in the Integrated Regional Plan.

This set of briefing documents provides key information to assist workshop participants to achieve the objective, and complements the workshop powerpoint presentation. Documents include the following:

A paper detailing the assumptions used to model and evaluate the baseline and AWT scenarios

The graphs of key results, which will be presented during the workshop

Summary performance tables for scenarios (2017 and 2022), including some explanatory notes

Tables of detailed results – these will be clarified during small group discussions



Page 208


2 Modelling and evaluation assumptions To undertake scenario modelling for the study, a range of assumptions in relation to scenario definition, collection and transport and technologies were necessary. A draft list of assumptions was prepared by the project team and reviewed by MRC. The tables below list the final adopted system parameters and associated data values.

Scenario Descriptions The scenarios are described in tabular format in the following pages. For scenarios involving establishment of a new RRF to process household garbage, the assumed location is Neerabup. A sensitivity test was also run assuming the new RRF is located at Balcatta instead of Neerabup to assess the impact on scenario performance.

Scenario 1: Base Case Local Government Area

MSW Stream Assumed collection system

Receival / processing facilities

Cambridge Joondalup Perth Wanneroo Vincent Victoria Park

Household co–mingled recyclables

Fortnightly MGBs • Existing materials recovery facilities (see Section 5.2 of Background Paper, (Hyder; 2009))

Household garbage Weekly MGBs • Landfill (Tamala Park until 2020/21 then Son of Tamala at Gingin from 2021/22)

• Neerabup RRF (existing)

Stirling Single Bin Weekly MGBs • ATLAS RRF (existing). Post 2013/14, assume Stirling establishes a long term contract for the processing of household garbage at a facility located within its local government area. It is noted Stirling may choose to exercise its contract extension with ATLAS to August 2016.



Page 209


Scenario 2A: MBT Aerobic Composting – 2 Bin System Local Government Area




Co–mingled recyclables


Household garbage Weekly MGBs • Landfill (Tamala Park) until 2013/14 then new MBT Aerobic Composting Facility at Neerabup from 2014/15


Stirling Single Bin Weekly MGBs • ATLAS RRF (existing) up to 2013/2014, then MBT Aerobic Composting at Neerabup from 2014/15. This assumes the new facility is able to receive 1 and 2 bin collection systems. It is noted Stirling may choose to exercise its contract extension with ATLAS to August 2016.

Scenario 2B: MBT Aerobic Composting – 1 Bin System Local Government Area




Single Bin Weekly MGBs • Landfill (Tamala Park) until 2013/14 then new MBT Aerobic Composting Facility at Neerabup from 2014/15


Stirling Single Bin Weekly MGBs • ATLAS RRF (until 2013/14 then MBT Aerobic Composting at Neerabup from 2014/15). It is noted Stirling may choose to exercise its contract extension with ATLAS to August 2016.



Page 210


Scenario 3A: MBT Anaerobic Digestion – 2 Bin System Local Government Area






Household garbage Weekly MGBs • Landfill (Tamala Park) until 2013/14 then new MBT Anaerobic Digestion Facility at Neerabup from 2014/15


Stirling Single Bin Weekly MGBs • ATLAS RRF (until 2013/14 then MBT Anaerobic Digestion at Neerabup from 2014/15). This assumes the new facility is able to receive 1 and 2 bin collection systems. It is noted Stirling may choose to exercise its contract extension with ATLAS to August 2016.

Scenario 3B: MBT Anaerobic Digestion – 1 Bin System Local Government Area




Single Bin Weekly MGBs • Landfill (Tamala Park) until 2013/14 then new MBT Anaerobic Digestion Facility at Neerabup from 2014/15


Stirling Single Bin Weekly MGBs • ATLAS RRF (until 2013/14 then MBT Anaerobic Digestion at Neerabup from 2014/15). It is noted Stirling may choose to exercise its contract extension with ATLAS to August 2016.



Page 211


Scenario 4A: Thermal – 2 Bin System Local Government Area






Household garbage Weekly MGBs • Landfill (Tamala Park) until 2015/16 then new Thermal Facility at Neerabup from 2016/17


Stirling Single Bin Weekly MGBs • ATLAS RRF (existing) until 2015/16 then thermal facility at Neerabup from 2016/17. note that this assumes the City of Stirling is able to extend the Atlas contract to 2016/17) and that the new facility is able to receive 1 and 2 bin collection systems.

Scenario 4B: Thermal – 1 Bin System Local Government Area




Single Bin Weekly MGBs • Landfill (Tamala Park) until 2015/16 then new Thermal Facility at Neerabup from 2016/17

• Neerabup RRF

Stirling Single Bin Weekly MGBs • ATLAS RRF (until 2015/16 then thermal facility at Neerabup from 2016/17 – note that this assumes the City of Stirling is able to extend the Atlas contract to 2016/17)



Page 212


Collection and Transport Assumptions Assumptions in relation to waste collection and transport are presented in the table below. These are based on data collated from discussions with plant operators and waste contractors and waste industry professionals.

COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT ASSUMPTIONS

Kerbside collection trucks delivering garbage to landfills, RRFs and transfer stations

7.75 tonnes net (this is based on 7.5 to 8.0 tonne net average load for all vehicles)

Kerbside collection trucks delivering commingled recyclables to MRF 4.5 tonnes net

Driver only side loader kerbside collection trucks assumed to operate in: Cambridge Joondalup Stirling Wanneroo Vincent (some rear loaders (2)) Victoria Park

Driver and “runner” rear loader kerbside collection trucks assumed to operate in: Perth Vincent (2 rear loaders)

“Drive by” collections per hour 175/hr

Bin provision cost $0.15/household/week

Unloading time of kerbside collection trucks at delivery points 10 minutes per load at RRF

15 minutes at landfill.

Capacity of transfer trucks bulk hauling waste between facilities 20 tonnes net (metropolitan haulage)

35 tonnes net (longer distance haulage, e.g. bulk hauling to Son of Tamala landfill, (B-Double configuration))

Transfer truck total loading and unloading time per load (excluding transport time)

35 minutes per load (for metropolitan haulage)

80 minutes (for longer distance haulage employing B-Double trucks)

Driver only side loader kerbside collection trucks running cost $90/hr

Driver and “runner” rear loading kerbside collection trucks running cost $135/hr

Transfer trailer running cost $150/hr (metropolitan haulage )

$200/hr(longer distance haulage with B-Double trucks)

Transfer station operating cost (excluding transport) $25/tonne (includes amortisation of capital expenses (land purchase and construction) and ongoing costs)

Inclusion of waste transfer stations in scenario modelling Waste transfer stations are introduced into a waste management system when travel distances in the collection vehicle become excessive. This varies with collection truck size and is generally introduced when travel times exceed 45 - 60 minutes.

The above framework was adopted in assessing the need for transfer stations for the scenario modelling.



Page 213


Technology Assumptions LANDFILL • Technology Description Landfill assumed to operate at “best practice” standard incorporating

the following features:

• Waste inspection;

• Composite plastic/clay base liner;

• Leachate collection system;

• Leachate treatment facility; (evaporation ponds used, with recirculating leachate into landfill to promote gas generation.)

• Treated leachate disposal arrangements;(as above)

• Landfill gas collection system;

• Landfill gas energy conversion facility;

• Landfill cap;

• Noise abatement screening;

• Litter collection;

• Adequate buffers.

Final year of Tamala Park Landfill operation FY 2020/21

Location of Son of Tamala landfill Gingin

Commencement of Son of Tamala landfill operations

FY 2021/22

Landfill gate fee $85/tonne

MBT – AEROBIC COMPOSTING Technology Description MBT with aerobic composting of the biological fraction to produce a

lower grade organic product assumed to be used on a range of land applications.

Mechanical pretreatment step to separate recyclables (plastics & metals) with a reject fraction to landfill.

Post treatment of the organic fraction will also produce a reject fraction that is sent to landfill.

Location of facility Neerabup

Lead time to commencement of operations 4 years

Gate fee $150/tonne

Resources recovered in front end separation 80% of metals

50% of plastics (HDPE and PET)

Stabilised organic product 30% of input

Electricity consumption 85 kWh/tonne input for tunnel/enclosed windrow system; 140 kWh/tonne input for rotating drum system

Residual to Landfill 34% of input



Page 214


MBT – ANAEROBIC DIGESTION Technology Description MBT with anaerobic digestion of the biological fraction to produce a

biogas which is converted to electricity. Digestate is aerobically stabilised to produce a lower grade organic product assumed to be used on a range of land applications.

Mechanical pretreatment step to separate recyclables (plastics & metals) with a reject fraction to landfill.



Gate fee $170/tonne


50% of plastics (HDPE and PET)

Organic product 23% of input

Net electricity exported 25 kWh/tonne input


Thermal Technology Description Moving grate energy from waste facility with thermal conversion of

waste to produce electricity and heat

Mechanical pretreatment step to separate metals

Cement stabilisation of flyash with disposal to landfill.



Gate fee $200/tonne


Net electricity output 500 kWh/tonne input




Page 215


Materials Recovery Facilities Technology Description Combination of mechanical and manual separation technologies to

separate materials from commingled household recycling fraction

Location of facility Existing processing facilities for collected commingled household recyclables are assumed to continue operation and be upgraded as quantities increase over time (refer Section 5.2 of Background Paper, (Hyder; 2009)).

Lead time to commencement of operations N/A

Gate fee $50/tonne

Residual to Landfill 15% of input (this assumes an improvement on current rates due to establishment of the glass reprocessing facility serving WA)



Page 216


Division of Wanneroo into Subareas A Mindarie-wide waste logistics model has been prepared to assist in the scenario assessment. The model estimates the cost of waste delivery, transfer and disposal for a defined network of waste generation areas and receival/processing/disposal facilities. Usually waste generation areas are equivalent to local government areas.

Within Mindarie, the areal extent of each local government area varies considerably. Wanneroo, in particular, covers an area of some 685km2, about 6 times the size of the next largest member council (Stirling).

In order to improve the accuracy of logistics cost estimates, Wanneroo has been divided in to north, central and south zones of approximately equal area. The % waste generated in each zone at various points during the modelling timeframe has been estimated in the table below taking account of population growth. The % estimates in the table are based on area-based population forecasts developed by the City of Wanneroo.1

Zone City of Wanneroo Population Forecast Areas

Assumed Population Centroid (town/suburb)

Estimated % of Waste in 2008-09



North Wanneroo Two Rocks, Yanchep, Eglinton-Alkimos

Yanchep 4% 15% 26%

Central Wanneroo Neerabup - Pinjar - Nowergup - Carabooda, Jindalee, Butler, Quinns Rocks, Merriwa, Ridgewood, Clarkson, Mindarie - Tamala Park, Carramar, Banksia Grove

Ridgewood 39% 38% 31%

South Wanneroo Gnangara - Jandabup - Mariginiup, Tapping, Ashby – Sinagra, Wanneroo, Hocking - Pearsall, Madeley - Wangara - Woodvale, Landsdale, Darch, Marangaroo, Alexander Heights, Girraween, Koondala

Pearsall 57% 47% 43%

Total 100% 100% 100%

1 City of Wanneroo population forecasts can be accessed via the city’s website: http://forecast.id.com.au/Default.aspx?id=137&gid=10&pg=30000(accessed 15 March 2010)



Page 217

http://forecast.id.com.au/Default.aspx?id=137&gid=10&pg=30000�


Waste Stream Compositions In order to estimate resource recovery rates for each scenario, some understanding of waste stream compositions is necessary. These have been derived separately for the following streams:

Household garbage composition – single bin system

Household garbage composition – two bin system

Household recyclables composition – two bin system

The derivation basis is shown in Appendix A. The derived compositions of each stream are shown in the following tables.

Composition of Household Garbage Stream – Single Bin System (% by weight)

Component % of Total

Food waste 26.7%

Garden waste 20.9%

Non-recyclable paper 8.8%

Newspaper 7.4%

Cardboard 3.7%

Other recyclable paper 2.6%

Other putrescibles 2.0%

Liquid paperboard containers 0.5%

Recyclable glass 5.8%

Recyclable ferrous 1.5%

Recyclable aluminium 0.7%

PET containers 0.7%

HDPE containers 0.7%

Non recyclable plastic 6.3%

Ceramics, dirt, & dust 4.5%

Contaminated plastic 2.5%

Wood and rubber 2.2%

Other metals 1.4%

Hazardous waste 0.6%

Non recyclable glass 0.5%

Total 100%



Page 218


Composition of Household Recycling Stream – 2 Bin System (% by weight)


Newspaper 35.1%

Mixed paper 18.6%

Cardboard/paper 7.4%

Printing / writing paper 0.1%

Waxed paper 0.0%

Directories 3.4%

Container glass 20.6%

Steel cans 2.5%

HDPE 1.5%

PET 1.3%

Aluminium cans 1.3%

Mixed plastics 2.9%

Ferrous metals - non cans 0.1%

Non ferrous metals - non cans 0.0%

"Other" material 4.3%

Organics 0.8%

Total 100%



Page 219


Composition of Household Garbage Stream – Two Bin System


Food waste 31.1%

Garden waste 24.4%


Newspaper 2.7%

Cardboard 3.1%



Liquidpaperboard containers 0.6%




PET containers 0.6%

HDPE containers 0.6% Non recyclable plastic 6.9%




Other metals 1.5%


Non recyclable glass 0.6%

Total 100%



Page 220


Attachment A: Derivation of Garbage and Comingled Recyclables Composition Composition of Household Garbage – One Bin System The assumed composition of garbage in areas with one bin systems in place is presented in Table A1. The composition is based on a 1999 household waste composition study undertaken for the City of Stirling by Murdoch University2

Table A1: Household garbage composition, single bin system

.

Component %

Food waste 26.7%

Garden waste 20.9%


Newspaper 7.4%

Cardboard 3.7%



Liquidpaperboard containers 0.5%




PET containers 0.7%

HDPE containers 0.7% Non recyclable plastic 6.3%




Other metals 1.4%


Non recyclable glass 0.5% Source: Summary Report of Waste to Landfill: Perth Metropolitan Region Western Australia (1 July 1998 – 30 June 2002), Waste Management Board (February 2003)

2 Refer p21 of Summary Report of Waste to Landfill: Perth Metropolitan Region Western Australia (1 July 1998 – 30 June 2002), Waste Management Board (February 2003)



Page 221


Composition of Household Recyclables – Two Bin System The composition of household recyclables in areas with comingled recycling collections has been derived from the Review of Total Recycling Activity in Western Australia 2006/07 (Cardno; 2008). This report provides data on the total quantity of household recyclable materials recovered from MRF’s in Western Australia during 2006/07, as well as the residual fraction disposed to landfill from MRF’s.

The derived composition of household recyclables collected (i.e. recovered as well as disposed following MRF processing) is shown in Table A2.

Table A1: Derivation of household recyclables composition – 2 bin system

Component Tonnes Recovered

Tonnes Landfilled 1

Tonnes Collected

% of Total

Newspaper 47,420 4,351 51,771 35.1%

Mixed paper 25,100 2,303 27,403 18.6%

Cardboard/paper 10,030 920 10,950 7.4%

Printing / writing paper 100 9 109 0.1%

Waxed paper 40 4 44 0.0%

Directories 4,550 417 4,967 3.4%

Container glass 11,970 18,409 30,379 20.6%

Steel cans 2,430 1,214 3,644 2.5%

HDPE 1,440 719 2,159 1.5%

PET 1,270 634 1,904 1.3%

Aluminium cans 1,270 634 1,904 1.3%

Mixed plastics 1,080 3,202 4,282 2.9%

Ferrous metals - non cans 160 160 0.1%

Non ferrous metals - non cans 10 10 0.0%

"Other" material 6,403 6,403 4.3%

Organics 1,201 1,201 0.8%

106,870 40,420 147,290 100% 1 The total quantity of MRF material landfilled by component has been approximated based on the categories included in Cardno (2008) as follows: 46% broken bottles and glass fines; 20% paper and cardboard; 8% recyclable containers; 8% non recyclable plastics and containers; 3% organics; and 16% “other” materials



Page 222


Composition of Household Garbage – Two Bin System The composition of household garbage in areas with 2 bin systems has been derived based on the compositions presented above, together with data on the total quantity of household garbage and recyclables collected in areas with two bin systems in place. Within Mindarie, the estimated quantities for 2008-09 are as follows (refer Options report, Hyder; 20010):

Total household recyclables: 23,900 tonnes (14.4% of total)

Total household garbage (all councils except Stirling): 141,700 tonnes (85.6% of total)

The derivation of household garbage composition in areas with 2 bin systems is provided in Table A3. The derivation assumes the data presented in Table A1 represents the typical composition of household waste with no kerbside recycling in place. Once kerbside recycling is introduced, about 14 % of waste is assumed to be diverted to the comingled recycling stream, leaving 86% in the garbage stream. The garbage stream composition is then derived based on the composition of the single bin system (Table A1) with recyclables removed according to the composition shown in Table A2.

Table A1: Derivation of household garbage composition – 2 bin system

Component Total Household

Garbage and

Recyclables % 1

Household Recyclables component

% 2

Household Garbage

component %

Household Garbage

Composition 2 Bin

System

Food waste 26.7% 0.1% 26.6% 31.1%

Garden waste 20.9% 0.0% 20.9% 24.4%

Non-recyclable paper 8.8% 2.5% 6.3% 7.4%

Newspaper 7.4% 5.1% 2.3% 2.7%

Cardboard 3.7% 1.1% 2.6% 3.1%

Other recyclable paper 2.6% 0.7% 1.9% 2.2%

Other putrescibles 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.3%

Liquidpaperboard containers 0.5% 0.5% 0.6%

Recyclable glass 5.8% 3.0% 2.8% 3.3%

Recyclable ferrous 1.5% 0.4% 1.1% 1.3%

Recyclable aluminium 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.6%

PET containers 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.6%

HDPE containers 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.6% Non recyclable plastic 6.3% 0.4% 5.9% 6.9%

Ceramics, dirt, & dust 4.5% 0.2% 4.3% 5.0%

Contaminated plastic 2.5% 0.1% 2.4% 2.8%

Wood and rubber 2.2% 0.1% 2.1% 2.4%

Other metals 1.4% 0.1% 1.3% 1.5%

Hazardous waste 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.7%

Non recyclable glass 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.6%

Total 100% 14.4% 85.6% 100% Notes: 1 From Table A1 – single bin system composition 2 Derived from Table A2 assuming 14.4% by weight diversion to comingled recycling



Page 223


References Carbon Reduction Institute (2009), Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Impact Analysis: ATLAS Single Bin Waste Treatment vs Two Bin Collection System, September 2009, V1.2, for City of Stirling

Cardno (2008), Review of Total Recycling Activity in Western Australia 2006/07, report for Department of Environment and Conservation, Job no V7113, June 2008

Hyder Consulting (2009), Integrated regional plan for the processing of municipal solid waste, Background paper, for Mindarie Regional Council, 25 November 2009

Hyder Consulting (2010), Integrated regional plan for the processing of municipal solid waste, Options report, for Mindarie Regional Council

Waste Management Board (2003), Summary Report of Waste to Landfill: Perth Metropolitan Region Western Australia (1 July 1998 – 30 June 2002), p21, Government of Western Australia, Perth, February 2003



Page 224


3 MRC scenario evaluation – financial assessment

3.1 Introduction To comprehensively assess the financial implications of alternative waste management scenarios, the associated collection, transport, processing and disposal operations for each scenario must be considered in an integrated context.

To undertake this Hyder developed a Waste Management Logistics Model for the Mindarie Region. The model estimates the costs of waste delivery, transfer and processing/disposal for a defined network of waste generation areas and receival/disposal facilities.

The waste network assessed by the Waste Management Logistics Model comprises a series of waste generation centres, or catchments, and a surrounding network of waste transfer stations, resource recovery facilities and landfills.

For the Mindarie Region, nine waste generating catchments were defined for modelling purposes. With the exception of Wanneroo, each member council local government area represented a waste generating catchment. Wanneroo, by far the largest local government area within the region by area, was divided into north, central and south catchments to better model logistical implications of the various scenarios. The division of Wanneroo is discussed further in Section 2.

Costs associated with the movement of waste from the catchments to the processing / disposal facilities are estimated by the model using a tabulated matrix of travel times and distances across Perth and core input data on truck capacities, running costs and transfer operations.

The model can be applied to:

optimise a network of waste transfer, processing and disposal facilities; and

undertake scenario modelling to estimate costs and truck hours on a council basis.

Model inputs and outputs are summarised below:

Waste generation rates by catchment (tonne/yr)

Inputs

Location of waste management facilities (by suburb)

Type of facility (i.e., transfer facility, RRF or landfill)

Facility capacity (tonne/yr)

Collection truck payload capacities by local government area (tonne/vehicle)

Collection vehicle running costs by local government area ($/hr)

Allocation of waste catchments to facilities to simulate council cluster arrangements with RRF service providers.

Waste quantities delivered from each catchment to surrounding facilities;

Outputs

Total truck hours, direct delivery and transfer trailers

For each collection council:



Page 225


− Average travel time from catchment to facility (minutes)

− Average one way distance (km)

− Average one way speed (km/hr)

− Annual costs of waste delivery and transfer ($/yr and $/tonne)

The cost of collection from kerbside is estimated separately using industry rates and market costs.

3.2 Logistics modelling undertaken For the financial assessment, logistics modelling of the garbage and recycling streams was carried out for each of the scenarios developed. The logistics modelling considered the various type of vehicles used for kerbside waste collection, bulk hauling from waste transfer stations to the RRF facility and also for the final disposal of any materials to landfill.

Key assumptions To undertake scenario modelling for the study, a range of assumptions in relation to scenario definition, collection and transport and technologies were necessary. A draft list of assumptions was prepared by the project team and reviewed by MRC. The final adopted system parameters and associated data values are presented in Section 2.

Travel times and distances The logistics model is constructed based on the average travel times on the Perth road network, adjusted for changes to the network over the modelling timeframe. Travel times and distance data were sourced from the TRIPS model developed and maintained by the mainroads Western Australia. Datasets of travel times were obtained for the years 2011, 2016, 2021 and 2031 and incorporated into the logistics model

Milestone Analysis Modelling was undertaken at distinct modelling years that were chosen to represent milestone years for which RRF infrastructure was assumed to be fully commissioned, and years that represent key changes to logistical arrangements. Modelling results were developed and presented for the years 2017 and 2022. The year 2017 was chosen to represent the year by which all new RRF infrastructure for each scenario is assumed to be fully commissioned and operable. At this time, the Tamala Park landfill is assumed receive and dispose of process residuals. The year 2022 was chosen to represent the first year for which the Son of Tamala landfill (assumed to be located at Gingin) is available with Tamala Park landfill closed. The cost impacts of relocating the regional landfill from Tamala Park to Gingin can be assessed by comparing the unit costs for these two milestone years.

Results The financial modelling results, presented on a per household, per tonne and total bases are shown for each council in the following graphs.



Page 226

Inte

grat

ed re

gion

al p

lan—

Brie

fing

docu

men

ts

H

yder

Con

sulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76

104

485

289

Pag

e 21

ht

tp://

aus.

hybi

s.in

fo/p

roje

cts0

/vc/

awar

ded/

aa00

2809

/f_re

ports

/06

scen

ario

s ev

alua

tion

and

wor

ksho

p 15

april

10/b

riefin

g do

cum

ents

for

wor

ksho

p 15

apr

il 10

.doc

$212

$244

$240

$257

$256

$277

$281

$0$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Scen

ario

1: B

ase

case

Scen

ario

2A

: MBT

A

erob

ic C

ompo

stin

g -

2 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

2B:

MBT

A

erob

ic C

ompo

stin

g -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

3A

: MBT

A

naer

obic

Dig

estio

n -

2 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

3B:

MBT

A

naer

obic

Dig

estio

n -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

4A

: The

rmal

-2

Bin

Syst

emSc

enar

io 4

B: T

herm

al -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

2017

$/hhld/yr$/

hhld

All

Coun

cil e

x St

irlin

g, n

ew R

RF

at N

eera

bup,

201

7

Hou

seho

ld re

cycl

able

s

Hou

seho

ld g

arba

ge



Page 227

Inte

grat

ed re

gion

al p

lan—

Brie

fing

docu

men

ts

H

yder

Con

sulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76

104

485

289

Pag

e 22

ht

tp://

aus.

hybi

s.in

fo/p

roje

cts0

/vc/

awar

ded/

aa00

2809

/f_re

ports

/06

scen

ario

s ev

alua

tion

and

wor

ksho

p 15

april

10/b

riefin

g do

cum

ents

for

wor

ksho

p 15

apr

il 10

.doc

$233

$249

$245

$263

$263

$284

$289

$0$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Scen

ario

1: B

ase

case

Scen

ario

2A

: MBT

A

erob

ic C

ompo

stin

g -

2 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

2B:

MBT

A

erob

ic C

ompo

stin

g -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

3A

: MBT

A

naer

obic

Dig

estio

n -

2 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

3B:

MBT

A

naer

obic

Dig

estio

n -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

4A

: The

rmal

-2

Bin

Syst

emSc

enar

io 4

B: T

herm

al -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

2022

$/hhld/yr$/

hhld

All

Coun

cils

ex

Stir

ling,

new

RR

F at

Nee

rabu

p, 2

022

Hou

seho

ld re

cycl

able

s

Hou

seho

ld g

arba

ge



Page 228

Inte

grat

ed re

gion

al p

lan—

Brie

fing

docu

men

ts

H

yder

Con

sulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76

104

485

289

Pag

e 23

ht

tp://

aus.

hybi

s.in

fo/p

roje

cts0

/vc/

awar

ded/

aa00

2809

/f_re

ports

/06

scen

ario

s ev

alua

tion

and

wor

ksho

p 15

april

10/b

riefin

g do

cum

ents

for

wor

ksho

p 15

apr

il 10

.doc

$260

$246

$275

$222

$281

$234

$244

$221

$0$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

Cam

brid

geJo

onda

lup

Pert

hVi

ctor

ia P

ark

Vinc

ent

Wan

nero

oA

ll Co

unci

ls e

x St

irlin

gSt

irlin

g

2017

$/hhld/yr$/

hhld

, Sce

nari

o 2A

, 201

7, n

ew R

RF

at N

eera

bup

Hou

seho

ld re

cycl

able

s

Hou

seho

ld g

arba

ge



Page 229

Inte

grat

ed re

gion

al p

lan—

Brie

fing

docu

men

ts

H

yder

Con

sulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76

104

485

289

Pag

e 24

ht

tp://

aus.

hybi

s.in

fo/p

roje

cts0

/vc/

awar

ded/

aa00

2809

/f_re

ports

/06

scen

ario

s ev

alua

tion

and

wor

ksho

p 15

april

10/b

riefin

g do

cum

ents

for

wor

ksho

p 15

apr

il 10

.doc

$260

$246

$275

$222

$281

$234

$2

44

$221

$249

$2

46

$261

$214

$267

$234

$2

40

$209

$0$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

Cam

brid

geJo

onda

lup

Pert

hVi

ctor

ia P

ark

Vinc

ent

Wan

nero

oA

ll Co

unci

ls e

x St

irlin

gSt

irlin

g

$/hhld/yr$/

hhld

, Sce

nari

o 2A

, new

RR

F at

Nee

rabu

p ve

rsus

Bal

catt

a

Hou

seho

ld re

cycl

able

s

Hou

seho

ld g

arba

ge, R

RF a

t N

eera

bup

Hou

seho

ld g

arba

ge, R

RF a

t Ba

lcat

ta



Page 230

Inte

grat

ed re

gion

al p

lan—

Brie

fing

docu

men

ts

H

yder

Con

sulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76

104

485

289

Pag

e 25

ht

tp://

aus.

hybi

s.in

fo/p

roje

cts0

/vc/

awar

ded/

aa00

2809

/f_re

ports

/06

scen

ario

s ev

alua

tion

and

wor

ksho

p 15

april

10/b

riefin

g do

cum

ents

for

wor

ksho

p 15

apr

il 10

.doc

$213

$221

$221

$235

$236

$256

$258

$0$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Scen

ario

1: B

ase

case

Scen

ario

2A

: MBT

A

erob

ic C

ompo

stin

g -

2 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

2B:

MBT

A

erob

ic C

ompo

stin

g -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

3A

: MBT

A

naer

obic

Dig

estio

n -

2 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

3B:

MBT

A

naer

obic

Dig

estio

n -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

4A

: The

rmal

-2

Bin

Syst

emSc

enar

io 4

B: T

herm

al -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

2017

$/hhld/yr$/

hhld

, 201

7, S

tirl

ing

Hou

seho

ld g

arba

ge



Page 231

Inte

grat

ed re

gion

al p

lan—

Brie

fing

docu

men

ts

H

yder

Con

sulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76

104

485

289

Pag

e 26

ht

tp://

aus.

hybi

s.in

fo/p

roje

cts0

/vc/

awar

ded/

aa00

2809

/f_re

ports

/06

scen

ario

s ev

alua

tion

and

wor

ksho

p 15

april

10/b

riefin

g do

cum

ents

for

wor

ksho

p 15

apr

il 10

.doc

$217

$227

$227

$242

$243

$264

$266

$0$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Scen

ario

1: B

ase

case

Scen

ario

2A

: MBT

A

erob

ic C

ompo

stin

g -

2 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

2B:

MBT

A

erob

ic C

ompo

stin

g -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

3A

: MBT

A

naer

obic

Dig

estio

n -

2 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

3B:

MBT

A

naer

obic

Dig

estio

n -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

Scen

ario

4A

: The

rmal

-2

Bin

Syst

emSc

enar

io 4

B: T

herm

al -

1 Bi

n Sy

stem

2022

$/hhld/yr$/

hhld

, 202

2, S

tirl

ing

Hou

seho

ld g

arba

ge



Page 232

Inte

grat

ed re

gion

al p

lan—

Brie

fing

docu

men

ts

H

yder

Con

sulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76

104

485

289

Pag

e 27

ht

tp://

aus.

hybi

s.in

fo/p

roje

cts0

/vc/

awar

ded/

aa00

2809

/f_re

ports

/06

scen

ario

s ev

alua

tion

and

wor

ksho

p 15

april

10/b

riefin

g do

cum

ents

for

wor

ksho

p 15

apr

il 10

.doc

4 Su

mm

ary

perfo

rman

ce ta

bles

Th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

es p

rovi

de a

sum

mar

y of

the

eval

uatio

n re

sults

for s

cena

rios

in y

ears

201

7 an

d 20

22. O

= c

ompa

rativ

ely

neut

ral;

X =

com

para

tivel

y po

or

perfo

rman

ce; √

= c

ompa

rativ

ely

fair

perfo

rman

ce; √

√ =

com

para

tivel

y go

od p

erfo

rman

ce.

Crit

erio

nS

cena

rio 1

: Bas

e ca

seS

cena

rio 2

A: M

BT

Aer

obic

C

ompo

stin

g - 2

Bin

S

yste

m

Sce

nario

2B

: MB

T A

erob

ic

Com

post

ing

- 1 B

in

Sys

tem

Sce

nario

3A

: MB

T A

naer

obic

D

iges

tion

- 2 B

in

Sys

tem

Sce

nario

3B

: MB

T A

naer

obic

D

iges

tion

- 1 B

in

Sys

tem

Sce

nario

4A

: Th

erm

al -

2 B

in

Sys

tem

Sce

nario

4B

: Th

erm

al -

1 B

in

Sys

tem

ENVI

RONM

ENTA

L

152,

000

t20

4,00

0 t

198,

000

t20

4,00

0 t

198,

000

t22

8,00

0 t

226,

000

t(5

1%)

(68%

)(6

6%)

(68%

)(6

6%)

(76%

)(7

5%)

Rec

ycla

bles

: 39

,000

tR

ecyc

labl

es:

44,0

00 t

Rec

ycla

bles

: 20

,000

tR

ecyc

labl

es:

44,0

00 t

Rec

ycla

bles

: 20

,000

tR

ecyc

labl

es:

38,0

00 t

Rec

ycla

bles

: 13

,000

t

Org

anic

Pro

duct

: 57

,000

tO

rgan

ic P

rodu

ct:

81,0

00 t

Org

anic

Pro

duct

: 90

,000

tO

rgan

ic P

rodu

ct:

69,0

00 t

Org

anic

Pro

duct

: 76

,000

tO

rgan

ic P

rodu

ct:

30,0

00 t

Org

anic

Pro

duct

: 30

,000

t

Net

ene

rgy

bala

nce

(GJ)

-125

,000

GJ

-183

,000

GJ

-178

,000

GJ

-115

,000

GJ

-98,

000

GJ

177,

000

GJ

247,

000

GJ

CH

4 or

CO

2 em

issi

ons

Res

ourc

e re

cove

ry

Ene

rgy

reco

very

FINA

NCIA

LFi

nanc

ial c

ost

($/h

hld/

yr)

$212

/hhl

d$2

36/h

hld

$233

/hhl

d$2

50/h

hld

$250

/hhl

d$2

70/h

hld

$274

/hhl

d

SOCI

ALO

dour

, vis

ual a

men

ity,

and

emis

sion

s pe

rcep

tion

RISK

Geo

grap

hic

/ loc

atio

n

2017

Tonn

age

of w

aste

dive

rted

from

land

fill.

Rec

over

y of

recy

clab

le m

ater

ials

. Inc

lude

s ke

rbsi

de-c

olle

cted

hou

seho

ld

recy

clab

les,

sor

ted

recy

clab

les

at R

RF'

s an

d st

ablis

ed o

rgan

ics.

For

ther

mal

tre

atm

ent,

ther

e m

ay a

lso

be p

oten

tial t

o us

e bo

ttom

ash

as

aggr

egat

e fo

r co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es (a

roun

d 20

0kg/

tonn

e in

put w

aste

).

A re

lativ

e as

sess

men

t of t

he e

nerg

y pr

oduc

ed s

uch

as e

lect

ricity

from

bio

gas

or

was

te c

ombu

stio

n an

d en

ergy

con

sum

ed, s

uch

as m

ains

ele

ctric

ity, g

as, l

iqui

d fu

els.

"+"

is n

et e

nerg

y ge

nera

ted,

"-"

is n

et e

nerg

y co

nsum

ed.

Res

ourc

e re

cove

red

(tonn

es)

Was

te d

iverte

d (to

nnes

& d

ivers

ion

%)

Reg

ion

wid

e pe

r hou

seho

ld c

ost.

Impa

cts

on th

e co

mm

unity

rela

ted

to fa

cilit

y si

ting

and

tech

nolo

gy. I

nclu

des

the

pote

ntia

l for

diff

eren

t typ

es o

f tec

hnol

ogie

s to

gen

erat

e od

ours

and

the

pote

ntia

l for

su

cces

sful

odo

ur c

ontro

l, th

e ty

pica

l siz

e an

d po

tent

ial i

ntru

sive

ness

and

the

pote

ntia

l for

litte

r gen

erat

ion,

and

com

mun

ity p

erce

ptio

n of

the

pote

ntia

l for

toxi

c em

issi

ons

from

diff

eren

t pro

cess

es.

Ris

ks a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith fa

ctor

s su

ch a

s lo

catio

nal c

hara

cter

istic

s, z

onin

g, a

cces

s an

d cu

rrent

and

futu

re u

ses.

Gre

enho

use

impa

cts

and

bene

fits

A re

lativ

e as

sess

men

t of t

he g

reen

hous

e im

pact

s an

d be

nefit

s. Im

pact

s co

uld

incl

ude

ener

gy c

onsu

med

in

cons

truct

ion

and

oper

atio

n of

faci

litie

s, e

nerg

y co

nsum

ed b

y w

aste

tran

spor

t, al

tern

ative

and

rene

wab

le

ener

gy g

ener

ated

and

ene

rgy

save

d by

reso

urce

re

cove

ry.



Page 233

Inte

grat

ed re

gion

al p

lan—

Brie

fing

docu

men

ts

H

yder

Con

sulti

ng P

ty L

td-A

BN

76

104

485

289

Pag

e 28

ht

tp://

aus.

hybi

s.in

fo/p

roje

cts0

/vc/

awar

ded/

aa00

2809

/f_re

ports

/06

scen

ario

s ev

alua

tion

and

wor

ksho

p 15

april

10/b

riefin

g do

cum

ents

for

wor

ksho

p 15

apr

il 10

.doc

Crit

erio

nS

cena

rio 1

: Bas

e ca

seS

cena

rio 2

A: M

BT

Aer

obic

C

ompo

stin

g - 2

Bin

S

yste

m

Sce

nario

2B

: MB

T A

erob

ic

Com

post

ing

- 1 B

in

Sys

tem

Sce

nario

3A

: MB

T A

naer

obic

D

iges

tion

- 2 B

in

Sys

tem

Sce

nario

3B

: MB

T A

naer

obic

D

iges

tion

- 1 B

in

Sys

tem

Sce

nario

4A

: Th

erm

al -

2 B

in

Sys

tem

Sce

nario

4B

: Th

erm

al -

1 B

in

Sys

tem

ENVI

RONM

ENTA

L

158,

000

t22

4,00

0 t

218,

000

t22

4,00

0 t

218,

000

t25

2,00

0 t

250,

000

t(4

8%)

(68%

)(6

6%)

(68%

)(6

6%)

(76%

)(7

6%)

Rec

ycla

bles

: 42

,000

tR

ecyc

labl

es:

49,0

00 t

Rec

ycla

bles

: 22

,000

tR

ecyc

labl

es:

49,0

00 t

Rec

ycla

bles

: 22

,000

tR

ecyc

labl

es:

42,0

00 t

Rec

ycla

bles

: 13

,000

t

Org

anic

Pro

duct

: 59

,000

tO

rgan

ic P

rodu

ct:

89,0

00 t

Org

anic

Pro

duct

: 99

,000

tO

rgan

ic P

rodu

ct:

75,0

00 t

Org

anic

Pro

duct

: 83

,000

tO

rgan

ic P

rodu

ct:

30,0

00 t

Org

anic

Pro

duct

: 30

,000

t

Net

ene

rgy

bala

nce

(GJ)

-146

,000

GJ

-202

,000

GJ

-197

,000

GJ

-124

,000

GJ

-106

,000

GJ

214,

000

GJ

292,

000

GJ

CH

4 or

CO

2 em

issi

ons

Res

ourc

e re

cove

ry

Ene

rgy

reco

very

FINA

NCIA

LFi

nanc

ial c

ost

($/h

hld/

yr)

$228

/hhl

d$2

42/h

hld

$240

/hhl

d$2

57/h

hld

$257

/hhl

d$2

78/h

hld

$282

/hhl

d

SOCI

ALO

dour

, vis

ual a

men

ity,

and

emis

sion

s pe

rcep

tion

RISK

Geo

grap

hic

/ loc

atio

n

Tonn

age

of w

aste

dive

rted

from

land

fill.

Rec

over

y of

recy

clab

le m

ater

ials

. Inc

lude

s ke

rbsi

de-c

olle

cted

hou

seho

ld

recy

clab

les,

sor

ted

recy

clab

les

at R

RF'

s an

d st

ablis

ed o

rgan

ics.

For

ther

mal

tre

atm

ent,

ther

e m

ay a

lso

be p

oten

tial t

o us

e bo

ttom

ash

as

aggr

egat

e fo

r co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es (a

roun

d 20

0kg/

tonn

e in

put w

aste

).

A re

lativ

e as

sess

men

t of t

he e

nerg

y pr

oduc

ed s

uch

as e

lect

ricity

from

bio

gas

or

was

te c

ombu

stio

n an

d en

ergy

con

sum

ed, s

uch

as m

ains

ele

ctric

ity, g

as, l

iqui

d fu

els.

"+"

is n

et e

nerg

y ge

nera

ted,

"-"

is n

et e

nerg

y co

nsum

ed.

2022

Was

te d

iverte

d (to

nnes

& d

ivers

ion

%)

Res

ourc

e re

cove

red

(tonn

es)

Reg

ion

wid

e pe

r hou

seho

ld c

ost.

Impa

cts

on th

e co

mm

unity

rela

ted

to fa

cilit

y si

ting

and

tech

nolo

gy. I

nclu

des

the

pote

ntia

l for

diff

eren

t typ

es o

f tec

hnol

ogie

s to

gen

erat

e od

ours

and

the

pote

ntia

l for

su

cces

sful

odo

ur c

ontro

l, th

e ty

pica

l siz

e an

d po

tent

ial i

ntru

sive

ness

and

the

pote

ntia

l for

litte

r gen

erat

ion,

and

com

mun

ity p

erce

ptio

n of

the

pote

ntia

l for

toxi

c em

issi

ons

from

diff

eren

t pro

cess

es.

Ris

ks a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith fa

ctor

s su

ch a

s lo

catio

nal c

hara

cter

istic

s, z

onin

g, a

cces

s an

d cu

rrent

and

futu

re u

ses.

Gre

enho

use

impa

cts

and

bene

fits

A re

lativ

e as

sess

men

t of t

he g

reen

hous

e im

pact

s an

d be

nefit

s. Im

pact

s co

uld

incl

ude

ener

gy c

onsu

med

in

cons

truct

ion

and

oper

atio

n of

faci

litie

s, e

nerg

y co

nsum

ed b

y w

aste

tran

spor

t, al

tern

ative

and

rene

wab

le

ener

gy g

ener

ated

and

ene

rgy

save

d by

reso

urce

re

cove

ry.



Page 234


Qualitative assessments of environmental, social, and risk impacts can be highly subjective. The following notes provide the background discussion used to develop a qualitative assessment of the scenarios under each of the criteria indicated.

Greenhouse gas impacts and benefits The climate change impacts of waste management systems are due to upstream, direct, and downstream GHG contributions. Upstream contributions arise from inputs of energy and ancillary materials; direct emissions are from system operations; and downstream contributions and savings relate to energy and material substitution and carbon storage/sequestration. Some contributions are minor – for example, waste collection and transport usually represents only a small fraction of the overall GHG balance of waste management systems (e.g. less than 5%). Assumptions regarding technology performance, energy substitution, and waste composition have a considerable impact on estimates of GHG impacts and benefits of different waste systems. In most GHG estimates, using life-cycle assessment methods, the GHG savings from recovered resources outweighs any other GHG saving (i.e. from energy recovery or carbon storage).

GHG impacts from landfill are generally dominated by direct emissions of methane from the site. Where efficient landfill gas capture systems (with energy generation) are in place, GHG savings may be achieved through substitution of fossil-fuel energy sources. GHG savings may also be attributed to carbon ‘stored’ for medium to long term in landfill, due to the recalcitrant nature of some carbon materials (i.e. wood, plastics) in anaerobic conditions. Under international GHG reporting conventions (IPCC 2006), savings due to carbon storage are not credited to the waste sector, but are reported in the ‘harvested wood products’ sector.

GHG emissions from incineration are predominantly due to direct emissions of fossil and biogenic CO2 during combustion of materials. Under international GHG reporting conventions (IPCC 2006), biogenic CO2 emissions are not accounted for in the waste sector. GHG savings associated with incineration (with energy recovery) result from the substitution of fossil-fuel energy sources and recovery of metals from the ash. The GHG savings from energy substitution will largely depend on whether heat and/or electricity are being substituted. Heat energy is more efficient and results in much greater GHG savings. Where regulations allow bottom ash to be used as aggregate in construction, additional GHG savings may be counted in the substitution of raw aggregate.

GHG emissions from mechanical biological treatment (MBT) with composting may be dominated by indirect upstream emissions from energy input (this is because the direct process emissions tend to be minimal). GHG savings result from front-end recovery of recyclable materials and substitution of fertilisers or other soil amendments, where regulations permit application of the composted organic output to land. GHG savings may also be attributed to carbon stored in soil; however, under international GHG reporting conventions (IPCC 2006), savings due to carbon storage are not credited to the waste sector.

In addition to the GHG emissions and savings noted above for MBT with composting, MBT with anaerobic digestion gains GHG savings through generation of energy and substitution of fossil-fuel energy sources.

The evaluation of GHG impacts and savings of the MRC waste processing scenarios is based on the following considerations:

Is the main processing technology likely to directly emit substantial quantities of either methane or fossil CO2?

Does the scenario achieve high levels of resource recovery?

Is energy (electricity) recovered by the main processing technology?



Page 235


Table 1: GHG impacts and benefits of waste processing scenarios

Criteria Scenario 1: Base case

Scenario 2A: MBT Aerobic Composting - 2 Bin System

Scenario 2B: MBT Aerobic Composting - 1 Bin System

Scenario 3A: MBT Anaerobic Digestion - 2 Bin System

Scenario 3B: MBT Anaerobic Digestion - 1 Bin System

Scenario 4A: Thermal - 2 Bin System

Scenario 4B: Thermal - 1 Bin System

CH4 or CO2 emissions X √ √ √ √ X X

Resource recovery √ √√ X √√ X √ X

Energy recovery √ X X √ √ √√ √√

X = comparatively poor performance; √ = comparatively fair performance; √√ = comparatively good performance.

Odour, visual amenity, and emissions perception This criterion focuses specifically on the different waste processing facilities in each proposed scenario, and examines the likely perceptions of the local community to potential odour, visual amenity (or ‘disamenity’), and emissions from these facilities. Odour and visual amenity impact on human sensory experience, and do not involve an actual physical environmental impact.

The extent of potential impacts is related to facility siting and technology: different types of technologies may vary in their potential to generate odours and their ability for successful odour control; typical size and potential intrusiveness of facilities also varies with technology; litter may be more easily controlled by certain technologies. However, site management (such as odour and litter control) and design (e.g. clever architecture and landscaping) can considerably reduce disamenity issues. Community perception of the potential for toxic emissions from different processes is also considered within this criterion.

Odour, visual amenity, and emissions perception are extremely difficult to assess, with a community’s sensory preferences and perceptions linked to culture, environment, and education/awareness, and often change over time (COWI 2000).

Landfills are generally perceived by society as malodorous, visually displeasing sites. Hedonic price studies3

3 Hedonic pricing methods are used to estimate economic values for ecosystem or environmental services that directly affect market prices. It is most commonly applied to variations in housing prices that reflect the value of local environmental attributes.

, which examine the relationship between real estate trends and disamenity, suggest that house prices decrease with proximity to landfills – people prefer not to live close to a landfill site, and this is true both overseas and in Australia (COWI 2000, Enviros 2004, Travers Morgan 1992). Communities do not tend to raise concerns regarding potentially toxic air emissions from landfill sites; however, residents have recently voiced concerns about emissions from Cranbourne Landfill, Victoria. Due to the size of landfills, and their ‘open-air’ nature, odour, litter, pests, and dust are more difficult to control in practice than at smaller, enclosed waste treatment sites.



Page 236


Incinerators may be perceived by some communities as visually displeasing facilities with the potential to emit toxic gases. Odour and litter are less of a concern than emissions. This is in part a cultural perception: in some Northern European cities, incinerators are located in populated, urban areas and appear to be accepted. Modern incinerator stacks are equipped with effective air pollution control systems, which greatly reduce the levels of pollutants emitted (i.e. below levels required by most countries’ regulations). Rigorous monitoring is usually required to ensure these levels are maintained. Minimal levels of dioxins are, however, emitted. Dioxins accumulate over time in ecosystems/organisms, and society may perceive this as a significant impact. Actual environmental and health risks from air emissions are difficult to separate from perceived social risks. In one European hedonic price study (the only one, to our knowledge, that examines incinerators and disamenity), incinerators are considered to have comparable disamenity ‘costs’ to landfills (COWI 2000), although for different reasons.

The modern MBT facility (either composting or anaerobic digestion) considered in the current evaluation is enclosed and kept under slight negative air pressure to minimise odour and visual disamenity associated with open windrow composting. Air emissions from such facilities pass through biofilters prior to exiting to the atmosphere. As with each technology considered, poor management of the facility can lead to odour problems. The concentration of organic waste for biological treatment increases the risk of odour issues. Older, non-enclosed MBT plants in Europe have experienced odour problems, as well as the Canning Vale plant in WA (SMRC), and these may influence public perception. Communities do not tend to raise concerns regarding potentially toxic air emissions from MBT plants.

Table 2: Odour, amenity, and emissions (perception) impacts of waste processing scenarios








Odour and visual

amenity X √ √ √ √ √ √

Emissions perception √ √ √ √ √ X X

Overall performance X √ √ √ √ X X

X = comparatively poor performance; √ = comparatively fair performance; √√ = comparatively good performance.

Geographic / location risk Risks associated with factors such as locational characteristics, such as zoning, access and current and future uses are largely site-dependant, but may vary with specific technology. It is assumed that the sites proposed for the current evaluation by MRC (Gingin for the ‘Son of Tamala’ landfill, and Neerabup or Balcatta for a new AWT) have, or are anticipated to have, appropriate zoning and access for these waste processing activities.

The Neerabup site is located within an area zoned for industrial use, but is currently largely used for agriculture. In the future, this agricultural activity is anticipated to progressively change to industrial activity. The closest residential area is approximately 850m from the existing MBT facility. Occasional odour complaints are received from neighbouring residents and users of an adjacent golf course. There do not appear to be any geographic or location risks associated with siting a further MBT at Neerabup. Siting a



Page 237


thermal facility at Neerabup is likely to be more complicated, both due to actual and perceived risks. Fly ash produced by an incinerator is classified as hazardous waste and requires special handling and treatment, either on-site or off-site (which would require regular transport of hazardous material from the site). Surrounding residents and farmers may argue that long-term exposure of the local environment to even minimal levels of emissions (i.e. dioxins) poses a risk to human and ecosystem health, and livelihood.

The Balcatta site is located within an industrial zone, in relatively close proximity (approximately 650m) to residential areas. It is unlikely that the site would provide sufficient land area for a MBT aerobic composting facility. A fully enclosed anaerobic MBT facility may be more suitable for this location. A thermal facility would most likely encounter similar difficulties as for the Neerabup site (apart from concerns from farmers).

The possible landfill site at Gingin is assumed to have appropriate geology to minimise the risk of leachate emissions to groundwater.

Table 3: Locational impacts of waste processing scenarios








Geographic / locational

risk O O O O O X X

O = neutral; X = potential risk

References COWI (2000). A Study on the Economic Valuation of Environmental Externalities from Landfill Disposal and Incineration of Waste. Final Report to the European Commission, DG Environment.

Enviros Consulting Limited and EFTEC (2004). Valuation of the external costs and benefits to health and environment of waste management options. Final report for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), December 2004.

Travers Morgan Pty Ltd (1992). Economics of the Solid Waste Management Industry in Sydney. Report to the NSW EPA.



Page 238


5 Detailed cost summary – financial evaluation of waste scenarios



Page 239

Scenario 1: Base case

System Costs - Councils ex Stirling

Total $

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 304,773$ 179,827$ 1,199,579$ 1,684,179$ 10,002 8,908 301,101$ 554,388$ 1,175,176$ 16,994$ 2,047,658$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 1,757,772$ 631,793$ 7,105,103$ 9,494,669$ 61,315 53,182 1,797,566$ 1,501,195$ 7,203,828$ 104,173$ 10,606,762$

Perth 8,540 8,191 404,642$ 222,225$ 1,036,140$ 1,663,007$ 9,316 8,729 431,210$ 569,221$ 1,094,508$ 15,827$ 2,110,766$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 584,761$ 255,830$ 1,412,179$ 2,252,770$ 12,381 14,606 607,590$ 743,421$ 1,454,665$ 21,036$ 2,826,711$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 407,937$ 284,469$ 1,800,106$ 2,492,512$ 15,728 12,497 422,403$ 869,043$ 1,847,897$ 26,722$ 3,166,065$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 2,432,620$ 649,505$ 9,157,973$ 12,240,098$ 91,327 86,060 2,908,828$ 2,051,371$ 10,729,907$ 155,163$ 15,845,268$

178,954 167,310 5,892,505$ 2,223,649$ 21,711,080$ 29,827,234$ 200,070 183,982 6,468,698$ 6,288,638$ 23,505,982$ 339,915$ 36,603,232$

Household Recyclables

Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 187,552$ 61,148$ 110,010$ 358,711$ 2,226 8,908 185,293$ 62,368$ 111,289$ -$ 358,950$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 1,081,706$ 108,856$ 414,089$ 1,604,651$ 8,671 53,182 1,106,195$ 114,131$ 433,542$ 12,251.6$ 1,666,120$

Perth 1,048 8,191 234,267$ 26,158$ 52,400$ 312,825$ 1,143 8,729 249,648$ 28,621$ 57,158$ -$ 335,427$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 347,202$ 41,489$ 123,479$ 512,170$ 2,627 14,606 360,756$ 44,486$ 131,344$ -$ 536,587$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 251,038$ 70,411$ 113,900$ 435,350$ 2,415 12,497 259,940$ 75,145$ 120,739$ -$ 455,825$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 1,496,997$ 209,924$ 716,574$ 2,423,495$ 17,339 86,060 1,790,048$ 255,130$ 866,966$ 24,499.8$ 2,936,644$

30,609 167,310 3,598,762$ 517,986$ 1,530,453$ 5,647,201$ 34,421 183,982 3,951,880$ 579,882$ 1,721,039$ 36,751$ 6,289,552$

$ per household

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 34$ 20$ 133$ 187$ 10,002 8,908 34$ 62$ 132$ 2$ 230$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 34$ 12$ 137$ 183$ 61,315 53,182 34$ 28$ 135$ 2$ 199$

Perth 8,540 8,191 49$ 27$ 126$ 203$ 9,316 8,729 49$ 65$ 125$ 2$ 242$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 42$ 18$ 100$ 160$ 12,381 14,606 42$ 51$ 100$ 1$ 194$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 34$ 24$ 149$ 207$ 15,728 12,497 34$ 70$ 148$ 2$ 253$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 34$ 9$ 127$ 170$ 91,327 86,060 34$ 24$ 125$ 2$ 184$

178,954 167,310 35$ 13$ 130$ 178$ 200,070 183,982 35$ 34$ 128$ 2$ 199$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 21$ 7$ 12$ 40$ 2,226 8,908 21$ 7$ 12$ -$ 40$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 21$ 2$ 8$ 31$ 8,671 53,182 21$ 2$ 8$ 0.2$ 31$

Perth 1,048 8,191 29$ 3$ 6$ 38$ 1,143 8,729 29$ 3$ 7$ -$ 38$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 25$ 3$ 9$ 36$ 2,627 14,606 25$ 3$ 9$ -$ 37$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 21$ 6$ 9$ 36$ 2,415 12,497 21$ 6$ 10$ -$ 36$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 21$ 3$ 10$ 34$ 17,339 86,060 21$ 3$ 10$ 0.3$ 34$

30,609 167,310 22$ 3$ 9$ 34$ 34,421 183,982 21$ 3$ 9$ 0.2$ 34$

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 240

Scenario 1: Base case

$ per tonne

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 31$ 18$ 121$ 170$ 10,002 8,908 30$ 55$ 117$ 1.7$ 205$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 30$ 11$ 121$ 162$ 61,315 53,182 29$ 24$ 117$ 1.7$ 173$

Perth 8,540 8,191 47$ 26$ 121$ 195$ 9,316 8,729 46$ 61$ 117$ 1.7$ 227$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 50$ 22$ 121$ 194$ 12,381 14,606 49$ 60$ 117$ 1.7$ 228$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 27$ 19$ 121$ 168$ 15,728 12,497 27$ 55$ 117$ 1.7$ 201$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 32$ 9$ 121$ 162$ 91,327 86,060 32$ 22$ 117$ 1.7$ 173$

178,954 167,310 33$ 12$ 121$ 167$ 200,070 183,982 32$ 31$ 117$ 1.7$ 183$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 85$ 28$ 50$ 163$ 2,226 8,908 83$ 28$ 50$ -$ 161$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 131$ 13$ 50$ 194$ 8,671 53,182 128$ 13$ 50$ 1$ 192$

Perth 1,048 8,191 224$ 25$ 50$ 298$ 1,143 8,729 218$ 25$ 50$ -$ 293$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 141$ 17$ 50$ 207$ 2,627 14,606 137$ 17$ 50$ -$ 204$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 110$ 31$ 50$ 191$ 2,415 12,497 108$ 31$ 50$ -$ 189$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 104$ 15$ 50$ 169$ 17,339 86,060 103$ 15$ 50$ 1$ 169$

30,609 167,310 118$ 17$ 50$ 184$ 34,421 183,982 115$ 17$ 50$ 1$ 183$

System Costs - Stirling

Quantity

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)

Total Cost ($) Quantity

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)

Total Cost ($)

Total $Garbage 91,022 80,356 $2,716,019 $767,823 $13,653,237 $17,137,079 95,545 82,389 $2,784,744 $725,316 $14,331,750 $17,841,810

Total $MGarbage 91,022 80,356 $2.7 $0.8 $13.7 $17.1 95,545 82,389 $2.8 $0.7 $14.3 $17.8

$ per householdGarbage 1.13 $34 $10 $170 $213 1.16 $34 $9 $174 $217

$ per tonneGarbage $30 $8 $150 $188 $29 $8 $150 $187

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 241



Total $

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 304,773$ 194,300$ 1,483,132$ 1,982,204$ 10,002 8,908 301,101$ 178,997$ 1,500,371$ 34,000$ 2,014,469$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 1,757,772$ 659,195$ 8,784,587$ 11,201,554$ 61,315 53,182 1,797,566$ 597,431$ 9,197,272$ 208,419$ 11,800,688$

Perth 8,540 8,191 404,642$ 252,584$ 1,281,059$ 1,938,285$ 9,316 8,729 431,210$ 250,917$ 1,397,380$ 31,666$ 2,111,173$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 584,761$ 274,455$ 1,745,986$ 2,605,202$ 12,381 14,606 607,590$ 269,912$ 1,857,200$ 42,086$ 2,776,788$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 407,937$ 328,421$ 2,225,610$ 2,961,968$ 15,728 12,497 422,403$ 313,974$ 2,359,247$ 53,463$ 3,149,087$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 2,432,620$ 659,329$ 11,322,709$ 14,414,657$ 91,327 86,060 2,908,828$ 705,239$ 13,699,086$ 310,435$ 17,623,588$

178,954 167,310 5,892,505$ 2,368,284$ 26,843,083$ 35,103,872$ 200,070 183,982 6,468,698$ 2,316,471$ 30,010,556$ 680,068$ 39,475,793$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 187,552$ 61,148$ 110,010$ 358,711$ 2,226 8,908 185,293$ 62,368$ 111,289$ -$ 358,950$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 1,081,706$ 108,856$ 414,089$ 1,604,651$ 8,671 53,182 1,106,195$ 114,131$ 433,542$ 12,251.6$ 1,666,120$

Perth 1,048 8,191 234,267$ 26,158$ 52,400$ 312,825$ 1,143 8,729 249,648$ 28,621$ 57,158$ -$ 335,427$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 347,202$ 41,489$ 123,479$ 512,170$ 2,627 14,606 360,756$ 44,486$ 131,344$ -$ 536,587$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 251,038$ 70,411$ 113,900$ 435,350$ 2,415 12,497 259,940$ 75,145$ 120,739$ -$ 455,825$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 1,496,997$ 209,924$ 716,574$ 2,423,495$ 17,339 86,060 1,790,048$ 255,130$ 866,966$ 24,499.8$ 2,936,644$

30,609 167,310 3,598,762$ 517,986$ 1,530,453$ 5,647,201$ 34,421 183,982 3,951,880$ 579,882$ 1,721,039$ 36,751$ 6,289,552$

$ per household

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 34$ 22$ 164$ 220$ 10,002 8,908 34$ 20$ 168$ 4$ 226$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 34$ 13$ 169$ 215$ 61,315 53,182 34$ 11$ 173$ 4$ 222$

Perth 8,540 8,191 49$ 31$ 156$ 237$ 9,316 8,729 49$ 29$ 160$ 4$ 242$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 42$ 20$ 124$ 185$ 12,381 14,606 42$ 18$ 127$ 3$ 190$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 34$ 27$ 184$ 245$ 15,728 12,497 34$ 25$ 189$ 4$ 252$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 34$ 9$ 157$ 200$ 91,327 86,060 34$ 8$ 159$ 4$ 205$

178,954 167,310 35$ 14$ 160$ 210$ 200,070 183,982 35$ 13$ 163$ 4$ 215$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 21$ 7$ 12$ 40$ 2,226 8,908 21$ 7$ 12$ -$ 40$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 21$ 2$ 8$ 31$ 8,671 53,182 21$ 2$ 8$ 0.2$ 31$

Perth 1,048 8,191 29$ 3$ 6$ 38$ 1,143 8,729 29$ 3$ 7$ -$ 38$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 25$ 3$ 9$ 36$ 2,627 14,606 25$ 3$ 9$ -$ 37$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 21$ 6$ 9$ 36$ 2,415 12,497 21$ 6$ 10$ -$ 36$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 21$ 3$ 10$ 34$ 17,339 86,060 21$ 3$ 10$ 0.3$ 34$

30,609 167,310 22$ 3$ 9$ 34$ 34,421 183,982 21$ 3$ 9$ 0.2$ 34$

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 242


$ per tonne

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 31$ 20$ 150$ 200$ 10,002 8,908 30$ 18$ 150$ 3.4$ 201$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 30$ 11$ 150$ 191$ 61,315 53,182 29$ 10$ 150$ 3.4$ 192$

Perth 8,540 8,191 47$ 30$ 150$ 227$ 9,316 8,729 46$ 27$ 150$ 3.4$ 227$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 50$ 24$ 150$ 224$ 12,381 14,606 49$ 22$ 150$ 3.4$ 224$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 27$ 22$ 150$ 200$ 15,728 12,497 27$ 20$ 150$ 3.4$ 200$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 32$ 9$ 150$ 191$ 91,327 86,060 32$ 8$ 150$ 3.4$ 193$

178,954 167,310 33$ 13$ 150$ 196$ 200,070 183,982 32$ 12$ 150$ 3.4$ 197$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 85$ 28$ 50$ 163$ 2,226 8,908 83$ 28$ 50$ -$ 161$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 131$ 13$ 50$ 194$ 8,671 53,182 128$ 13$ 50$ 1$ 192$

Perth 1,048 8,191 224$ 25$ 50$ 298$ 1,143 8,729 218$ 25$ 50$ -$ 293$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 141$ 17$ 50$ 207$ 2,627 14,606 137$ 17$ 50$ -$ 204$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 110$ 31$ 50$ 191$ 2,415 12,497 108$ 31$ 50$ -$ 189$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 104$ 15$ 50$ 169$ 17,339 86,060 103$ 15$ 50$ 1$ 169$

30,609 167,310 118$ 17$ 50$ 184$ 34,421 183,982 115$ 17$ 50$ 1$ 183$


Quantity

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)


(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer ($)

Total Cost ($)

Total $Garbage 91,022 80,356 $2,716,019 $1,354,824 $13,653,237 $17,724,080 95,545 82,389 $2,784,744 $1,259,973 $14,331,750 $324,771 $18,701,239

Total $MGarbage 91,022 80,356 $2.7 $1.4 $13.7 $17.7 95,545 82,389 $2.8 $1.3 $14.3 $0.3 $18.7

$ per householdGarbage 1.13 $34 $17 $170 $221 1.16 $34 $15 $174 $3 $227

$ per tonneGarbage $30 $15 $150 $195 $29 $13 $150 $3.4 $196

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 243



Total $

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 12,088 9,017 304,773$ 237,536$ 1,813,163$ 2,355,472$ 12,228 8,908 301,101$ 218,828$ 1,834,238$ 41,566$ 2,395,733$

Joondalup 66,846 52,005 1,757,772$ 752,415$ 10,026,855$ 12,537,042$ 69,986 53,182 1,797,566$ 681,916$ 10,497,899$ 237,893$ 13,215,274$

Perth 9,588 8,191 404,642$ 283,578$ 1,438,259$ 2,126,480$ 10,459 8,729 431,210$ 281,708$ 1,568,854$ 35,552$ 2,317,323$

Victoria Park 14,109 14,057 584,761$ 332,685$ 2,116,422$ 3,033,869$ 15,008 14,606 607,590$ 327,178$ 2,251,232$ 51,015$ 3,237,015$

Vincent 17,115 12,069 407,937$ 378,844$ 2,567,311$ 3,354,092$ 18,143 12,497 422,403$ 362,179$ 2,721,465$ 61,671$ 3,567,718$

Wanneroo 89,816 71,971 2,432,620$ 784,508$ 13,472,430$ 16,689,559$ 108,667 86,060 2,908,828$ 839,136$ 16,299,985$ 369,374$ 20,417,322$

209,563 167,310 5,892,505$ 2,769,567$ 31,434,440$ 40,096,513$ 234,491 183,982 6,468,698$ 2,710,945$ 35,173,674$ 797,070$ 45,150,386$

$ per household

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 12,088 9,017 34$ 26$ 201$ 261$ 12,228 8,908 34$ 25$ 206$ 5$ 269$

Joondalup 66,846 52,005 34$ 14$ 193$ 241$ 69,986 53,182 34$ 13$ 197$ 4$ 248$

Perth 9,588 8,191 49$ 35$ 176$ 260$ 10,459 8,729 49$ 32$ 180$ 4$ 265$

Victoria Park 14,109 14,057 42$ 24$ 151$ 216$ 15,008 14,606 42$ 22$ 154$ 3$ 222$

Vincent 17,115 12,069 34$ 31$ 213$ 278$ 18,143 12,497 34$ 29$ 218$ 5$ 285$

Wanneroo 89,816 71,971 34$ 11$ 187$ 232$ 108,667 86,060 34$ 10$ 189$ 4$ 237$

209,563 167,310 35$ 17$ 188$ 240$ 234,491 183,982 35$ 15$ 191$ 4$ 245$

$ per tonne

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 12,088 9,017 25$ 20$ 150$ 195$ 12,228 8,908 25$ 18$ 150$ 3.4$ 196$

Joondalup 66,846 52,005 26$ 11$ 150$ 188$ 69,986 53,182 26$ 10$ 150$ 3.4$ 189$

Perth 9,588 8,191 42$ 30$ 150$ 222$ 10,459 8,729 41$ 27$ 150$ 3.4$ 222$

Victoria Park 14,109 14,057 41$ 24$ 150$ 215$ 15,008 14,606 40$ 22$ 150$ 3.4$ 216$

Vincent 17,115 12,069 24$ 22$ 150$ 196$ 18,143 12,497 23$ 20$ 150$ 3.4$ 197$

Wanneroo 89,816 71,971 27$ 9$ 150$ 186$ 108,667 86,060 27$ 8$ 150$ 3.4$ 188$

209,563 167,310 28$ 13$ 150$ 191$ 234,491 183,982 28$ 12$ 150$ 3.4$ 193$


Quantity

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)


(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer ($)

Total Cost ($)

Total $Garbage 91,022 80,356 $2,716,019 $1,354,824 $13,653,237 $17,724,080 95,545 82,389 $2,784,744 $1,259,973 $14,331,750 $324,771 $18,701,239

Total $MGarbage 91,022 80,356 $2.7 $1.4 $13.7 $17.7 95,545 82,389 $2.8 $1.3 $14.3 $0.3 $18.7



2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCILSTRATEGIC PROJECTS COMMITTEE MINUTES - 14 MAY 2010 - 89 - ITEM 8.3.1ITEM 8.3.2


Page 244



Total $

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 304,773$ 194,300$ 1,607,635$ 2,106,707$ 10,002 8,908 301,101$ 178,997$ 1,632,748$ 34,000$ 2,146,846$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 1,757,772$ 659,195$ 9,522,019$ 11,938,987$ 61,315 53,182 1,797,566$ 597,431$ 10,008,744$ 208,419$ 12,612,160$

Perth 8,540 8,191 404,642$ 252,584$ 1,388,599$ 2,045,825$ 9,316 8,729 431,210$ 250,917$ 1,520,670$ 31,666$ 2,234,464$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 584,761$ 274,455$ 1,892,554$ 2,751,771$ 12,381 14,606 607,590$ 269,912$ 2,021,060$ 42,086$ 2,940,648$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 407,937$ 328,421$ 2,412,441$ 3,148,800$ 15,728 12,497 422,403$ 313,974$ 2,567,403$ 53,463$ 3,357,243$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 2,432,620$ 659,329$ 12,273,206$ 15,365,155$ 91,327 86,060 2,908,828$ 705,239$ 14,907,752$ 310,435$ 18,832,254$

178,954 167,310 5,892,505$ 2,368,284$ 29,096,456$ 37,357,245$ 200,070 183,982 6,468,698$ 2,316,471$ 32,658,378$ 680,068$ 42,123,615$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 187,552$ 61,148$ 110,010$ 358,711$ 2,226 8,908 185,293$ 62,368$ 111,289$ -$ 358,950$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 1,081,706$ 108,856$ 414,089$ 1,604,651$ 8,671 53,182 1,106,195$ 114,131$ 433,542$ 12,251.6$ 1,666,120$

Perth 1,048 8,191 234,267$ 26,158$ 52,400$ 312,825$ 1,143 8,729 249,648$ 28,621$ 57,158$ -$ 335,427$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 347,202$ 41,489$ 123,479$ 512,170$ 2,627 14,606 360,756$ 44,486$ 131,344$ -$ 536,587$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 251,038$ 70,411$ 113,900$ 435,350$ 2,415 12,497 259,940$ 75,145$ 120,739$ -$ 455,825$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 1,496,997$ 209,924$ 716,574$ 2,423,495$ 17,339 86,060 1,790,048$ 255,130$ 866,966$ 24,499.8$ 2,936,644$

30,609 167,310 3,598,762$ 517,986$ 1,530,453$ 5,647,201$ 34,421 183,982 3,951,880$ 579,882$ 1,721,039$ 36,751$ 6,289,552$

$ per household

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 34$ 22$ 178$ 234$ 10,002 8,908 34$ 20$ 183$ 4$ 241$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 34$ 13$ 183$ 230$ 61,315 53,182 34$ 11$ 188$ 4$ 237$

Perth 8,540 8,191 49$ 31$ 170$ 250$ 9,316 8,729 49$ 29$ 174$ 4$ 256$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 42$ 20$ 135$ 196$ 12,381 14,606 42$ 18$ 138$ 3$ 201$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 34$ 27$ 200$ 261$ 15,728 12,497 34$ 25$ 205$ 4$ 269$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 34$ 9$ 171$ 213$ 91,327 86,060 34$ 8$ 173$ 4$ 219$

178,954 167,310 35$ 14$ 174$ 223$ 200,070 183,982 35$ 13$ 178$ 4$ 229$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 21$ 7$ 12$ 40$ 2,226 8,908 21$ 7$ 12$ -$ 40$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 21$ 2$ 8$ 31$ 8,671 53,182 21$ 2$ 8$ 0.2$ 31$

Perth 1,048 8,191 29$ 3$ 6$ 38$ 1,143 8,729 29$ 3$ 7$ -$ 38$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 25$ 3$ 9$ 36$ 2,627 14,606 25$ 3$ 9$ -$ 37$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 21$ 6$ 9$ 36$ 2,415 12,497 21$ 6$ 10$ -$ 36$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 21$ 3$ 10$ 34$ 17,339 86,060 21$ 3$ 10$ 0.3$ 34$

30,609 167,310 22$ 3$ 9$ 34$ 34,421 183,982 21$ 3$ 9$ 0.2$ 34$

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 245


$ per tonne

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 31$ 20$ 163$ 213$ 10,002 8,908 30$ 18$ 163$ 3.4$ 215$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 30$ 11$ 163$ 204$ 61,315 53,182 29$ 10$ 163$ 3.4$ 206$

Perth 8,540 8,191 47$ 30$ 163$ 240$ 9,316 8,729 46$ 27$ 163$ 3.4$ 240$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 50$ 24$ 163$ 236$ 12,381 14,606 49$ 22$ 163$ 3.4$ 238$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 27$ 22$ 163$ 212$ 15,728 12,497 27$ 20$ 163$ 3.4$ 213$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 32$ 9$ 163$ 204$ 91,327 86,060 32$ 8$ 163$ 3.4$ 206$

178,954 167,310 33$ 13$ 163$ 209$ 200,070 183,982 32$ 12$ 163$ 3.4$ 211$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 85$ 28$ 50$ 163$ 2,226 8,908 83$ 28$ 50$ -$ 161$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 131$ 13$ 50$ 194$ 8,671 53,182 128$ 13$ 50$ 1$ 192$

Perth 1,048 8,191 224$ 25$ 50$ 298$ 1,143 8,729 218$ 25$ 50$ -$ 293$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 141$ 17$ 50$ 207$ 2,627 14,606 137$ 17$ 50$ -$ 204$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 110$ 31$ 50$ 191$ 2,415 12,497 108$ 31$ 50$ -$ 189$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 104$ 15$ 50$ 169$ 17,339 86,060 103$ 15$ 50$ 1$ 169$

30,609 167,310 118$ 17$ 50$ 184$ 34,421 183,982 115$ 17$ 50$ 1$ 183$


Quantity

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)


(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer ($)

Total Cost ($)

Total $Garbage 91,022 80,356 $2,716,019 $1,354,824 $14,799,374 $18,870,217 95,545 82,389 $2,784,744 $1,259,973 $15,596,236 $324,771 $19,965,725

Total $MGarbage 91,022 80,356 $2.7 $1.4 $14.8 $18.9 95,545 82,389 $2.8 $1.3 $15.6 $0.3 $20.0



2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 246



Total $

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 12,088 9,017 304,773$ 237,536$ 1,974,490$ 2,516,799$ 12,228 8,908 301,101$ 218,828$ 2,004,701$ 41,566$ 2,566,195$

Joondalup 66,846 52,005 1,757,772$ 752,415$ 10,918,997$ 13,429,184$ 69,986 53,182 1,797,566$ 681,916$ 11,473,507$ 237,893$ 14,190,883$

Perth 9,588 8,191 404,642$ 283,578$ 1,566,229$ 2,254,450$ 10,459 8,729 431,210$ 281,708$ 1,714,654$ 35,552$ 2,463,123$

Victoria Park 14,109 14,057 584,761$ 332,685$ 2,304,731$ 3,222,178$ 15,008 14,606 607,590$ 327,178$ 2,460,448$ 51,015$ 3,446,231$

Vincent 17,115 12,069 407,937$ 378,844$ 2,795,738$ 3,582,519$ 18,143 12,497 422,403$ 362,179$ 2,974,381$ 61,671$ 3,820,634$

Wanneroo 89,816 71,971 2,432,620$ 784,508$ 14,671,144$ 17,888,272$ 108,667 86,060 2,908,828$ 839,136$ 17,814,803$ 369,374$ 21,932,140$

209,563 167,310 5,892,505$ 2,769,567$ 34,231,330$ 42,893,402$ 234,491 183,982 6,468,698$ 2,710,945$ 38,442,494$ 797,070$ 48,419,206$

$ per household

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 12,088 9,017 34$ 26$ 219$ 279$ 12,228 8,908 34$ 25$ 225$ 5$ 288$

Joondalup 66,846 52,005 34$ 14$ 210$ 258$ 69,986 53,182 34$ 13$ 216$ 4$ 267$

Perth 9,588 8,191 49$ 35$ 191$ 275$ 10,459 8,729 49$ 32$ 196$ 4$ 282$

Victoria Park 14,109 14,057 42$ 24$ 164$ 229$ 15,008 14,606 42$ 22$ 168$ 3$ 236$

Vincent 17,115 12,069 34$ 31$ 232$ 297$ 18,143 12,497 34$ 29$ 238$ 5$ 306$

Wanneroo 89,816 71,971 34$ 11$ 204$ 249$ 108,667 86,060 34$ 10$ 207$ 4$ 255$

209,563 167,310 35$ 17$ 205$ 256$ 234,491 183,982 35$ 15$ 209$ 4$ 263$

$ per tonne

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 12,088 9,017 25$ 20$ 163$ 208$ 12,228 8,908 25$ 18$ 164$ 3.4$ 210$

Joondalup 66,846 52,005 26$ 11$ 163$ 201$ 69,986 53,182 26$ 10$ 164$ 3.4$ 203$

Perth 9,588 8,191 42$ 30$ 163$ 235$ 10,459 8,729 41$ 27$ 164$ 3.4$ 236$

Victoria Park 14,109 14,057 41$ 24$ 163$ 228$ 15,008 14,606 40$ 22$ 164$ 3.4$ 230$

Vincent 17,115 12,069 24$ 22$ 163$ 209$ 18,143 12,497 23$ 20$ 164$ 3.4$ 211$

Wanneroo 89,816 71,971 27$ 9$ 163$ 199$ 108,667 86,060 27$ 8$ 164$ 3.4$ 202$

209,563 167,310 28$ 13$ 163$ 205$ 234,491 183,982 28$ 12$ 164$ 3.4$ 206$


Quantity

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)


(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer ($)

Total Cost ($)

Total $Garbage 91,022 80,356 $2,716,019 $1,354,824 $14,868,038 $18,938,881 95,545 82,389 $2,784,744 $1,259,973 $15,663,653 $324,771 $20,033,142

Total $MGarbage 91,022 80,356 $2.7 $1.4 $14.9 $18.9 95,545 82,389 $2.8 $1.3 $15.7 $0.3 $20.0



2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 247



Total $

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 304,773$ 194,300$ 1,794,390$ 2,293,462$ 10,002 8,908 301,101$ 178,997$ 1,831,314$ 24,387$ 2,335,799$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 1,757,772$ 659,195$ 10,628,167$ 13,045,135$ 61,315 53,182 1,797,566$ 597,431$ 11,225,952$ 149,495$ 13,770,445$

Perth 8,540 8,191 404,642$ 252,584$ 1,549,909$ 2,207,135$ 9,316 8,729 431,210$ 250,917$ 1,705,606$ 22,713$ 2,410,447$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 584,761$ 274,455$ 2,112,407$ 2,971,624$ 12,381 14,606 607,590$ 269,912$ 2,266,850$ 30,188$ 3,174,540$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 407,937$ 328,421$ 2,692,688$ 3,429,047$ 15,728 12,497 422,403$ 313,974$ 2,879,636$ 38,348$ 3,654,361$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 2,432,620$ 659,329$ 13,698,953$ 16,790,901$ 91,327 86,060 2,908,828$ 705,239$ 16,720,751$ 222,669$ 20,557,488$

178,954 167,310 5,892,505$ 2,368,284$ 32,476,515$ 40,737,304$ 200,070 183,982 6,468,698$ 2,316,471$ 36,630,110$ 487,801$ 45,903,080$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 187,552$ 61,148$ 110,010$ 358,711$ 2,226 8,908 185,293$ 62,368$ 111,289$ -$ 358,950$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 1,081,706$ 108,856$ 414,089$ 1,604,651$ 8,671 53,182 1,106,195$ 114,131$ 433,542$ 12,251.6$ 1,666,120$

Perth 1,048 8,191 234,267$ 26,158$ 52,400$ 312,825$ 1,143 8,729 249,648$ 28,621$ 57,158$ -$ 335,427$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 347,202$ 41,489$ 123,479$ 512,170$ 2,627 14,606 360,756$ 44,486$ 131,344$ -$ 536,587$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 251,038$ 70,411$ 113,900$ 435,350$ 2,415 12,497 259,940$ 75,145$ 120,739$ -$ 455,825$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 1,496,997$ 209,924$ 716,574$ 2,423,495$ 17,339 86,060 1,790,048$ 255,130$ 866,966$ 24,499.8$ 2,936,644$

30,609 167,310 3,598,762$ 517,986$ 1,530,453$ 5,647,201$ 34,421 183,982 3,951,880$ 579,882$ 1,721,039$ 36,751$ 6,289,552$

$ per household

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 34$ 22$ 199$ 254$ 10,002 8,908 34$ 20$ 206$ 3$ 262$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 34$ 13$ 204$ 251$ 61,315 53,182 34$ 11$ 211$ 3$ 259$

Perth 8,540 8,191 49$ 31$ 189$ 269$ 9,316 8,729 49$ 29$ 195$ 3$ 276$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 42$ 20$ 150$ 211$ 12,381 14,606 42$ 18$ 155$ 2$ 217$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 34$ 27$ 223$ 284$ 15,728 12,497 34$ 25$ 230$ 3$ 292$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 34$ 9$ 190$ 233$ 91,327 86,060 34$ 8$ 194$ 3$ 239$

178,954 167,310 35$ 14$ 194$ 243$ 200,070 183,982 35$ 13$ 199$ 3$ 249$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 21$ 7$ 12$ 40$ 2,226 8,908 21$ 7$ 12$ -$ 40$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 21$ 2$ 8$ 31$ 8,671 53,182 21$ 2$ 8$ 0.2$ 31$

Perth 1,048 8,191 29$ 3$ 6$ 38$ 1,143 8,729 29$ 3$ 7$ -$ 38$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 25$ 3$ 9$ 36$ 2,627 14,606 25$ 3$ 9$ -$ 37$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 21$ 6$ 9$ 36$ 2,415 12,497 21$ 6$ 10$ -$ 36$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 21$ 3$ 10$ 34$ 17,339 86,060 21$ 3$ 10$ 0.3$ 34$

30,609 167,310 22$ 3$ 9$ 34$ 34,421 183,982 21$ 3$ 9$ 0.2$ 34$

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 248


$ per tonne

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 31$ 20$ 181$ 232$ 10,002 8,908 30$ 18$ 183$ 2.4$ 234$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 30$ 11$ 181$ 223$ 61,315 53,182 29$ 10$ 183$ 2.4$ 225$

Perth 8,540 8,191 47$ 30$ 181$ 258$ 9,316 8,729 46$ 27$ 183$ 2.4$ 259$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 50$ 24$ 181$ 255$ 12,381 14,606 49$ 22$ 183$ 2.4$ 256$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 27$ 22$ 181$ 231$ 15,728 12,497 27$ 20$ 183$ 2.4$ 232$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 32$ 9$ 181$ 222$ 91,327 86,060 32$ 8$ 183$ 2.4$ 225$

178,954 167,310 33$ 13$ 181$ 228$ 200,070 183,982 32$ 12$ 183$ 2.4$ 229$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 85$ 28$ 50$ 163$ 2,226 8,908 83$ 28$ 50$ -$ 161$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 131$ 13$ 50$ 194$ 8,671 53,182 128$ 13$ 50$ 1$ 192$

Perth 1,048 8,191 224$ 25$ 50$ 298$ 1,143 8,729 218$ 25$ 50$ -$ 293$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 141$ 17$ 50$ 207$ 2,627 14,606 137$ 17$ 50$ -$ 204$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 110$ 31$ 50$ 191$ 2,415 12,497 108$ 31$ 50$ -$ 189$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 104$ 15$ 50$ 169$ 17,339 86,060 103$ 15$ 50$ 1$ 169$

30,609 167,310 118$ 17$ 50$ 184$ 34,421 183,982 115$ 17$ 50$ 1$ 183$


Quantity

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)


(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer ($)

Total Cost ($)

Total $Garbage 91,022 80,356 $2,716,019 $1,354,824 $16,518,578 $20,589,421 95,545 82,389 $2,784,744 $1,259,973 $17,492,964 $232,953 $21,770,634

Total $MGarbage 91,022 80,356 $2.7 $1.4 $16.5 $20.6 95,545 82,389 $2.8 $1.3 $17.5 $0.2 $21.8



2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 249



Total $

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 12,088 9,017 304,773$ 237,536$ 2,216,480$ 2,758,789$ 12,228 8,908 301,101$ 218,828$ 2,260,395$ 29,243$ 2,809,567$

Joondalup 66,846 52,005 1,757,772$ 752,415$ 12,257,211$ 14,767,398$ 69,986 53,182 1,797,566$ 681,916$ 12,936,921$ 167,365$ 15,583,768$

Perth 9,588 8,191 404,642$ 283,578$ 1,758,183$ 2,446,404$ 10,459 8,729 431,210$ 281,708$ 1,933,353$ 25,012$ 2,671,282$

Victoria Park 14,109 14,057 584,761$ 332,685$ 2,587,195$ 3,504,642$ 15,008 14,606 607,590$ 327,178$ 2,774,271$ 35,891$ 3,744,930$

Vincent 17,115 12,069 407,937$ 378,844$ 3,138,379$ 3,925,160$ 18,143 12,497 422,403$ 362,179$ 3,353,755$ 43,388$ 4,181,724$

Wanneroo 89,816 71,971 2,432,620$ 784,508$ 16,469,215$ 19,686,343$ 108,667 86,060 2,908,828$ 839,136$ 20,087,031$ 259,866$ 24,094,861$

209,563 167,310 5,892,505$ 2,769,567$ 38,426,664$ 47,088,736$ 234,491 183,982 6,468,698$ 2,710,945$ 43,345,725$ 560,764$ 53,086,131$

$ per household

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 12,088 9,017 34$ 26$ 246$ 306$ 12,228 8,908 34$ 25$ 254$ 3$ 315$

Joondalup 66,846 52,005 34$ 14$ 236$ 284$ 69,986 53,182 34$ 13$ 243$ 3$ 293$

Perth 9,588 8,191 49$ 35$ 215$ 299$ 10,459 8,729 49$ 32$ 221$ 3$ 306$

Victoria Park 14,109 14,057 42$ 24$ 184$ 249$ 15,008 14,606 42$ 22$ 190$ 2$ 256$

Vincent 17,115 12,069 34$ 31$ 260$ 325$ 18,143 12,497 34$ 29$ 268$ 3$ 335$

Wanneroo 89,816 71,971 34$ 11$ 229$ 274$ 108,667 86,060 34$ 10$ 233$ 3$ 280$

209,563 167,310 35$ 17$ 230$ 281$ 234,491 183,982 35$ 15$ 236$ 3$ 289$

$ per tonne

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 12,088 9,017 25$ 20$ 183$ 228$ 12,228 8,908 25$ 18$ 185$ 2.4$ 230$

Joondalup 66,846 52,005 26$ 11$ 183$ 221$ 69,986 53,182 26$ 10$ 185$ 2.4$ 223$

Perth 9,588 8,191 42$ 30$ 183$ 255$ 10,459 8,729 41$ 27$ 185$ 2.4$ 255$

Victoria Park 14,109 14,057 41$ 24$ 183$ 248$ 15,008 14,606 40$ 22$ 185$ 2.4$ 250$

Vincent 17,115 12,069 24$ 22$ 183$ 229$ 18,143 12,497 23$ 20$ 185$ 2.4$ 230$

Wanneroo 89,816 71,971 27$ 9$ 183$ 219$ 108,667 86,060 27$ 8$ 185$ 2.4$ 222$

209,563 167,310 28$ 13$ 183$ 225$ 234,491 183,982 28$ 12$ 185$ 2.4$ 226$


Quantity

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)


(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer ($)

Total Cost ($)

Total $Garbage 91,022 80,356 $2,716,019 $1,354,824 $16,690,240 $20,761,083 95,545 82,389 $2,784,744 $1,259,973 $17,661,507 $228,487 $21,934,712

Total $MGarbage 91,022 80,356 $2.7 $1.4 $16.7 $20.8 95,545 82,389 $2.8 $1.3 $17.7 $0.2 $21.9



2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 250

Scenario 2A: MBT Aerobic Composting - 2 Bin System, RRF at Balcatta


Total $

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 304,773$ 99,245$ 1,483,132$ 1,887,150$ 10,002 8,908 301,101$ 90,318$ 1,500,371$ 34,703$ 1,926,493$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 1,757,772$ 627,695$ 8,784,587$ 11,170,054$ 61,315 53,182 1,797,566$ 573,080$ 9,197,272$ 212,728$ 11,780,645$

Perth 8,540 8,191 404,642$ 138,746$ 1,281,059$ 1,824,448$ 9,316 8,729 431,210$ 137,007$ 1,397,380$ 32,321$ 1,997,918$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 584,761$ 171,021$ 1,745,986$ 2,501,768$ 12,381 14,606 607,590$ 168,984$ 1,857,200$ 42,956$ 2,676,729$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 407,937$ 149,389$ 2,225,610$ 2,782,936$ 15,728 12,497 422,403$ 139,321$ 2,359,247$ 54,568$ 2,975,540$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 2,432,620$ 659,329$ 11,322,709$ 14,414,657$ 91,327 86,060 2,908,828$ 705,239$ 13,699,086$ 316,852$ 17,630,005$

178,954 167,310 5,892,505$ 1,845,425$ 26,843,083$ 34,581,013$ 200,070 183,982 6,468,698$ 1,813,950$ 30,010,556$ 694,127$ 38,987,330$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/yr)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/yr)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/yr)

Total Cost

($/yr)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 187,552$ 61,148$ 110,010$ 358,711$ 2,226 8,908 185,293$ 62,368$ 111,289$ -$ 358,950$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 1,081,706$ 108,856$ 414,089$ 1,604,651$ 8,671 53,182 1,106,195$ 114,131$ 433,542$ 12,251.6$ 1,666,120$

Perth 1,048 8,191 234,267$ 26,158$ 52,400$ 312,825$ 1,143 8,729 249,648$ 28,621$ 57,158$ -$ 335,427$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 347,202$ 41,489$ 123,479$ 512,170$ 2,627 14,606 360,756$ 44,486$ 131,344$ -$ 536,587$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 251,038$ 70,411$ 113,900$ 435,350$ 2,415 12,497 259,940$ 75,145$ 120,739$ -$ 455,825$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 1,496,997$ 209,924$ 716,574$ 2,423,495$ 17,339 86,060 1,790,048$ 255,130$ 866,966$ 24,499.8$ 2,936,644$

30,609 167,310 3,598,762$ 517,986$ 1,530,453$ 5,647,201$ 34,421 183,982 3,951,880$ 579,882$ 1,721,039$ 36,751$ 6,289,552$

$ per household

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 34$ 11$ 164$ 209$ 10,002 8,908 34$ 10$ 168$ 4$ 216$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 34$ 12$ 169$ 215$ 61,315 53,182 34$ 11$ 173$ 4$ 222$

Perth 8,540 8,191 49$ 17$ 156$ 223$ 9,316 8,729 49$ 16$ 160$ 4$ 229$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 42$ 12$ 124$ 178$ 12,381 14,606 42$ 12$ 127$ 3$ 183$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 34$ 12$ 184$ 231$ 15,728 12,497 34$ 11$ 189$ 4$ 238$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 34$ 9$ 157$ 200$ 91,327 86,060 34$ 8$ 159$ 4$ 205$

178,954 167,310 35$ 11$ 160$ 207$ 200,070 183,982 35$ 10$ 163$ 4$ 212$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/hhld)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/hhld)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/hhld)

Total Cost

($/hhld)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 21$ 7$ 12$ 40$ 2,226 8,908 21$ 7$ 12$ -$ 40$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 21$ 2$ 8$ 31$ 8,671 53,182 21$ 2$ 8$ 0.2$ 31$

Perth 1,048 8,191 29$ 3$ 6$ 38$ 1,143 8,729 29$ 3$ 7$ -$ 38$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 25$ 3$ 9$ 36$ 2,627 14,606 25$ 3$ 9$ -$ 37$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 21$ 6$ 9$ 36$ 2,415 12,497 21$ 6$ 10$ -$ 36$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 21$ 3$ 10$ 34$ 17,339 86,060 21$ 3$ 10$ 0.3$ 34$

30,609 167,310 22$ 3$ 9$ 34$ 34,421 183,982 21$ 3$ 9$ 0.2$ 34$

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 251

Scenario 2A: MBT Aerobic Composting - 2 Bin System, RRF at Balcatta

$ per tonne

Household Garbage

Council

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Garbage

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Garbage

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Garbage

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 9,888 9,017 31$ 10$ 150$ 191$ 10,002 8,908 30$ 9$ 150$ 3.5$ 193$

Joondalup 58,564 52,005 30$ 11$ 150$ 191$ 61,315 53,182 29$ 9$ 150$ 3.5$ 192$

Perth 8,540 8,191 47$ 16$ 150$ 214$ 9,316 8,729 46$ 15$ 150$ 3.5$ 214$

Victoria Park 11,640 14,057 50$ 15$ 150$ 215$ 12,381 14,606 49$ 14$ 150$ 3.5$ 216$

Vincent 14,837 12,069 27$ 10$ 150$ 188$ 15,728 12,497 27$ 9$ 150$ 3.5$ 189$

Wanneroo 75,485 71,971 32$ 9$ 150$ 191$ 91,327 86,060 32$ 8$ 150$ 3.5$ 193$

178,954 167,310 33$ 10$ 150$ 193$ 200,070 183,982 32$ 9$ 150$ 3.5$ 195$


Council

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Recyclables

Modelled

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Recyclables

Collection

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Delivery and

Transfer

($/tonne)

Cost of

Recyclables

Processing /

Disposal

($/tonne)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer

($/tonne)

Total Cost

($/tonne)

Cambridge 2,200 9,017 85$ 28$ 50$ 163$ 2,226 8,908 83$ 28$ 50$ -$ 161$

Joondalup 8,282 52,005 131$ 13$ 50$ 194$ 8,671 53,182 128$ 13$ 50$ 1$ 192$

Perth 1,048 8,191 224$ 25$ 50$ 298$ 1,143 8,729 218$ 25$ 50$ -$ 293$

Victoria Park 2,470 14,057 141$ 17$ 50$ 207$ 2,627 14,606 137$ 17$ 50$ -$ 204$

Vincent 2,278 12,069 110$ 31$ 50$ 191$ 2,415 12,497 108$ 31$ 50$ -$ 189$

Wanneroo 14,331 71,971 104$ 15$ 50$ 169$ 17,339 86,060 103$ 15$ 50$ 1$ 169$

30,609 167,310 118$ 17$ 50$ 184$ 34,421 183,982 115$ 17$ 50$ 1$ 183$


Quantity

(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)


(tonnes)

Households Cost of

Collection ($)

Cost of

Delivery and

Transfer ($)

Cost of

Processing /

Disposal ($)

Additional

Cost of

Residuals

Transfer ($)

Total Cost ($)

Total $Garbage 91,022 80,356 $2,716,019 $457,163 $13,653,237 $16,826,419 95,545 82,389 $2,784,744 $389,047 $14,331,750 $331,485 $17,837,026

Total $MGarbage 91,022 80,356 $2.7 $0.5 $13.7 $16.8 95,545 82,389 $2.8 $0.4 $14.3 $0.3 $17.8



2017 2022

2017 2022

2017 2022



Page 252

ITEM 2 FUTURE LANDFILL SITE INVESTIGATION File No: WST/31 Attachment(s): Nil Author: Ian Watkins

MRC ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION That the Strategic Projects Committee receive the progress report on the search for a future landfill site. SPC DISCUSSION The committee agreed:

• The scope of further work on this project

• That this project be discussed further at the July meeting, prior to consideration by Council

• That this matter be classified CONFIDENTIAL in future SPC RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Mr Kevin Poynton SECONDED: Mr Doug Forster That this project be discussed further at the July Strategic Projects Committee meeting. (Carried: 7/0)



Page 253

ITEM 3 BUDGET 2010/2011 File No: FIN/9 Attachment(s): 1. Business Plan 2010/2011 2. Operation Statement by Nature & Type Operation Statement by Program Charts Revenue and Expenditure 3. Schedule of Capital Expenditure Schedule of Disposal of Assets 4. Schedule of Fees – Non Members 5. Supplementary Financial Statements Loan Schedules 6. New Initiatives Author: Kalwant Dhillon

SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to present to Council the draft Budget Papers for 2010/2011 for discussion, suggestion and comments with the view to finalisation by end June 2010. BACKGROUND Council at its meeting held on 22 April 2010, resolved, inter alia, at Item 8.1.1, as follows: That Council:

(i) Note the information in this Item in relation to a review of the MRC member fee model

(ii) Adopt a single fee model as the basis for determining the fee for the acceptance of waste from member Councils for the 2010/2011 budget

(iii) Authorise the CEO to present a report to the Council Budget Workshop scheduled for 13 May 2010, on the characteristics of the ‘Single Fee’ model

Supporting documentation provided as Attachments were as follows:

• Attachment One

- Workshop 31 March 2010 - Agenda

• Attachment Two

- Workshop 31 March 2010 – Deloitte Touché Tohmatsu Presentation

• Attachment Three

- Single Fee Option Presentation by City of Joondalup

• Attachment Four - Letter – City of Stirling

The Council, at its meeting held on 22 April 2010 at Item 8.2.5 resolved: That Council:

(i) note the methodology used for the Budget Planning and Strategic Budget for 2010/2011



Page 254

(ii) note the new initiatives

(iii) note Members’ Single Gate Fee of $113 - $119 (ex GST) for financial year 2010/2011 for budget planning purposes

(iv) Approve the Schedule of Fees and Charges relating to commercial and casual uses at Attachment One in respect of financial year 2010/11

Supporting documentation provided as Attachments were as follows:

• Attachment One

- Schedule of Proposed Fees and Charges 2010/2011

• Attachment Two

- 2010/2011 Members Fees – Additional Budgetary Information

• Attachment Three

- New Initiatives DETAIL The methodology and assumptions used to develop the detailed Budget 2010/2011 have been as follows:

• The Twenty Year Strategic Plan commencing 2009/2010 remains the primary source of reference with regards to business activities

• The Twenty Year Strategic Financial Plan commencing 2008/2009 and approved at the July 2008 Ordinary Council Meeting remains the primary source of reference from a financial and budgetary perspective

• The Non-Members Gate Fees, prepared with reference to the Strategic Financial Plan, Strategic Plan and Business Plan, were approved at 22 April 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting. Estimated Members Fees were presented for Member Councils Budget Planning and noted by Council

• The detailed budget for 2010/2011 has been developed within the parameters of the Strategic Plan, Business Plan, Strategic Financial Plan and taking into account the current economic conditions, demand of business, environmental factors, latest events associated with RRF, new initiatives and other relevant factors to enable the Council to provide the level of service consistent with the Business Plan

The Budget structure and documentation is enclosed in Attachments Two to Six.

• Attachment Two - Operation Statement by Nature and Type

- Operation Statement by Program

- Charts Revenue and Expenditure

• Attachment Three - Schedule of Capital Expenditure

- Schedule of Disposal of Assets

• Attachment Four - Schedule of Fees Non Members



Page 255

• Attachment Five - Supplementary Information – Loan Schedule

• Attachment Six

- New Initiatives The preparation of the draft Budget has been in line with the guidelines provided in the terms of best appropriate practice regarding Budget preparations. Business Concept – 2010/2011 The proposed business concept for 2010/2011 is described in the Business Plan for 2010/2011 at Attachment One for discussion at the Councillors’ Budget Workshop on 13 May 2010. Budget 2010/2011 As mentioned above, the Draft Budget is in line with the Business Plan. Assumptions Major assumptions associated with the Basis of Planning are as follows:

• that the volume of waste for disposal at Tamala Park will be similar to 2009/2010 and in line with the Strategic Financial Plan projections as revised by further updates as part of Budget Planning Process 2010/2011. The Members’ tonnage estimates are based on the estimates provided by Member Councils and casual usage is based on the 2009/2010 usage level and trend

• that the diversion of waste from landfill, measured in tonnes, in relation to RRF facility, is assumed at 70% and the normal diversion of waste to recycling would be in line with previous years’ trend

• the Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) would be fully operational in 2010/2011

• that fees and charges for non-members will be consistent with fees approved by Council at its meeting on 22 April 2009. Members’ Gate Fee will be finalised and approved in conjunction with the approval of the Budget for 2010/2011 in June 2010.

• that the Council will use the revised financial precepts details endorsed at the April 2004 Ordinary Council Meeting as detailed below effective from 1 July 2004. The financial precepts will be reviewed in consultation with the Member Councils in 2010/2011 once the revised Pricing Model is operating smoothly

• DEP Levy is assumed to increase from $28/tonne to $29/tonne. The State Budget will be handed down on 20 May 2010 and if there is any unexpected increase the fee would need to be recalculated

Precepts

a) a cost of equity (or “notional interest:”) will be calculated for funds contributed by Member Councils and retained surpluses, for the purpose of determining the actual cost of tipping

b) additional funds for working capital requirements to be raised either through retention of surplus or external borrowing. Mindarie Regional Council will determine timing of repayment of funds contributed, including retained surpluses



Page 256

c) operational surpluses are distributed to Member Councils in ownership percentages subject to the retention of funds for future requirements

Associated Business Rules Become

a) in setting members’ prices, cost of tipping includes interest to the extent that it relates to funds required for current operations. Interest on funds held for future requirements is not included in cost of tipping

b) interest on Members’ equity will be set at a rate of return that an investor would regard as appropriate for a business of this nature

c) operational surpluses will be calculated in accordance with generally accepted Accounting Principles

d) to the extent that Member-tipping fees differ from actual costs, an adjustment will be made to the distributable surplus at individual Member Council level

e) the distribution of operational surpluses will be calculated as follows:

- operational surplus before member tipping fee adjustment X

- adjustment to member Council tipping charge according to

tonnes tipped, where tipping fees differ from actual cost X/(X)

- operational surplus available for distribution according

to equity ownership percentages X

- LESS: retention of funds for future requirements (X)

- adjustment to member Council tipping charges according

to tonnes tipped, where tipping fees differ from actual cost X/(X)

- amount distributed/(reimbursed) X/(X)

f) lease fee to be set on a commercial basis Assumed that ‘Notional Interest’, for the purpose of the preparation of this Budget, is zero which is consistent with the concept of Cost Recovery Models universally. This is consistent with the Strategic Financial Plan approved by Council at its July 2008 Ordinary Council Meeting. OPERATING Overall Summary The Council has a projected total revenue of $47.6m for 2010/2011 and total expenditure of $43.7m resulting in a surplus of $3.9m approximately. The surplus of $3.9m is mainly attributable to the casual/commercial users ($1.6m) and other income ($2.3m). The other income relates to Recycling Income, Interest, Gas income and other miscellaneous income. Revenue The projected revenue of $47.6m for 2010/2011 represents an increase of $8.5m (21.7%) over last year’s adopted budget. The increases are analysed below:



Page 257

$’m

Increase/(Decrease) over estimated actual

$’m• Members’ User Fees 40.3 8.4• Casual Tipping Fees 5.0 (0.3)• Others 2.3 0.4 47.6 8.5

The increase in fees is mainly due to the following factors:

• Increase in projected contractor’s fees, in relation to RRF, in line with Resource Recovery Facility Agreement

• Full year impact of the DEP Levy ($3.1m increase over 2009/2010)

• New initiatives ($1m)

The projected revenue for 2010/2011 is based on, estimated waste tonnages provided by the Member Councils, and is summarised below. Processable Waste (Tonnage) City of Perth 14,428 City of Stirling 18,100 City of Wanneroo 50,800 Town of Cambridge 8,800 Town of Vincent 13,901 Town of Victoria Park 14,124 City of Joondalup 52,000 172,153 Non Processable Waste (Tonnage) City of Perth 45 City of Stirling 96,750 City of Wanneroo 37,185 Town of Cambridge 2,500 Town of Vincent 489 Town of Victoria Park 1,200 City of Joondalup 11,500 RRF Residue 30,000 179,669 Casual / Commercial 40,000 The waste tonnages for casuals were scaled back in 2010/2011, from the previous years to 40,000 tonnes following the increase in fees and the trend of actual tonnages for 2008/2009. For 2010/2011 there is a commitment from all councils to delivery their estimated tonnages for waste to Tamala Park and MRC administration does not anticipate any major variation to this plan at this stage.



Page 258

Expenditure Projections The total expenditure for 2010/2011 is budgeted at $43.7m. This is an increase of $6.3m (16.8%) over last year’s adopted budget and is basically in line with increase in revenue. The bulk of the increase is due to the following:

DEP Levy 1 3.1mRRF Increase 2 1.5mAmortisation (RRF & Landfill) 3 0.3mNew Initiatives 4 1.0mEmployee Costs 5 0.4mCPI Increases 0.1mOthers (0.1m) $6.3m

Budget Item Explanation

1. Landfill Levy $3.1m State Government increased the Landfill Levy from $7/t to $28/t effective 1

January 2010 without any formal consultation with the Industry and a further $1/t is budgeted in line with the previous projections provided by DEC.

2. Resource Recovery Facility (excluding interest expense) $1.5m

The RRF is now fully operational and the increase of $1.5m is mainly related to the following areas:

Contractors Fees • Consultants & Contract Labour

Relates to cover legal costs associated with the composter cracks/repairs/insurance claim

$55,000

• Information System Expenses Relates to management and maintenance of the computer systems which are now installed and fully operational

$12,000

• Compost disposal (RRFA CPI increase) $30,000• BioVision Gate Fee

Increase is relating to RRFA CPI increases, and change in the residue disposal rate at Tamala Park due to the MRC single fee structure as well as full year impact of DEP levy increase of $21/t introduced in January 2010

$1,382,000

• Others $11,000 $1,500,000

3. Amortisation $0.3m

The increase is due mainly to an adjustment in the Provision for Monitoring/Rehabilitation (post – closure) for landfill and adjustment in RRF amortisation of $2.1 pre-operating cost to take account of the interest element revision.



Page 259

4. New Initiatives $1.0m

CEO Consultancy - Review of Disability Access & Inclusion Plan 10,000 - Business Information System Review 15,000 - Information Management Strategy Plan 25,000 50,000 Research and Planning - Specialist Consultants – RRF Stage 2 Development 50,000 - Investigation/Toxic Taxi 20,000 - Millipedes Control 10,000 80,000 $130,000Operations Salaries - Technical Officer 70,700 - Recycling CSO 80,900 151,600 Superannuation - Technical Officer 10,600 - Recycling CSO 7,000 17,600 Workers Compensation - Technical Officer 2,800 - Recycling CSO 2,800 5,600 Annual Leave - Technical Officer 5,700 - Recycling CSO 3,800 9,500 Long Service Leave - Technical Officer 1,700 - Recycling CSO 1,200 2,900 Total Employee Costs $187,200 - Limestone Cover - Limestone Cover 420,000 $607,200Projects Contract Labour External - RRF Stage 2 Development 20,000 Zero Waste Plan - MRC Contributions 20,000 $40,000Marketing Salaries - An additional permanent part-time Admin Officer (0.5 FTE) 26,500 - Additional Casuals 20,000 46,500 Corporate Communication Strategy - Brand Council 5,000 - Corporate Function 50,000



Page 260

55,000 Sponsorship - Member Councils 70,000 Waste Management Education - Shopping Centre Program 10,000 Project and SWMP Support - RRF Open Day 30,000 - RRF Stage 2 Promotion 5,000 35,000 Other Administrative Expenses - Artwork Maintenance 5,000

$221,500

Grand Total $998,7005. Employee costs

EBA/Increments $0.3m Associated Superannuation and Annual Leave/Benefits $0.1m $0.4m

Position Current FTE Comment Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 1 Chief Financial Officer (CFO) 1 Administration Manager 1 Senior Finance Officer 2 Human Resources & Payroll Officer

1

Finance Officer – Reporting .5 Permanent Part-Time Accounts Receivable & Sales Officer

1

Finance Officer – Accounts Payable, Budget & IT

1

Waste Minimisation Officer 1 To implement Strategic Waste Minimisation Plan.

Manager Projects & RRF .6 Utilise contract professional. Manager Marketing & Education .5 Utilise contract professional. Sustainability & Waste Education Coordinator

1

Waste Education Officer 1 Administration Officer (Marketing & Education)

.5 Permanent part-time

Administration Officer (Marketing & Education)

.5 Proposed Position

Admin Officer (Reception) 1 Governance Officer 1 Records Officer 1 Operations Manager 1



Page 261

Deputy Operations Manager / Mechanic

1 Covers for Operations Manager when not available. Taken over plant maintenance previously contracted out.

Foreman 1 Environmental Officer .6 Utilise contract professional Plant Operators 5 Highly skilled plant operators Recycling Attendants 8 Provide security and service relating

to hazardous household waste facility operating at the recycling facility. Operation of bin truck from this group.

Recycling Attendant 1 Proposed Position Transfer Station Attendants /truck drivers

4 Multi-skilling – rotating through tasks plus maintain safety standards at transfer station. Operation of water truck from this group.

Grounds Maintenance Officer 1 Ensure compliance with licence Welder 1 Assist with workshop and

maintenance program Risk Management Officer 1 Provides support to Operations

Manager in relation to safety, compliance, minor projects and household hazardous waste issues

Technical Officer 1 Proposed Position Weighbridge Officer 1 Operates weighbridge and monitors

quality of waste entering the site Total 43.2

The ‘make-up’ of the 8 Recycling Attendants are as follows:

FTEPermanent Full Time 5Full Time Equivalent of the 8 permanent part-timers 3Total 8

The 8 permanent part-timers are utilised to cover the weekend and on-going operational requirements as required.

Additional Information - Expenditure

• Marketing and Education $905,900 The details are as follows:

SPONSORSHIPS Sponsorships 70,000 $70,000 CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY DVD Breaking New Ground 10,000 MRC Website 45,000 Annual Report 10,000 Waste Conference 15,000 Media Activities 16,000



Page 262

MRC Newsletter 80,000 Brand Council 5,000 Corporate Function 50,000 CPI 5,300 $236,300 WASTE EDUCATION Branding Support 21,000 Fridge Calendar 80,000 HHW Collection days program and promotion 42,000 Report Card/Waste Audit Project 10,000 Continued Support for WESSG 5,000 Tour Programs, including giveaways 25,000 Bus Sponsorship 20,000 Mobile Display Promotion and Support 5,000 Contaminants Education / Flouros Collections 10,000 Waste Free Events Support 14,000 Earth Carers Outreach Support 60,000 Advertising 7,000 Interactive Resource for Events 10,000 School Program 30,000 English as a Second Language Communication 10,000 E Waste Collection 25,000 Battery Program 30,000 Shopping Centre Program 10,000 $414,000 PROJECTS SUPPORT RRF Visitors Centre 30,000 DVD and brochures for RRF 8,000 Monthly RRF Advertising 72,000 CEAG Support 10,000 RRF Open Day 30,000 RRF Stage 2 Promotion 5,000 CPI 3,600 $158,600 OTHER Advertising and Promotion $27,000

The new initiatives included in above program are as follows: New Initiatives Sponsorships 70,000 Brand Council 5,000 Corporate Function 50,000 Shopping Centre Program 10,000 RRF Open Day 30,000 RRF Stage 2 Promotion 5,000 Artwork Maintenance 5,000 0.5 FTE Admin Officers 27,000 Additional Casual 20,000 $222,000

• Consultants and Labour Cost (Tamala Park) $930,900

Tamala Park $665,900 RRF $265,000



Page 263

Budget 2009/2010 also makes provision for the use of consultants for the execution of designated functions associated with the business. These functions are in addition to, albeit complementary to those functions performed by employees and contracted personnel. Designated functions are as follows: Consultancy - Tamala Park HR Support 25,000 Financial & Business Advice and Modelling 105,000 Environmental Support / Audit 25,000 Technical Support and Advice 20,000 Strategic Plan Review 10,000 Strategic Financial Plan Review 10,000 Development of Policies and Procedures 20,000 Compactor Tender 7,000 Patio and Office Renovation Tender 12,000 Under Cover Parking Tender 7,000 Cardboard and Paper Contract 7,000 Review of Disability Access & Inclusion Plan 10,000 Business Information System Review 15,000 Information Management Strategy Plan 25,000 $298,000 -RRF Specialist Project Consultants 50,000 Financial 10,000 Insurance 15,000 Legal Support 100,000 $175,000 Contract Labour - Tamala Park Admin Staff – Temporary 7,200 Finance Staff – Temporary 30,000 Operator Relieve/Labour Hire 17,000 Mechanic Relief 16,800 Environmental Officer 99,500 Welder Relief 12,400 New Land Purchase - Project Management 15,000 Zero Waste Plan - Project Management 20,000 RRF Stage 2 Development - Project Management 20,000 Marketing and Education Manager 100,000 Corporate Communication 30,000 $367,900 -RRF Project/Contract Management 90,000 $90,000



Page 264

• Research and Planning Cost $420,000 Municipal Waste Advisory Council Standard Contribution

37,000

MWAC 3,000 Regional Plan Development 5,000 Strategic Plan Implementation 5,000 WMAA-A-CAP Project (In Kind/Cash Contributions) 10,000 FORC 20,000 Investigation/Toxic Taxi 20,000 Landfill Gas Migration Investigation 80,000 Ground Water Remediation 30,000 Technical Investigations – Son of Tamala Park 150,000 Specialist Consultant – RRF Stage 2 Development 50,000 Millipedes Control 10,000 $420,000

TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 2010/2011 Proposals for Capital Expenditure within the context of Budget 2010/2011 are detailed on Attachment Two. The key items are as follows:

• Landfill 2 Capping –

To cap the northern portion of the completed landfill $3.4m

• Landfill Compactor - $1.2m

This relates to the replacement of existing compactor.

• Building - $0.32m

This relates to a number of small extensions in relation to Recycling Lunch Room, Under-Cover Parking, Patio/Office Renovations and Education Centre Toilets.

2009/2010 The following projects are currently in progress and the unexpended budget allocated in 2009/2010 for these items need to be carried forward to 2010/2011 and incorporated as part of the Capital Budget for 2010/2011.

• Landfill Excavation - $8.9m

The excavation is completed and the base lining will be completed by June 2010. Further incremental lining will be done in ‘clay’ and this would be carried over next four to five years. The carried forward amount of $8.9m is relating to the incremental ‘clay’ lining and will be increased at an annual rate of $2m.

• Purchase for Land - $12.0m

This relates to cost of purchase of land for the new landfill site beyond Tamala Park

• Resource Recovery Facility - $0.04m

The weighbridge office and education building has been completed and minor works relating to communication infrastructure to be carried out in July/August 2010

$20.94



Page 265

Funding Plan The proposed funding plan for 2010/2011 budgeted expenditure is as follows:

• operating expenditure is to be covered by income primarily from the Gate fees, gas power generation income, and sale of recyclables resulting in an estimated surplus of $3.9m approximately. This surplus needs to be retained to meet the loan repayments and capital expenditure requirements of the Council in line with the Strategic Financial Plan

• remaining infrastructure costs in relation to the Resource Recovery Facility is to be funded from the existing loan facilities

• the expenditure for Phase 3 will be funded from the surplus funds available. The dedicated Loan facility of $6.6m approved at the July 2008 Ordinary Council Meeting will not be drawn down at this stage.

• purchase of land will be funded by a dedicated loan which will be approved prior to the purchase

• the remaining ongoing Capital Expenditure is to be funded from the surplus of $3.9m projected for the year (as noted above)

The 20 year Strategic Financial Plan was approved at the July 2008 Ordinary Council Meeting. One of the fundamental assumptions of the Strategic Financial Plan is that the annual surpluses will be retained by Mindarie Regional Council to fund the ongoing Capital Expenditure requirements of the organisation with the view to establishing Mindarie Regional Council as a self-funding and viable organisation going forward. In line with this plan, the surpluses to date and future years will be retained by the Mindarie Regional Council as approved by the Council at its August 2005 Ordinary Council Meeting. Overdraft Mindarie Regional Council currently has an overdraft facility of $1m that is reviewable every six (6) months (September and March). It is recommended that this facility be increased to $5m is to cover any shortfall in the working capital of the Council and any payments that may eventuate at short-notice under the terms of RRF agreement. Under the Resource Recovery Facility Agreement, MRC is required to pay the first $5m of any claims, determined in favour of BioVision, promptly within 20 days of determination, as required by the Financing Parties. Loans The loans repayment schedule is in line with the Strategic Financial Plan and at this stage all loans are expected to be repaid by 2016/2017 utilising funds obtained from annual surpluses. Fees The Fee Model used for the computation of the Member Gate Fee is under dispute and an update will be provided in the Budget Papers.



Page 266

Other Matters • Members Withdrawal

The process for withdrawal of any Member Councils from MRC is contained in the current Constitution and will be dealt with in line with the terms and conditions of the Constitution.

• Members Conferences

Currently a total amount is provided by MRC to cover the expenses relating to Member Conferences. Suggestion has been made to allocate a specific amount to each Councillor for attendance at Conferences at their discretion. This will be discussed at the Budget Workshop

• RRF Gate Fee

As per the RRFA, the Waste Diversion Target is able to be changed to take into consideration the Perth waste stream composition (organic fraction). It has previously been agreed with BioVision that the Waste Diversion Target will be assessed in the first year of operations. Following the extended Un-Availability as a result of the composter cracks, the MRC is proposing that this assessment be finalised over the first two years of operation, with an interim adjustment at the end of year one.

The issue of whether there is a corresponding RRF gate fee increase is a matter of discussion with BioVision.

If the Waste Diversion Target is adjusted to the extent requested by BioVision (71.4% to 58%) and the MRC is required to adjust the gate fee, the impact has been calculated as $7.41/tonne which will equate to $741,000 for 2010/2011. Based on this, the retrospective catch-up payment for the 2009/2010 financial year has been calculated as $677,000. This total impact over 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 of $1.4m ($741,000 plus $677,000) has not been taken into account for the calculation of 2010/2011 Members’ Gate Fees. Administration recommends that this cost be offset against the estimated $1.5m surplus for 2009/2010 in relation to RRF Operations (mentioned above) if it eventuates. If this liability does not eventuate the surplus will be offset against future year’s Processable Fees.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT The draft of the Budget is available for Council consideration and approval prior to end August 2009, in accordance with provision of the Local Government Act 1995 is required. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Not applicable FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As detailed STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The draft Budget 2010-/2011 is consistent with the Council’s twenty year Strategic Plan, Strategic Financial Plan (2008/09 – 2027/28) and Annual Business Plan for 2009/2010.



Page 267

COMMENT The Budget formulation process has been conducted in accordance with the plan previously approved by Council on 10 December 2009.

• The draft Budget for 2010/2011 is being finalised and is now tabled for Council’s consideration. The Budget is consistent with the information contained in the respective year in the twenty year Strategic Plan and Strategic Financial Plan (2008/09 – 2027/28) and the associated Business plan for 2009/2010 and takes into account the current economic conditions, demand of business, environmental factors, latest events associated with RRF, new initiatives and other relevant factors to enable the Council to provide the level of service consistent with the Business Plan

. MRC ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Nil provided. SPC DISCUSSION The CEO stated that most comments from the Budget Workshop on 13 May 2010 were valuable and that all comments should be forwarded to Mr Kalwant Dhillon. The Deputy Chairman suggested that in developing a budget, start with a baseline for the business and then include new initiatives, with priorities. The Committee then agreed that any proposed new initiatives not included in the Budget be listed on a ‘Future Projects’ list.

Mr Ian Watkins asked that the new initiative Limestone Cover be a priority. The Deputy Chairman advised that this should be included in the business budget for 2010/2011 as it was a business item. Mr Kalwant Dhillon stated that this suggestion could be done. The committee also agreed:

• That the next iteration of Budget 2010/2011 pages contain options for management of all surplus

• That the matter of creation of reserves be investigated SPC RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Mr Doug Forster SECONDED: Mr Kevin Poynton Draft report with identified changes be presented at the next Budget Workshop for further discussion. (Carried: 7/0)



Page 268

ATTACHMENT ONE

TO ITEM 3


14 MAY 2010

BUSINESS PLAN 2010/2011



Page 269

M

IND

AR

IE R

EGIO

NA

L C

OU

NC

IL

A

NN

UA

L B

USI

NES

S PL

AN

201

0/20

11

Prop

osed

Act

ion

C

omm

ents

Obj

ectiv

e O

ne:

Was

te M

anag

emen

t

• O

pera

te e

xist

ing

was

te p

roce

ssin

g pr

ojec

ts a

t, at

leas

t, Ta

mal

a P

ark

(land

fill,

recy

clin

g an

d re

use)

and

Nee

rabu

p (r

esou

rce

reco

very

)

• O

ptim

ize

inco

me

via

was

te p

roce

ssin

g pr

ojec

ts a

t Tam

ala

Par

k i.e

. lan

dfill

gas

, rec

yclin

g

KP

I is

satis

fact

ory

repo

rt ca

rd o

n ec

onom

ic, e

nviro

nmen

tal a

nd s

ocia

l gr

ound

s



Page 270

M

IND

AR

IE R

EGIO

NA

L C

OU

NC

IL

A

NN

UA

L B

USI

NES

S PL

AN

201

0/20

11

Prop

osed

Act

ion

C

omm

ents

Obj

ectiv

e Tw

o: W

aste

/Res

ourc

e Pr

oces

sing

• Im

plem

ent i

nteg

rate

d re

gion

al p

lan

for p

roce

ssin

g of

at

leas

t mun

icip

al s

olid

was

te (M

SW

)

• D

evel

op a

nd im

plem

ent p

lans

for a

dditi

onal

was

te

proc

essi

ng fa

cilit

ies

with

in th

e re

gion

incl

udin

g ‘S

on o

f Ta

mal

a’ la

ndfil

l and

RR

F S

tage

Tw

o

• In

vest

igat

e ad

ditio

nal o

ppor

tuni

ties

for e

xpan

ded

was

te

proc

essi

ng c

apab

ility

e.g

. Bal

catta

Tra

nsfe

r Sta

tion

• Im

prov

e w

aste

pro

cess

ing

at T

amal

a P

ark



Page 271

M

IND

AR

IE R

EGIO

NA

L C

OU

NC

IL

A

NN

UA

L B

USI

NES

S PL

AN

201

0/20

11

Prop

osed

Act

ion

C

omm

ents

Obj

ectiv

e Th

ree:

Ind

ustr

y Le

ader

ship

and

Adv

ocac

y

• P

artic

ipat

e in

def

ined

ext

erna

l ind

ustry

-rel

ated

foru

ms

eg.

MW

AC

, WM

AA

, WA

LGA

, FO

RC

• S

treng

then

par

tner

ship

s w

ith G

over

nmen

t, in

dust

ry a

nd

acad

emic

inst

itutio

ns in

ord

er to

pro

mot

e im

prov

emen

t in

was

te m

anag

emen

t sec

tor p

artic

ular

ly v

ia th

e S

WM

P

prog

ram

me

• Id

entif

y an

d ad

opt c

onte

mpo

rary

app

roac

hes

to

was

te/re

sour

ce m

anag

emen

t, at

leas

t with

in th

e re

gion

KP

I is

intro

duct

ion

of im

prov

ed in

dust

ry-w

ide

prog

ram



Page 272

M

IND

AR

IE R

EGIO

NA

L C

OU

NC

IL

A

NN

UA

L B

USI

NES

S PL

AN

201

0/20

11

Prop

osed

Act

ion

C

omm

ents

Obj

ectiv

e Fo

ur:

Com

mun

ity E

ngag

emen

t

• Im

prov

e M

inda

rie R

egio

nal C

ounc

il un

ders

tand

ing

of

com

mun

ity c

hara

cter

istic

s (i)

V

ia d

evel

opm

ent o

f an

actio

n pl

an fr

om th

e M

inda

rie

360

Sta

keho

lder

sur

vey

• O

pera

te a

n ef

fect

ive

inte

grat

ed m

arke

ting

stra

tegy

for

Min

darie

Reg

iona

l Cou

ncil

stak

ehol

ders

• O

pera

te a

n ef

fect

ive

was

te e

duca

tion

stra

tegy

in o

rder

to

prom

ote

com

mun

ity b

ehav

iour

con

sist

ent w

ith o

pera

tiona

l pl

ans

• M

aint

ain

the

CE

AG

foru

m a

s a

com

mun

ity e

ngag

emen

t ta

ctic

for R

RF

issu

es



Page 273

M

IND

AR

IE R

EGIO

NA

L C

OU

NC

IL

A

NN

UA

L B

USI

NES

S PL

AN

201

0/20

11

Prop

osed

Act

ion

C

omm

ents

Obj

ectiv

e Fi

ve:

Org

anis

atio

nal M

anag

emen

t

• M

aint

ain

and

impr

ove

exis

ting

cont

empo

rary

bus

ines

s sy

stem

s, e

.g. f

inan

ce, p

rocu

rem

ent,

proj

ect m

anag

emen

t, cu

stom

er s

ervi

ce, m

arke

ting,

gov

erna

nce

• S

treng

then

Mem

ber C

ounc

il pa

rtner

ship

s an

d re

latio

nshi

ps

• R

evie

w a

nd w

here

app

ropr

iate

, rev

ise

fund

ing

stra

tegi

es fo

r th

e bu

sine

ss w

ith th

e co

ntex

t of t

he a

ppro

ved

Stra

tegi

c Fi

nanc

ial P

lan

• D

evel

op a

n In

form

atio

n M

anag

emen

t Pla

n fo

r MR

C

• R

evie

w K

ey p

lans

i.e.

Stra

tegi

c P

lan,

Stra

tegi

c Fi

nanc

ial

Pla

n



Page 274

ATTACHMENT TWO

TO ITEM 3


14 MAY2010

OPERATION STATEMENT BY NATURE & TYPE OPERATION STATEMENT BY PROGRAM



Page 275

Note

DescriptionProposed Budget

2010/2011Actual

31 March 2010Adopted Budget

2009/2010Revenue form Ordinary Activities User Charges User Charges - City of Perth 1,657,200 1,316,658 1,930,400 User Charges - City of Waneroo 10,074,300 5,844,381 7,570,900 User Charges - City of Joondalup 7,270,800 5,356,849 7,418,100 User Charges - City of Stirling 13,150,400 6,553,975 8,376,000 User Charges - Town of Cambridge 1,293,900 896,194 1,224,000 User Charges - Town of Vincent 1,647,700 1,186,499 1,687,800 User Charges - Town of Victoria Park 1,754,600 1,122,259 1,728,200 User Charges - RRF Residues 3,435,000 1,106,744 1,980,000 Total Member User Charges 40,283,900 23,383,559 31,915,400 User Charges - City of South Perth 0 16,229 337,100 User Charges - Casual Tipping Fees 5,018,000 3,447,508 5,018,140 Total User Charges 45,301,900 26,847,297 37,270,640 Service Charges Sale of Recyclable Materials 340,000 374,666 240,000 Sale of Limestone 0 0 0 Gas Power Generation Sales 550,000 297,350 550,000 Grants & Subsidies 400,000 360,000 320,000 Contributions, Reimbursements & Donations 202,000 173,939 340,100 Interest Earnings 795,400 282,037 369,200 Other Revenue 10,200 73,716 10,200

47,599,500 28,409,005 39,100,140Expenses from Ordinary Activities Employee Costs 4,936,100 3,273,361 4,300,140 Materials and Contracts Consultants and Contract Labour 665,900 695,480 594,600 Communications and Public Consultation 905,900 241,167 722,800 Landfill Expenses 1,612,800 660,549 1,057,400 Office Expenses 286,200 166,795 254,500 Information System Expenses 465,700 226,268 399,300 Building Maintenance 115,100 75,906 99,200 Plant and Equipment Operating and Hire 1,034,200 1,015,117 1,027,800 RRF Operations Total Cost (excl. Amortisation) 17,717,000 8,316,215 16,173,600 1 Waste Minimisation Project 280,000 323,841 316,000 Utilities 109,500 77,781 94,300 Depreciation 1,133,700 779,813 1,159,080 Borrowing Cost Expenses 691,000 996,413 880,400 Insurance 160,700 143,899 127,400 DEP Landfill Levy 7,785,800 3,212,353 4,699,700 Land Lease/Rental 615,000 429,762 590,000 Other Expenditure Member Costs 169,900 61,856 149,500 Administration Expenses 167,700 115,586 159,000 Amortisation (LandFill) 4,206,050 3,279,249 4,054,200 Amortisation (RRF) 652,259 400,950 534,600 1

43,710,509 24,492,363 37,393,520

Profit on Sale of Assets 0 9,994 27,800Loss on Sale of Assets 18,700 8,116 28,700

(18,700) 1,879 (900)

Changes in Net Assets Resulting from Operations 3,870,291 3,918,521 1,705,720

Note: Adopted Budget 2009/2010 for RRF Total Operations Cost has been re-aligned for comparison to Proposed Budget 2010/2011. No effect on the Net Balance.


Proposed Budget for 2010/2011



Page 276

Note 1


2010/2011Adopted Budget

2009/2010Revenue form Ordinary ActivitiesExpenses from Ordinary Activities Employee Costs 41,500 0 Materials and Contracts Consultants and Contract Labour 265,000 210,000 Office Expenses 5,200 5,000 Information System Expenses 12,000 0 Building Maintenance 30,900 30,000 RRF Operations Total Cost (excl. Amortisation) 16,764,200 15,355,000 Utilities 24,200 37,000 Borrowing Cost Expenses 574,000 536,600 Other Expenditure Amortisation (RRF) 652,259 534,600

18,369,259 16,708,200

Changes in Net Assets Resulting from Operations 18,369,259 16,708,200

Mindarie Regional CouncilRESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY

INCOME STATEMENT BY NATURE AND TYPEProposed Budget for 2010/2011



Page 277


2010/2011Actual


2009/2010

Revenue from Ordinary ActivitiesCommunity Amenities 47,599,500 28,409,005 39,100,140Total Operating Revenues 47,599,500 28,409,005 39,100,140

Expenses from Ordinary ActivitiesGovernance 169,900 61,856 149,500Community Amenities 22,648,750 13,729,360 17,787,420Other Property and Services 1,831,600 1,388,519 1,868,000Resource Recovery Facility 17,795,259 8,316,215 16,171,600Total Operating Expenses 42,445,509 23,495,950 35,976,520

Profit on Sale of AssetsCommunity Amenities 0 9,994 27,800Total Profit on Sale of Assets 0 9,994 27,800

Loss on Sale of AssetsCommunity Amenities 18,700 8,116 28,700Total Profit on Sale of Assets 18,700 8,116 28,700

Borrowing Costs ExpenseCommunity Amenities 691,000 620,391 880,400Resource Recovery Facility 574,000 376,022 536,600Total Borrowing Cost Expense 1,265,000 996,413 1,417,000

Net Result 3,870,291 3,918,521 1,705,720

Mindarie Regional CouncilINCOME STATEMENT BY PROGRAM




Page 278


2009/2010Actual


2008/2009

Revenue from Ordinary ActivitiesCommunity Amenities 47,599,500 28,418,999 39,127,940Total Operating Revenues 47,599,500 28,418,999 39,127,940

Expenses from Ordinary ActivitiesGovernance 169,900 61,856 149,500Community Amenities 23,358,450 14,357,867 18,696,520Other Property and Services 1,831,600 1,388,519 1,868,000Resource Recovery Facility 18,369,259 8,692,237 16,708,200Total Operating Expenses 43,729,209 24,500,478 37,422,220

Net Result 3,870,291 3,918,521 1,705,720

Mindarie Regional CouncilINCOME STATEMENT BY PROGRAM




Page 279

Bud

get 1

0/11

To

tal R

even

ue

Con

tribu

tions

, Rei

mb

& D

onat

ions

0%

Gra

nt &

Sub

sidi

es1%

Gas

Pow

er G

ener

atio

n S

ale

1%S

ale

of R

ecyc

labl

e M

ater

ials

1%In

tere

st E

arni

ngs

2% (0

9/10

- 1%

)

Cas

uals

/Non

Mem

bers

11%

(09/

10 -

14%

)

Mem

bers

Fee

s84

% (0

9/10

- 81

%)

Mem

bers

Fee

sC

asua

ls/N

on M

embe

rsIn

tere

st E

arni

ngs

Sal

e of

Rec

ycla

ble

Mat

eria

lsG

as P

ower

Gen

erat

ion

Sal

eG

rant

& S

ubsi

dies

Con

tribu

tions

, Rei

mb

& D

onat

ions

Oth

er R

even

ue



Page 280

Bud

get 1

0/11

Exp

endi

ture

s by

Loc

atio

n

MR

C L

andf

ill F

acili

ty $

25.2

7M55

% (0

9/10

- 55

%)

MR

C R

RF

Faci

lity

$18.

25M

45%

(09/

10 -

45%

)

Tam

ala

Par

kR

RF



Page 281

Bud

get 1

0/11

MR

C L

andf

ill F

acili

ty E

xpen

ditu

res

Offi

ce E

xpen

ses

1%In

form

atio

n S

yste

m E

xpen

ses

2%

Land

Lea

se/R

enta

l2%

(09/

10 -

3%)

Was

te M

inim

isat

ion

Pro

ject

1% (0

9/10

- 2%

)

Em

ploy

ee C

ost

20%

(09/

10 -

21%

)

Bor

row

ing

Cos

t3%

(09/

10 -

4%)

Insu

ranc

e1%

Con

sulta

nts&

Con

tract

s3%

Com

m &

Pub

lic C

onsu

ltatio

n4%

Land

fill E

xpen

ses

6% (0

9/10

- 5%

)

Pla

nt a

nd E

quip

men

t Ope

ratin

g an

d H

ire4%

(09/

10 -

5%)

Mem

ber C

osts

1%

Dep

reci

atio

n4%

(09/

10 -

6%)

DE

P L

andf

ill L

evy

31%

(09/

10 -

23%

)Am

ortis

atio

n (L

andF

ill)

16%

Adm

inis

tratio

n E

xpen

ses

1%

Em

ploy

ee C

ost

Con

sulta

nts&

Con

tract

sC

omm

& P

ublic

Con

sulta

tion

Land

fill E

xpen

ses

Offi

ce E

xpen

ses

Info

rmat

ion

Sys

tem

Exp

ense

sB

uild

ing

Mai

nten

ance

Pla

nt a

nd E

quip

men

t Ope

ratin

g an

d H

ireW

aste

Min

imis

atio

n P

roje

ctU

tiliti

esD

epre

ciat

ion

Bor

row

ing

Cos

tIn

sura

nce

DE

P L

andf

ill L

evy

Land

Lea

se/R

enta

lM

embe

r Cos

ts A

dmin

istra

tion

Exp

ense

sA

mor

tisat

ion

(Lan

dFill

)Lo

ss o

n S

ale



Page 282

Bud

get 1

0/11

MR

C R

RF

Faci

lity

Exp

endi

ture

s

Con

tract

or's

Fee

88%

MR

C O

pera

ting

Cos

t3%

Bor

row

ing

Cos

t3%

Am

ortis

atio

n (R

RF)

4% Com

post

Dis

posa

l3%

Offi

ce E

xpen

ses

Bui

ldin

g M

aint

enan

ceM

RC

Ope

ratin

g C

ost

Util

ities

Bor

row

ing

Cos

tA

mor

tisat

ion

(RR

F)C

ompo

st D

ispo

sal

Con

tract

or's

Cos

t



Page 283

ATTACHMENT THREE

TO ITEM 3


14 MAY 2010

SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE OF DISPOSAL OF ASSETS



Page 284

Proposed Budget 2010/2011

Mindarie Regional CouncilNOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE BUDGET

For the year ending 30 June 2010

The following assets are budgeted to be acquired during the year

BY PROGRAMCommunity AmenitiesMachinery and Equipment 31,000 Furniture and Equipment 10,000 Computing Equipment 77,200 Land and Buildings 12,318,000 Infrastructure - Operations 19,500 Infrastructure - Landfill 5,520,000 Infrastructure - RRF 100,000

18,075,700

Other Property and ServicesPlant and Vehicles 1,215,500

1,215,500

19,291,200

BY CLASSPlant and Vehicles 1,215,500 Machinery and Equipment 31,000 Furniture and Equipment 10,000 Computing Equipment 77,200 Land and Buildings 12,318,000 Infrastructure - Operations 19,500 Infrastructure - Landfill 5,520,000 Infrastructure - RRF 100,000

19,291,200



Page 285




The following assets are budgeted to be acquired during the year.

PLANT, VEHICLES AND MACHINERIESPlant and Vehicles Landfill Compactor 1,200,000 Ride-on Mower 15,500

1,215,500

Machinery and Equipment Hook Lift Bin 14,000 8x Bunded Pallets 5,800 6x Grey Nally Bins 2,500 1x Stacking Turntables 4,200 1x Anionic Resin Exchanger 2,000 1x Refridgerant Recovery Unit 2,500

31,000

TOTAL PLANT, VEHICLES AND MACHINERIES 1,246,500

FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENTFurniture & Fittings Replacement of Furnitures 10,000

10,000

TOTAL FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT 10,000

COMPUTING EQUIPMENTComputing Equipment Replacement of Laptop - CEO 4,000 Replacement of Laptop - Financial Accountant 3,200 Replacement of Desktop - Receptionist 1,500 Replacement of Desktop - Plant Supervisor 1,500 Replacement of Desktop - Project Manager 1,500 Replacement of Desktop - TRIM Computer 1,500 Replacement of Desktop - Recycling Point of Sale 1,500 New Laptop - Marketing and Education Manager 2,500 Replacement of MRCTPS003 Server 25,000 Upgrade Core Switches for the Existing Servers 20,000 Various Replacement of Computing Equipments 15,000

77,200

TOTAL COMPUTING EQUIPMENT 77,200



Page 286




BUILDINGBuilding Recycling Centre Lunch Room Extension 20,000 Workshop Oil Storage Area 15,000 Under Cover Parking 125,000 Patio and Office Renovation 90,000 Education Centre Toilets 68,000 TOTAL BUILDINGS 318,000

LANDLandbrought forward items: Land Purchase (New Landfill Site) 12,000,000 TOTAL LAND 12,000,000

TOTAL LAND AND BUILDINGS 12,318,000

INFRASTRUCTUREOperations Boom Gates 19,500

19,500

Landfill Phase 3 Development Pumps and Compressor Station 85,000 Design, Superintendence 50,000 Clay Lining 2,000,000 Project Management 15,000

2,150,000

Landfill Stage 2 Capping Design, Superintendence 150,000 Cap Construction 3,000,000 Revegetation 200,000 Project Management 20,000

3,370,000

Resource Recovery Facility Site Infrastructure additional Costs 60,000 brought forward items: Site Infrastructure 40,000

100,000

TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE 5,639,500



Page 287

2009/2010 2010/2011 2010/2011Net Book Value Sale Proceeds Profit (Loss)

DISPOSAL OF ASSETS

The following assets are budgeted to be disposed during the year

BY PROGRAMOther Property and Services Tana G360 (Plant 36) 188,700 (170,000) (18,700)

188,700 (170,000) (18,700)

BY CLASSPlant and Vehicles Tana G360 (Plant 36) 188,700 (170,000) (18,700)

188,700 (170,000) (18,700)

Summary BudgetProfit on Sale of DisposalLoss on Sale of Disposal (18,700)

(18,700)





Page 288

ATTACHMENT FOUR

TO ITEM 3


14 MAY 2010

SCHEDULE OF FEES – NON MEMBERS



Page 289

PROPOSED Fee (GST

inclusive) from1 July 2009

GST Payable to ATO

PROPOSED Fee (GST

inclusive) from1 July 2010

GST Payable to ATO

1 (a) GENERAL ENTRYGeneral waste and household rubbish (domestic)excepting liquid waste, swill or semi liquid waste.Charge per tonne 120.00 10.91 138.00 12.55 Minimum charge for entry to sit 10.00 0.91 12.00 1.09

(b) Swill or Semi Liquid Waste(c)

failure, maintenance or repairs the following feesshall apply to ( a ) above( I ) All vehicles carrying uncompacted waste -

35.00 3.18 40.00 3.64 Trailer (1.8mx1.2m or less) 35.00 3.18 40.00 3.64 ( II ) All vehicles carrying compacted waste - per wheel of truck or trailer 70.00 6.36 80.00 7.27

(d) 150.00 13.64 200.00 18.18 (e) Unweighed Load (Drive-Aways 50.00 4.55 60.00 5.45

2 SPECIAL BURIALS (SUPERVISED) At the discretion of the Site Controller in addition to the tonnage rates Charge per 5 cubic metres 180.00 16.36 200.00 18.18

3 CONTROLLED WASTE PER TONNE 200.00 18.18 200.00 18.18 4 SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) 25.00 2.27 25.00 2.27 (b) Animal carcasses

Small domestic animals 8.00 0.55 8.00 0.73 Large animals (Sheep and cattle etc.) 20.00 1.18 20.00 1.82

(c) 15.00 1.36 18.00 1.64 Per tonne 300.00 22.73 300.00 27.27

(d) Safe sharp containers 7 litre or less each 13.00 1.18 15.00 1.36 Over 7 litres per litre 1.30 0.12 1.50 0.14

(e) Light weight bulk material less 300 kg per cubic metre - each cubic metre 50.00 4.55 60.00 5.45

5 INFRINGEMENT AGENCY COSTS(a) Debt Collection Fee(b) Dishonoured Cheque Fee 15.00 20.00

Motor bodies and old machinery each item

Tyres (Maximum disposal 4 )-per 4 tyre, pro rata for < 4

Debt Collection Agency's Debt Collection Agency's

In the event of weighbridge breakdown due to power

per wheel of truck or trailer (larger than 1.8mx1.2m)

Asbestos - whole loads per tonne (incl burial fee)

In lieu of the charges in1, 2 & 3 above the following apply:

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCILNOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE BUDGET

For the Year Ending 30 June 2011

Not Accepted Not Accepted



Page 290

ATTACHMENT FIVE

TO ITEM 3


14 MAY 2010

SUPPLEMENTARY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS LOAN SCHEDULES

SURPLUS RECONCILIATION



Page 291

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

ON

BO

RR

OW

ING

S

(a)

Loan

Rep

aym

ents

Act

ual

Prin

cipa

l R

epay

men

tsPr

inci

pal

Out

stan

ding

Inte

rest

R

epay

men

ts

Valu

e of

Loa

n A

ppro

ved

Inte

rest

R

ates

Prin

cipa

l 01

/07/

2009

Prin

cipa

l D

raw

n D

own

to 3

1/03

/201

0A

ctua

l to

31/0

3/20

10A

ctua

l to

31/0

3/20

10A

ctua

l to

31/0

3/20

10

Sche

dule

d re

paym

ent

date

Proj

ecte

d ea

rly

repa

ymen

t da

teC

omm

unity

Am

eniti

esTa

mal

a Pa

rk L

andf

illLo

an 8

- B

uild

ing

Upg

rade

650,

000

6.45

%37

6,43

50

49,1

3432

7,30

117

,173

31-M

ay-1

430

-Jun

-12

Loan

12

- Con

stru

ctio

n S

tage

2 P

hase

215

,000

,000

5.98

%11

,249

,969

01,

250,

010

9,99

9,95

832

7,45

215

-Dec

-15

30-J

un-1

2R

egio

nal R

esou

rce

Rec

over

y Fa

cilit

yLo

an 1

1 - R

RF

Land

Pur

chas

e3,

500,

000

5.97

%1,

940,

815

013

9,23

71,

801,

578

232,

270

30-M

ay-2

530

-Jun

-15

Loan

10a

- R

RF

Infra

stru

ctur

e2,

000,

000

6.16

%1,

766,

658

061

,156

1,70

5,50

269

,796

30-M

ar-2

530

-Jun

-13

Loan

10b

- R

RF

Infra

stru

ctur

e (In

tere

st O

nly)

2,60

0,00

0V

aria

ble

2,60

0,00

00

02,

600,

000

76,1

7330

-Apr

-25

30-J

un-1

3Lo

an 1

0c -

RR

F In

frast

ruct

ure

(Inte

rest

Onl

y)4,

000,

000

Var

iabl

e4,

000,

000

033

3,33

33,

666,

667

228,

133

30-A

pr-2

530

-Jun

-13

TOTA

L27

,750

,000

21,9

33,8

770

1,83

2,87

020

,101

,006

950,

996

Faci

lity

Fee

45,4

17To

tal B

orro

win

g C

osts

996,

413

Bud

get

Prin

cipa

l R

epay

men

tsPr

inci

pal

Out

stan

ding

Inte

rest

R

epay

men

ts

Valu

e of

Loa

n A

ppro

ved

Inte

rest

R

ates

Prin

cipa

l 01

/07/

2010

Prin

cipa

l D

raw

n D

own

to 3

0/06

/201

1A

ctua

l to

30/0

6/20

11A

ctua

l to

30/0

6/20

11A

ctua

l to

30/0

6/20

11

Sche

dule

d re

paym

ent

date

Proj

ecte

d ea

rly

repa

ymen

t da

teC

omm

unity

Am

eniti

esTa

mal

a Pa

rk L

andf

illLo

an 8

- B

uild

ing

Upg

rade

650,

000

6.45

%31

0,55

80

70,3

6124

0,19

718

,000

31-M

ay-1

430

-Jun

-12

Loan

12

- Con

stru

ctio

n S

tage

2 P

hase

215

,000

,000

5.98

%9,

583,

290

01,

666,

680

7,91

6,60

852

3,60

015

-Dec

-15

30-J

un-1

2R

egio

nal R

esou

rce

Rec

over

y Fa

cilit

yLo

an 1

1 - R

RF

Land

Pur

chas

e3,

500,

000

5.97

%1,

753,

455

019

9,75

01,

553,

705

99,4

0030

-May

-25

30-J

un-1

5Lo

an 1

0a -

RR

F In

frast

ruct

ure

2,00

0,00

06.

16%

1,69

8,29

30

72,6

471,

625,

646

102,

200

30-M

ar-2

530

-Jun

-13

Loan

10b

- R

RF

Infra

stru

ctur

e (In

tere

st O

nly)

2,60

0,00

0V

aria

ble

2,60

0,00

00

02,

600,

000

143,

000

30-A

pr-2

530

-Jun

-13

Loan

10c

- R

RF

Infra

stru

ctur

e (In

tere

st O

nly)

4,00

0,00

0V

aria

ble

4,00

0,00

00

04,

000,

000

318,

800

30-A

pr-2

530

-Jun

-13

TOTA

L27

,750

,000

19,9

45,5

960

2,00

9,43

817

,936

,156

1,20

5,00

0Fa

cilit

y Fe

e60

,000

Tota

l Bor

row

ing

Cos

ts1,

265,

000

Not

e 1.

The

rate

for L

oan

12 is

fixe

d fo

r 5 y

ears

and

will

be

revi

ewed

in M

arch

201

2.N

ote

2. R

epay

men

ts s

ched

ule

for L

oan

10 (b

) and

(c) c

urre

ntly

bei

ng a

rran

ged

with

the

bank

.



Page 292

ATTACHMENT SIX

TO ITEM 3


14 MAY 2010

NEW INITIATIVES



Page 293

NEW INITIATIVES The new initiatives are summarised below: • Research and Planning relating $70,000

- RRF Stage 2 Development 50,000

- Investigation into a Toxic Taxi 20,000

The toxic Taxi is an additional step to improve the access and convenience of disposing properly of HHW. Envisaged particularly for people who are not mobile, the taxi would be booked by householders to visit properties and collect material, and then bring it to Tamala Park for disposal.

• Additional 2 staff to meet the demands of the operation $187,200

of the Landfill and Recycling Centre at Tamala Park

- Full Time Technical Officer 91,500

MRC receives large volumes of hazardous waste, as that volume and diversity has increased the need to manage this issue constructively has arisen. The person employed in this position would be required to undertake a variety of hazardous waste tasks to ensure the Council operates the Tamala Park Hazardous Waste facility at world’s best practice

standards and that it complies with legislation. The majority of these tasks are an ongoing daily requirement and given their complex chemical nature they not able to be performed by other Council staff. The creation of the Technical Officer would reduce operating costs of hazardous waste collections and provide a point of reference to assist member councils with hazardous collection issues

- Recycling Officer 95,700

In the FY 08/09 the MRC Recycling Centre processed approximately 13,000 paint cans. Early 2010 the Recycling Centre commenced processing paint cans from member councils effectively doubling the daily volume to be processed. Current staffing levels of 4 at weekdays and 5 on weekends at the Recycling Centre cannot sustain the required workload to process the increased paint can volumes. An additional full time staff member is needed to assist with the increased volume of paint material to be recycled from the Balcatta Recycling Centre.



Page 294

• Limestone Cover $420,000

For the past three years the limestone cover material was gained from the excavation activities of Landfill Stage II. Since the excavation of Phase II is now complete the cover required is gained from the main limestone stockpile which requires crushing to render it to a usable size for use on the tipface.

• Zero Waste – MRC Contributions $20,000 (in line with DEC funding requirements) • Additional 0.5 FTE for Administration Officer $26,500

This is administrative support for Marketing and Education Program. This would result in a full time FTE for Marketing and Education Administration to meeting the additional demand in services. Currently administration support is provided by 0.5 FTE • Additional Casuals to support the Education Program Activities $20,000

At the start of 2009 MRC identified that the increased number of requests for the Roaming Recycler, together with increased demand for tours, could only be accommodated with the support of additional staff as needed. Employment of staff on a casual basis allowed MRC to bring them in to assist with staffing of the mobile display at a community event which allowed us to meet the growing requests for involvement at these events in a cost-effective way. We have increased the budget from last year to enable casual staff to assist both with The Roaming Recycler and with tours.

• Sponsorship for Member Councils $70,000

The sponsorship budget would be used to support activities that provide an opportunity to establish the MRC brand and build organisational profile. Also through supporting member councils with their community-based waste-related activities we are building strong relationships with member councils, a critical set of stakeholders.

• Corporate Function and Brand Council $55,000

The MRC corporate cocktail function invites major customers, suppliers, politicians, and staff of agencies and industry associations that the MRC works closely with. The corporate presentation by the Chair and CEO enables the MRC’s messages to be communicated to a receptive audience, followed by good opportunity for networking.

The Brand Council would meet quarterly. The costs relate to revenue hire, potentially the services of a facilitator to work with the group initially, and some materials costs.



Page 295

• Waste Education Program $10,000

- Shopping Centre Program

Funding is to help MRC make some initial steps into shopping centres. Our aim is to get better visibility for the waste message in shopping centres which could be achieved either through scheduling the Roaming Recycler as a display or through working with shopping centres to create a “green room”, a permanent space (often an unused shop) where people can bring items for recycling – particularly batteries and CFLs – and have waste messages on display. Initial contact with Mirrabooka Square demonstrated some interest.

• Project Support $35,000

- RRF Open Day 30,000

We know that the best way for people to understand the RRF is to see it in operation, hence our expanding tours program. In addition to that, we would like the community close to the facility to be aware of it and what it does, and we would like to know whether there are any issues with the Community now that it is operational. Any opportunity to establish the link between what goes in the bin, the quality of the compost produced, and the benefits of diverting waste successfully from landfill, is an opportunity to be grabbed.

- RRF Stage 2 promotion $5,000

As part of planning for Stage 2 there is likely to be an environmental approvals process to be followed, and the MRC will need to have demonstrated some level of community involvement. This budget allows for initial planning and scoping of the requirements of Stage 2.

• Millipede Control $10,000

This budget item is for purchase of barrier materials, millipede Traps and to investigate methods of control for millipedes.

• Consultancy $50,000

- Review of Disability Access and Inclusion Plan $10,000 to ensure that people with disabilities are included and can access facilities, services and functions.

- Business Information System Review $15,000 concerns from Scoping Project highlighted concerns from staff regarding robustness of software systems.

- Information Management Strategy Plan $25,000 Recognise that our information in and out of MRC is not just a paper record; every area of our business is “information” pertinent to our business as such requires that it be managed strategically.



Page 296

• Contract Labour $20,000

Project management of RRF Stage 2 Development.

• Other Administration Expenses $5,000

- Artwork Maintenance A feature of the Education Centre displays and instructional material is a series of frog and ogre sculptures which are fun and demonstrate the value of waste materials. The 2 mtr high ogres in particular receive a lot of attention from school children and they require ongoing maintenance. This minimal allowance covers regular maintenance checks and upkeep by the artist.

Grand Total $998,700



Page 297

4 FUTURE SPC MEETINGS

9 July 2010 – Town of Vincent 10 September 2010 – Town of Vincent 22 October 2010 – Town of Vincent

5 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING

There being no further business, the Deputy Chairman declared the meeting closed at 10.25am.



Page 298