Agenda of Water, Waste and Sewer Advisory Committee Meeting

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

What is a “Conflict of Interests” - A conflict of interests can be of two types:

Pecuniary - an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

Non-pecuniary – a private or personal interest that a Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Local Government Act (eg. A friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

Remoteness – a person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to a matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in Section 448 of the Local Government Act.

Who has a Pecuniary Interest? - a person has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is the interest of the person, or another person with whom the person is associated (see below).

Relatives, Partners - a person is taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if:

§ The person’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the person has a pecuniary interest in the matter, or

§ The person, or a nominee, partners or employer of the person, is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

N.B. “Relative”, in relation to a person means any of the following:

(a) the parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descends or adopted child of the person or of the person’s spouse;

(b) the spouse or de facto partners of the person or of a person referred to in paragraph (a)

No Interest in the Matter - however, a person is not taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter:

§ If the person is unaware of the relevant pecuniary interest of the spouse, de facto partner, relative or company or other body, or

§ Just because the person is a member of, or is employed by, the Council.

§ Just because the person is a member of, or a delegate of the Council to, a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter provided that the person has no beneficial interest in any shares of the company or body.

Disclosure and participation in meetings

§ A Councillor or a member of a Council Committee who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the Council or Committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

§ The Councillor or member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council or Committee:

(a) at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the Council or Committee, or

(b) at any time during which the Council or Committee is voting on any question in relation to the matter.

No Knowledge - a person does not breach this Clause if the person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter under consideration at the meeting was a matter in which he or she had a pecuniary interest.

Participation in Meetings Despite Pecuniary Interest (S 452 Act)

A Councillor is not prevented from taking part in the consideration or discussion of, or from voting on, any of the matters/questions detailed in Section 452 of the Local Government Act.

Non-pecuniary Interests - Must be disclosed in meetings.

There are a broad range of options available for managing conflicts & the option chosen will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of the interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with. Non-pecuniary conflicts of interests must be dealt with in at least one of the following ways:

§ It may be appropriate that no action be taken where the potential for conflict is minimal. However, Councillors should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

§ Limit involvement if practical (eg. Participate in discussion but not in decision making or vice-versa). Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

§ Remove the source of the conflict (eg. Relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict)

§ Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in S451 of the Local Government Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary interest)

RECORDING OF VOTING ON PLANNING MATTERS

Clause 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 – Recording of voting on planning matters

(1) In this section, planning decision means a decision made in the exercise of a function of a council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

(a) including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act, but

(b) not including the making of an order under Division 2A of Part 6 of that Act.

(2) The general manager is required to keep a register containing, for each planning decision made at a meeting of the council or a council committee, the names of the councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed (or are taken to have opposed) the decision.

(3) For the purpose of maintaining the register, a division is required to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put at a meeting of the council or a council committee.

(4) Each decision recorded in the register is to be described in the register or identified in a manner that enables the description to be obtained from another publicly available document, and is to include the information required by the regulations.

(5) This section extends to a meeting that is closed to the public.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.1

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

Report No. 4.1 Ocean Shores Sewage Transfer Risk Assessment

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Peter Rees, Manager Utilities

File No: I2017/1821

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Sewerage Services

Summary:

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 22 June 2017 it was resolved to investigate operational risks cited in the GHD Study and report back to Council via the Committee on the Ocean Shores Transfer to Brunswick Valley STP Option 4.

The risk assessment for Option 4 was finalised by GHD in December 2017 and identified that the most significant risks are mitigated by the construction of a 30ML wet weather storage.

The storage concept is not new and also aligns with the Mullumbimby Inflow and Infiltration resolution 18-054; Council Resolution 10-840 in 2010 and original strategies conceptualised by Council in the early 2000’s.

The Option 4 transfer of sewage from Ocean Shores to Brunswick Valley STP also represents a significant financial saving to Council in the longer term.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Risk Assessment Report be noted.

2. That Council proceed to detailed design phase for Option 4 of an upgraded plant including the wet weather storage at Brunswick Valley STP.

Attachments:

1 24.2009.36.1 GHD Report - Ocean Shores transfer to Brunswick Valley STP Process Risk Assessment - December 2017, E2018/13028 , page 8⇩

Report

Background - At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 22 June 2017:

17-250

Resolved that Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation:

Report No. 4.4 Ocean Shores to Brunswick Valley STP Transfer Feasibility Study

File No: I2017/678

Committee Recommendation 4.4.1

1. That Council notes the report about the Ocean Shores to Brunswick Valley STP Transfer Feasibility Study, including risks associated with Option 4 in Section 13 recommendations.

2. That Council investigate operational risks cited in the Study and report back to Council via the Committee on the Transfer option, taking into account Council resolution 17-177.

(Richardson/Hunter)

17-177 Resolved that Council adopt the following Committee Recommendations:

Report No. 4.2 Inflow and Rainfall - Brunswick Valley STP, March 2017

File No: I2017/366

Committee Recommendation 4.2.1

1. That Council note that the Water, Waste and Sewer Advisory Committee was provided with daily inflow and rainfall figures for March 2017 for the Brunswick Valley STP.

2. That the Committee be provided with a report on the need to replace the original sewer network in ‘old’ Mullumbimby (as it was in the 1960s, when the sewer network was built) and to consider including allocations in its future business plans for sewer management.

3. That the report, in part 2 of the recommendation above, consider options and how well they protect or enhance the environment.

(Hunter/Cameron)

A recent Feasibility Study (GHD, 2016) proposed the transfer of raw wastewater flows and loads from the existing Ocean Shores catchments to the Brunswick Valley Sewage Treatment Plant (BVSTP), followed by the decommissioning of the older existing Ocean Shores STP.

The Feasibility Study report (GHD, 2016) identified that the transfer of wastewater to BVSTP poses some risks relating to plant process and/or hydraulic capacity.

The risk assessment for Option 4 was finalised by GHD in December 2017, see Attachment 1. The most significant risks are mitigated by the construction of 30ML wet weather storage.

The above also leads into the subsequent Council Resolution 10-840 resolved in part:

That Council endorses the recommendations on page 5 of the Mullumbimby Sewerage System Inflow and Infiltration Integrated Strategy Final Report June 2010 (#1002349) as per below:

(1) complete the work on the gravity system in catchments 4001 and 4003b

(2) continue with inspection of private assets

(3) Implement routine investigation and repairs for both public and private infrastructure in

Council’s operational and maintenance activities; and

(4) investigate further the potential implementation of constructed wetlands and a bulk effluent storage dam at Council’s Brunswick Valley STP site to capture and also improve the integrated effluent management outcomes.

Due to the then financial status of the sewer fund after the completion of an $80 Million capital programme during that period, work on investigation and implementation of constructed wetlands and bulk effluent storage dam were put on hold.

A design for wet weather storage was already carried out as part of the 2003 concept to build the Brunswick Valley STP. The storage was sized at 60ML (called the effluent storage dam).

The most logical process now is to move to detailed design for an upgraded plant including the wet weather storage at Brunswick Valley STP; and commence formal negotiations with the EPA and DPI regarding environmental licence conditions and required work approvals necessary.

Financial Implications

The capital cost of Option 4 (in 2015 dollars), is estimated to be $10.6 Million. This is a significant saving to the community in both initial capital and whole of life costs.

An upgrade of Ocean Shores STP alone has a capital cost of $29 Million.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Council is continuing to liaise with NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) regarding compliance with licence conditions at both Ocean Shores and Brunswick Valley STPs. Consultation with the Department of Primary Industries will also be required in relation to Section 60 of the Local Government Act.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.2

Report No. 4.2 Belongil Swamp Drainage Union Report to Council

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Peter Rees, Manager Utilities

File No: I2018/228

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Sewerage Services

Summary:

DA 10.2017.661.1 (West Byron) has a critical lack of information relating to the impacts the development will have on the hydrology in the catchment.

This lack of information will prevent the Belongil Swamp Drainage Union from implementing a Management Plan in accordance with its obligations under the Water Management Act 2000 and could have significant negative impacts on the catchment’s water quality and quantity which in turn will have a degrading impact on the Belongil ICOL character.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council supports the Belongil Swamp Drainage Union’s submission to DA 10.2017.661.1 and that any decision on the DA (and any other DA’s in this catchment) is deferred until critical information regarding the impact of the development on the catchment’s hydrology are adequately quantified.

Attachments:

1 BSDU Submission West Byron DA 10.2017.661.1 0118, E2018/12493 , page 48 ⇩

Report

Since 2015 there have been 11 resolutions of Council regarding Council’s interaction with the Belongil Swamp Drainage Union (BSDU) and the Belongil catchment.

Essentially, Council played a major role in the reconstitution of the Belongil Swamp Drainage Union and the re establishment of the Union in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000 in close cooperation with the NSW Department Primary Industries and Water (NSW DPI)

Council resolution 15-526 resolved that:-

“Council estimate a contribution rate it is likely to pay to the reformed S D Union for use of the Drain as part of the effluent path from BBSTP, and pay that amount in advance to assist the Union cover its expenses such as preparing a Management Plan.”

BBSTP – Byron Bay Sewerage Treatment Plant

S D Union – Belongil Swamp Drainage Union (BSDU)

As a result Council has commenced working with the BSDU enabling the BSDU to commission consultants to prepare a management plan for the district. This plan is integral to the proper management of the Belongil Catchment.

Council Resolution 15-525 resolved that “Council consider the “Bayley Report” as amended after the Panel meeting 28 September complete, and use it as the basis for application for permissions from various authorities (including BSD Union) to introduce a second drainage path as described by Option 2 of the Report.” Council has commenced this planning work.

The BSDU has made a submission that the West Byron DA should not proceed until:-

1. The developer has consulted with the BSDU in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000.

2. The BSDU Management Plan for the drainage system is competed.

3. The impacts of the proposed development, in particular the fill and displacement of floodplain and increased pavement area, have on the water quality and quantity of water flowing into the BSDU drainage system.

4. Impacts of the altered floodplain hydrology by the development are quantified.

5. Impacts on the Belongil ICOL of the altered hydrology are quantified.

6. Impacts of the development on acid sulphate soil behaviour.

The BSDU contends the above issues and lack of information will prevent the BSDU from fulfilling its legislative responsibilities under the Water Management Act 2000 and more information and assessments of impacts on the Belongil catchment are required before the development can be considered for approval.

Financial Implications

Nil

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Compliance with the NSW Water Management Act 2000

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.3

Report No. 4.3 Review of Rural Waste Service Options

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Lloyd Isaacson, Team Leader Resource Recovery and Quarry

File No: I2018/229

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Waste and Recycling Services

Summary:

Stemming from recent discussion amongst residents, councillors and staff (Rates and Resource Recovery) regarding the current structure of the rural domestic waste service the following report recommends a reviewed structure of the rural waste manage charge structure and service options.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council approve the introduction of a Rural 140L fortnightly landfill bin service option, with the provision of a Council subsidised compost bin, kitchen caddy and education pack for residents that take up the Rural service, at the introduction of mandatory rural domestic waste charges at commencement of the 2018/19 financial year.

Report

There has been recent discussion amongst residents, councillors and staff (Rates and Resource Recovery) regarding the current structure of the rural domestic waste service. This has stemmed from an on-going historic legacy issue that permitted residents to voluntarily opt out of receiving the service when it was initially introduced approximately 12 years ago, paying only an annual vacant land charge of $25 per annum.

Section 496 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Council to make and levy and annual charge for Domestic Waste Management services on each parcel of rateable land for which the service is available i.e. properties along the route of the waste collection truck. It is up to Council to decide if the collection charge is mandatory. A charge has to be made and levied whether the service is used or not used but for where it is available. The vacant land or availability charge qualifies as a mandatory domestic waste charge in accordance with section 496. The current adopted Revenue Policy requires that rural occupied properties pay the mandatory collection charge regardless of whether they utilise the service or not, as has been the case for urban properties for many years. This policy attempts to encourage the use of the service where it is available to minimise the cost of the service to everyone that uses it and to ensure waste is properly disposed of (i.e. not illegally dumped or ending up in street bins).

Regardless of the current Revenue Policy, and resulting from the historic legacy issue providing the ability to opt-out of a service, Council currently has 435 properties in the rural collection area that are paying the vacant land charge of $25. An initial review of these properties was conducted to determine the number of these properties likely to have a residential house on-site, utilising data analysis for on-site sewer charge codes, pensioner concessions and owner mailing address comparison to property location address in order to identify possible residential occupancy.

It is anticipated that approximately 390 (90%) of those properties have a residential house on-site. Further geospatial analysis is now being conducted to determine exactly how many of those properties actually lie on an established rural kerbside collection route (there are some areas where a vehicle cannot safely access properties and these properties should not have any charge apply).

This recent discussion of legacy rural rating issues has catalysed the proposed implementation of a rural residential resource recovery and landfill waste reduction program that has been/will be identified as an action in Council’s integrated resource recovery and waste management strategy currently being developed. In the 2012 kerbside waste composition audit it was identified that 39.5% of the residual waste bin was organic material.

The proposed program consists of revised service options (in-line with urban collection service options) incentivising Council’s strategic objectives of reducing waste to landfill and utilising organic waste material as a resource (via on-site composting).

This will be achieved by providing residents in rural service areas a 140L fortnightly landfill bin service option (in addition to the current 240L fortnightly service option) at a reduced annual charge of $190 (plus $70 waste operations charge) which is 33% or $92 less than the 2018/19 proposed charge of $283 (plus $70 waste operations charge) for a 240L service. This reduction in the annual charge is directly proportionate to that of the urban collection service.

Coupled with a lower annual charge, if a resident takes up a 140L landfill bin at lower annual charge they also have the option to purchase a heavily subsidised compost bin, kitchen caddy and education pack, all delivered to the resident when the existing 240L bin is swapped for the smaller size. The actual charge is yet to be determined, however it would be in the vicinity of a one-off $20-$40 charge that could be added to a customer’s rates account and paid in 4 quarterly instalments over the 2018/19 rating/financial year. An associated communication and education program will also be delivered to promote the program.

Although an 80L option is offered in the urban area, it is recommended that it not be included as an option in the rural area for the following reasons:-

· The 80L service accounts for only 6% of urban services and generally related to space constrained multi-unit dwelling premises (requiring smaller bins).

· There is a risk that residents may take up the service only due to the attractiveness of a lower annual charge and not due to the intended incentive of reducing landfill waste volumes. As such, the lower bin volume would provide insufficient capacity resulting in overflowing bins and illegal dumping issues.

· Related to the above, if there was a large uptake of the 80L lower cost service there would be a significant reduction in domestic waste management revenue to Council without necessarily realising the intended objectives of the program to reduce waste volumes to landfill.

Associated with this program will be the implementation of a mandatory Domestic Waste Management charge to all rural properties capable of receiving a kerbside service to align Council’s Revenue Policy with the requirements of Section 496 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Also proposed for consideration by the committee is an extension of the current compulsory urban 240L bin weekly organics service (coupled with 80L and 140L landfill bin options) to the village of Federal (with the associated shift to urban 3-bin Domestic Waste Management Charges for those properties). A 2016 waste composition audit identified that 40% of the landfill bin consisted of organic material that could be diverted to the FOGO system, potentially due to lot sizes being smaller than general rural properties resulting in an increased difficulty to manage garden waste material generally not suited to a home compost system. It is also not environmentally, socially or financially viable to run an additional organics collection truck throughout the rural areas, however federal properties are more spatially concentrated and “on-route” to the Lismore organics processing facility.

The proposed program would be rolled-out at the commencement of the 2018/19 financial year to align with the new rating period.

Financial Implications

It is difficult to accurately model the financial implications associated with implementation of the proposed program, due largely to the unknown uptake rates of the 140L landfill bin service option. The below table models the impact on the domestic waste management revenue associated with various uptake %

Table 1: Recommended Scenario - 140L option implemented and mandatory charge applied to all properties

	140L Service uptake Rate
	0	25%	50%	75%	100%
DWM Revenue Forecast	$900,223	$826,759	$753,295	$679,832	$606,368
Business As Usual (BAU) 18/19 DWM Revenue Forecast (i.e. if no 140L option implemented and No 240L mandatory charge applied)	$801,173	$801,173	$801,173	$801,173	$801,173
Increase (-)/Decreased DWM revenue (from BAU)	-$99,050	-$25,586	$47,878	$121,341	$194,805

With regard to costing the roll-out of the subsidised compost bins, caddies and education campaign precise figure are yet to be determined however it is anticipated to be in the vicinity of $20,000 sourced from the domestic waste budget reserve.

With regard to projected volume of waste to landfill reduction and associated savings to Council in waste management costs, the below table provides a very rough and conservative guide to the volumes that may be realised.

Reduction in Waste		Savings to Council
%	Volume (tonnes)	@100/tonne
10%	78	$7,841
20%	157	$15,681
30%	235	$23,522

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

As per above report

Venue	Council Chamber, Station Street, Mullumbimby
Date	Thursday, 1 March 2018
Time	11.30am