HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_BLACK_AGENDA_COVER

 

 

 

9 September 2020

 

 

 

Order Paper for Council meeting to be held in the

Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt,

on:

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 15 September 2020 commencing at 5pm

 

 

Membership

 

 

Mayor C Barry (Chair)

Deputy Mayor T Lewis

Cr D Bassett

Cr J Briggs

Cr K Brown

Cr B Dyer

Cr S Edwards

Cr D Hislop

Cr C Milne

Cr A Mitchell

Cr S Rasheed

Cr N Shaw

Cr L Sutton

 

 

 

 

 

For the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz

 

Have your say

You can speak under public comment to items on the agenda to the Mayor and Councillors at this meeting. Please let us know by noon the working day before the meeting. You can do this by emailing DemocraticServicesTeam@huttcity.govt.nz or calling the Democratic Services Team on 04 570 6666 | 0800 HUTT CITY


HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_SCREEN_MEDRES
 

 

 

 


COUNCIL

 

Membership:

13 

Meeting Cycle:

Council meets on a six weekly basis (Extraordinary Meetings can be called following a resolution of Council; or on the requisition of the Chair or one third of the total membership of Council)

POWER TO (BEING A POWER THAT IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING DELEGATED)1:

        Make a rate.

       Make bylaws.

       Borrow money other than in accordance with the Long Term Plan (LTP).

        Purchase or dispose of assets other than in accordance with the LTP.

        Purchase or dispose of Council land and property other than in accordance with the LTP.

        Adopt the LTP, Annual Plan and Annual Report.

        Adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the LTP or developed for the purpose of the Local Governance Statement.

        Appoint the Chief Executive.

        Exercise any powers and duties conferred or imposed on the local authority by the Local Government Act 1974, the Public Works Act 1981, or the Resource Management Act 1991, that are unable to be delegated.

        Undertake all other actions which are by law not capable of being delegated.

        The power to adopt a Remuneration and Employment Policy for Council employees.

 

DECIDE ON:

Policy issues

       Adoption of all policy required by legislation.

       Adoption of strategies, and policies with a city-wide or strategic focus.

 

District Plan

       Approval to call for submissions on any Proposed District Plan, Plan Changes and Variations.

       Prior to public notification, approval of recommendations of District Plan Hearings Subcommittees on any Proposed Plan, Plan Changes (including private Plan Changes) and Variations, on the recommendation of the Regulatory Committee.

 

1       Work required prior to the making of any of these decisions may be delegated.

       The withdrawal of Plan Changes in accordance with clause 8D, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

       Approval, to make operative, District Plan and Plan Changes (in accordance with clause 17, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991).

       Acceptance, adoption or rejection of private Plan Changes.

 

Representation, electoral and governance matters

        The method of voting for the Triennial elections.

        Representation reviews.

        Council’s Code of Conduct for elected members

        Local Governance Statement.

        Elected Members’ Remuneration.

        The outcome of any extraordinary vacancies on Council.

        Any other matters for which a local authority decision is required under the Local Electoral Act 2001.

        Appointment and discharge of members of committees when not appointed by the Mayor.

        All matters identified in these Terms of Reference as delegated to Council Committees (or otherwise delegated by the Council) and oversee those delegations.

        Council‘s delegations to officers and community boards.

 

Delegations and employment of the Chief Executive

Review and negotiation of the contract, performance agreement and remuneration of the Chief Executive.

 

Meetings and committees

        Standing Orders for Council and its committees.

        Council’s annual meeting schedule.

 

Long Term and Annual Plans

        The adoption of the budgetary parameters for the LTP and Annual Plans.

        Determination of rating levels and policies required as part of the LTP.

        Adoption of Consultation Documents, proposed and final LTPs and proposed and final Annual Plans.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

        The establishment and disposal of any Council Controlled Organisation or Council Controlled Trading Organisation.

        Approval of annual Statements of Corporate Intent for Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations.

 

Community Engagement and Advocacy

        Receive reports from the Council’s Advisory Groups.

        Monitor engagement with the city’s communities.

 

Operational Matters

        National Emergency Management Agency matters requiring Council’s  input.

        Road closing and road stopping matters.

        Approval of overseas travel for elected members.

        All other matters for which final authority is not delegated.

 

Appoint:

        The non-elected members of the Standing Committees, including extraordinary vacancies of non- elected representatives.

        The Directors of Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations.

        Council’s nominee on any Trust.

        Council representatives on any outside organisations (where applicable and time permits, recommendations for the appointment may be sought from the appropriate Standing Committee and/or outside organisations).

        The Chief Executive of Hutt City Council.

        Council’s Electoral Officer, Principal Rural Fire Officer and any other appointments required by statute.

        The recipients of the annual Civic Honours awards.

 

    


HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Ordinary meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

 Tuesday 15 September 2020 commencing at 5pm.

 

ORDER PAPER

 

Public Business

 

1.       OPENING FORMALITIES - Karakia Timatanga 

Kia hora te marino

Kia whakapapa pounamu te moana

He huarahi mā tātou i te rangi nei

Aroha atu, aroha mai

Tātou i a tātou katoa

Hui e Tāiki e!

May peace be wide spread

May the sea be like greenstone

A pathway for us all this day

Let us show respect for each other

For one another

Bind us together!

 

2.       APOLOGIES 

No apologies have been received.

3.       PUBLIC COMMENT

Generally up to 30 minutes is set aside for public comment (three minutes per speaker on items appearing on the agenda). Speakers may be asked questions on the matters they raise.

4.       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

          Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

5.       Hutt City Council's Future Recycling and Rubbish Collection Services (20/1014)

Report No. HCC2020/5/204 by the Strategic Advisor                                        7

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be discussed.”

     

6.       ELECTORAL VOTING SYSTEM  (20/1022) 

Memorandum dated 8 September 2020 by the Senior Democracy Advisor      73

Mayor’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the memorandum be endorsed.”

 

7.       QUESTIONS

With reference to section 32 of Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.   

 

 

 

8.       CLOSING FORMALITIES - Karakia WHAKAMUTUNGA

 

Whakataka te hau ki te uru

Whakataka te hau ki te tonga

Kia mākinakina ki uta

Kia mātaratara ki tai

E hī ake ana te atakura

He tio, he huka, he hau hū

Tīhei mauri ora.

Cease the winds from the west
Cease the winds from the south
Let the breeze blow over the land
Let the breeze blow over the ocean
Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air. 
A touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kate Glanville

SENIOR DEMOCRACY ADVISOR    


                                                                                      28                                               15 September 2020

Hutt City Council

05 September 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1014)

 

 

 

 

Report no: HCC2020/5/204

 

Hutt City Council's Future Recycling and Rubbish Collection Services

 

Purpose of Report

1.    This report provides information on Council’s kerbside collection service review, to assist Council in making decisions on its preferred recycling and rubbish collection methodology.

Recommendations

That Council:

(i)      notes that information and recommendations presented in this paper are the culmination of a comprehensive systems based review of kerbside rubbish and recycling collection services;

(ii)     notes that the overarching objective of rubbish collection services is to help ensure a clean and healthy city;

(iii)    notes that five main review objectives were identified to help guide the process:

(a)   to reduce waste and protect the environment from the harmful effects of waste;

(b)   to provide services that are cost effective;

(c)   to provide services that are safe;

(d)  to provide services that reduce greenhouse gas emissions;

(e)   to provide services that customers want and can use appropriately;

(iv)    notes and considers the many submissions received following public consultation on the service options Council agreed to at its meeting in February this year, and thanks submitters for their feedback;

(v)     notes that a procurement process has been undertaken in parallel with public engagement, and that this resulted in a favourable response from the market;

(vi)    agrees to adopt the proposal for kerbside recycling, being the introduction of a fortnightly wheelie bin collection service for mixed recycling (cardboard, paper, cans and plastic), and a crate for glass only, for residential properties;

(vii)   agrees to adopt Option 3, ie a weekly rates-funded kerbside rubbish collection service, for the following reasons:

(a)   it ensures access to a waste collection service in an equitable manner across the wider community, in order to help protect residents and the environment from the harmful effects of waste;

(b)   it provides choice on bin size and associated costs that will assist in incentivising a reduction of waste;

(c)   it is a cost effective solution for most households;

(d)  it provides service improvements that are more inherently safe;

(e)   it is an effective option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the collection of waste, by minimising the number of total trucks movements and by enabling a move to electric collection vehicles;

(f)   it provides a service that is best fit in regard to what the community wants and can use, based on the results of the community consultation;

(viii)  notes that an opt out from the rates funded rubbish solution presents a significant change from the proposed draft LTP amendment, which would trigger the significance and engagement policy and require additional consultation;

(ix)    agrees to adopt the proposal for the introduction of an opt-in four weekly green waste service, for residential properties;

(x)     requests officers to explore options for a food waste trial in Hutt City in partnership with social enterprise;

(xi)    notes the community’s support for introducing recycling in schools and early childhood education centres and that officers will report back with the exact costs of providing this service as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031;

(xii)   notes that following these decisions by Council, officers will finalise the Long Term Plan Amendment and complete the final stages of the external audit;

(xiii)  agrees that the audited Long Term Plan amendment be reported back to Council for adoption on 27 October 2020;

(xiv)  agrees to delegate to the Chief Executive the power and financial authority to negotiate and conclude the kerbside rubbish and recycling contracts with the preferred supplier(s) ahead of the formal adoption of the Long Term Plan amendment;

(xv)   requests the Chief Executive to report back to each meeting of the Community and Environment Committee on the progress of the implementation of the new services including contract management arrangements; and

(xvi)  agrees  that changes required to the rates remission policy in line with the changes be developed as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 and be formally consulted on as part of that process.

For the reasons that overall the options recommended best fit the kerbside collection services review objectives.

 

Executive Summary

2.    Hutt City Council agreed to undertake a review of kerbside collection services following adoption of its Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2017-23. Scoping work began in early 2018. A specialist waste consulting company, Morrison Low, was engaged to assist Council with the review.

3.    Five strategic objectives were developed and a long list of options was assessed against these strategic objectives and other success factors. Options were then shortlisted for more detailed analysis.

 

4.    Pre-engagement in late 2019/early 2020 showed overall community support for change, along with the options proposed for consideration. A competitive procurement process ran in parallel with the formal community engagement.

 

5.    Council proposed, for residential properties, the introduction of a fortnightly wheelie bin collection for mixed recycling (paper, cardboard, cans and plastic), and a crate or bin for glass only. The proposed change includes the ability for residents to opt for a smaller 120 litre bin.

  

6.    Community consultation shows strong support for this service change.  The roll out will be accompanied by an education campaign. Council’s cost estimates for recycling collection and processing align with the costs proposed during the tender process.  Recycling stations will be removed.

 

7.    Council proposed four options for future rubbish collection:

a.   a fortnightly rates-funded collection

b.   a Pay-As-You-Throw collection

c.   a weekly rates-funded collection  or

d.   Council no longer offering any collection service.

 

8.    Overall 71% of respondents to the Council consultation questionnaire supported a council provided, rates funded system with either option 1 or 3 as their first preference. Household size was a key driver of preference.  Council also received 2355 pro-forma type submissions, organised through an industry interest group, Kiwi Consortium, most opposing a rates funded option.

  

9.    If option 1, 2 or 3 is chosen, officers will negotiate a contract with the preferred supplier and commence work to roll out the new service. An education campaign will be run to make householders aware of changes to existing services.

 

10.  Option 2 (council funded PAYT) may present financial viability issues for Council if it is unable to achieve enough take up to cover the costs of the service.

 

11.  If Option 4 is selected officers will implement an information and awareness campaign to make households aware that existing services will cease from 1 July 2021.

 

12.  Council’s cost estimates for the options align with the costs proposed during the tender process. The targeted rates charges for 2021/2022 will be recalculated as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031. The revised targeted rates will then be included in the draft LTP 2021-2031 for public consultation.

 

13.  A rates remission policy will also need to be developed and consulted on if any residential properties are not to be charged for this service. This could be incorporated into the LTP 2021-2031 consultation process.

 

14.  Implementing a system that allowed residents to opt-out of a rates-funded collection service, in order to provide residents with more choice, would present a significant change to the proposals consulted on as part of the current LTP amendment under consideration and likely trigger Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This, in turn, would trigger further engagement and consultation and a delay in implementation of a change to the rubbish and recycling service.

 

15.  Council proposed the introduction of an optional four-weekly green waste collection service, paid through a targeted rate. There was strong support for the introduction of this service offering and this new service could be implemented alongside the new recycling and rubbish collection services.

16.  Officers have made recommendations on the new services provision based on what they consider to be the best fit with the review objectives.

Background

17.  In 2017 Hutt City Council adopted its Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2017-23. Under this plan, Hutt City Council agreed to undertake a review of kerbside collection services. These services had not been reviewed in more than twenty years.

Review Process

18.  In March 2018 officers commenced developing the scope of a review of Council’s kerbside collection services. The review was tasked with reporting on whether or not current services were still fit for purpose, and, if not, to identify suitable alternatives. The scope of the review is attached in Appendix 5 of the Kerbside Business Case Report (available on Council’s Have Your Say website).

19.  The resourcing requirements for development of the business case were significant. In order to be able to access relevant cross-sector waste management expertise, Morrison Low (ML) was selected and engaged by Hutt City Council in September 2018. ML was tasked with undertaking the kerbside review using Treasury’s Better Business Case (BBC) approach. The BBC approach aims to provide objective analysis by looking at strategic, economic, financial, commercial and management factors. It is used across the public sector in New Zealand to aid in decision making.

20.  Council’s Policy and Regulatory Committee was briefed on the scope and timing of the review on 24 September 2018.

21.  Analytical work was undertaken between October 2018 and April 2019.  This included the development of an Investment Logic Map (ILM) to identify the problems with current services (e.g. health and safety concerns, wind-blown litter) and the benefits to be achieved if these problems were addressed (reduced health and safety risks, reduced environmental impacts). Based on this, five strategic objectives were developed:

·      To reduce waste and protect the environment from the harmful effects of waste

·      To provide services that are cost effective

·      To provide services that are safe

·      To provide services that reduce greenhouse gas emissions

·      To provide services that customers want and can use appropriately

22.  A copy of the ILM is included as Appendix 2 in the Kerbside Business Case Report.

23.  Following this work, a longlist of options was developed. The options were assessed against the strategic objectives and other success factors. Based on these assessments, options were shortlisted for more detailed analysis.

24.  Officers briefed Council on the work completed at an open workshop on
24 May 2019.
The presentation and discussion covered the options shortlisted for more detailed assessment as well as the options that had not been short-listed. Officers noted that some further analysis would be carried out, before reporting back to Council as part of the draft 2020 Long Term Plan (LTP) / Annual Plan process.

25.  The Kerbside Business Case Report was completed in August 2019. However officers were not able to formally report back to Council until December, due to the local government elections.

26.  On 10 December 2019, Council considered the formal report back on the kerbside business case at its meeting, noted the options and asked officers to undertake pre-engagement. Council also agreed to officers undertaking a competitive procurement process, which would run in parallel with the formal community engagement as part of the 2020 draft LTP amendment process.

 

 

Community Engagement

27.  A pre-engagement survey was undertaken between 18 December 2019 and 22 January 2020 to gather more information regarding residents’ current practices for recycling, rubbish and green waste disposal, test assumptions made as part of the review and business case, and to test the review’s recommended options with residents.  A total of 4,616 people responded to the survey; a large proportion of these (82%) confirmed they lived in Lower Hutt.

28.  On 11 February 2020 Council agreed to formally consult on the options for a preferred recycling collection methodology, four rubbish collection options, and an opt-in green waste collection option, as part of an amendment to its Long Term Plan.

29.  Importantly, the options selected for consultation aimed to offer maximum choice to rate-payers, while excluding those service methodologies that were not recommended (e.g. rubbish bags due to health and safety concerns and market movement away from using this methodology).

30.  After some delays due to the impacts associated with COVID-19, formal consultation on Council’s proposed recycling and rubbish collection changes took place between 16 July and 14 August 2020, followed by public hearings of submissions on 28 and 31 August 2020.

31.  For detailed information on the results of formal community consultation on the various rubbish and recycling options, please refer to Appendix 1 and Appendix 1A.

Procurement Process

32.  Morrison Low was further engaged to assist with the procurement process following Council’s decision in December 2020 to carry out a competitive procurement process.

33.  A Procurement Strategy was prepared to guide the procurement process, and the associated tender documentation. The Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on GETS (Government Electronic Tender Service) on 20 February 2020.

34.  As Council decisions on its preferred methodology would be made during the procurement process, the RFP covered all services that, if selected by Council, could be operated via a contract with Council. This included the rates-funded recycling service, three rubbish collection options (fortnightly rates-funded, weekly rates-funded, or PAYT), and the optional green-waste service.

35.  Supplier engagement sessions with interested companies to go over the tender documents and answer questions were held in March 2020.

36.  During the RFP period, the requirement to submit a rates-funded kerbside rubbish collection response, in order for a proposal to be considered conforming, was removed. This was to ensure that suppliers could put in proposals for any or all of these services. For example, a supplier only interested in providing a PAYT service offering – should Council select this as its preferred methodology – could do so. Changes were also made to the tender closing date to take account of the COVID-19 lock down period, and the minimum mandatory requirements for electric vehicles (EV) were replaced with an EV-specific assessment criterion so as not to unnecessarily restrict respondents in their service proposals.

37.  The tender closed on 3 June 2020. The response to the tender was favourable, with a total of six companies (or consortia) submitting conforming proposals. The proposals covered both rates funded and PAYT options.

38.  Tenders were evaluated between June and August 2020, and an interim Evaluation Report prepared. However, final decisions on the successful supplier(s) cannot be made, and contract negotiations with the preferred supplier(s) will not start, until Council has made its decision on its preferred collection methodology. The evaluation report will be completed once contract negotiations have concluded, and recommendations submitted to the Chief Executive for approval.

39.  Further information on the scope of the procurement and the evaluation method is available in Appendix 2.

40.  Probity advice was provided by the Manager Commercial Pool, from the New Zealand Government Procurement and Property Division at the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment.

41.  The probity advisor has provided a statement on the process undertaken, which is included in the interim Evaluation Report. That statement confirms that the process was carried out in conformity with Council’s procurement plan for this tender and in line with good procurement practice.

Recycling Collection

42.  https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/0b220f82ad33247af0d9b169d52dfdd84e3998ff/original/1594759283/bins_recycling.png_e614725b7337add0aba5057dee0a9d48?1594759283To recap, Council proposed the introduction of a fortnightly wheelie bin collection for mixed recycling (paper, cardboard, cans and plastic), and a crate or bin for glass only, for residential properties.

43.  Consultation with community showed strong support for this service change, with 76% of respondents agreeing with the proposed change. Smaller households were less likely to support the change with comments suggesting that the size of the proposed bin was an issue. 

44.  The proposed system is in line with the existing or planned approaches in a number of larger and similar-sized cities to Lower Hutt, as shown in Appendix 3.

45.  Changing from crates to wheelie bins fitted with lid-latches for mixed recyclables is expected to reduce wind-blown litter, and increase capacity to hold recyclables.

46.  Glass collected in a separate crate will protect the value of other recyclable materials (particularly paper and cardboard), and enable its sorting on the truck to maximise the value of colour-sorted glass. The use of existing crates is proposed at this time as it is cost effective, incorporating an existing resource which better suits the glass sorting process.  The use of wheelie bins for glass is still an option that could be introduced in the future.

47.  A targeted residential rate, estimated at $105 per year, is to be used for funding this service. This would apply to all residential properties. 

48.  A rates remission policy will need to be developed if any residential properties are not to be charged this service. This situation may arise where a property cannot physically receive the service, or there is no habitable building on the site. Specific criteria would need to be developed as to when the targeted rate would not apply, or only partially apply. Consultation on the rates remission policy requires a special consultative procedure. This could be incorporated into the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 consultation process.

Implementation Approach

49.  As soon as decisions have been made, officers will negotiate a contract with the preferred supplier of the new recycling service, and commence the work needed to roll out the new service. This will involve Council and the new supplier finalising an implementation plan that will ensure all non-standard serviced properties are identified and then visited to determine an appropriate solution. Appendix 4 contains information that sets out typical non-standard service situations and the types of solutions that could be applied.

50.  Persons who require assistance will be able to register with Council to request that service and will be visited to assess requirements for collection.

51.  Officers will provide updates on the contract management arrangements and progress on implementation of the new services to the Community and Environment Committee at each regular meeting. 

52.  The roll out of the service will be accompanied by an information and awareness campaign. With the new service proposed to start on 1 July 2021, the new wheelie bins and crates will have to be rolled out between May and June 2021.

53.  Recognising that smaller households may not require a 240 litre bin for their mixed recycling, the proposed change includes the ability for residents to opt for a smaller 120 litre bin. This would not result in any reduction to the targeted rate.

54.  A significant number of residents already have crates that could be re-purposed for glass collection only. This will be possible for those crates that are in working condition, other households could receive a new crate. Officers propose that there will be no reduction in the targeted rate for recycling in cases where crates are re-purposed. This is because some households will have originally received the current crates for free (eg new building developments), while others will have purchased them. It would be administratively too complex to cater for individual circumstances, especially given the relatively low value of the recycling crates.

55.  There was strong community support for introducing free recycling in schools and early childhood education centres and officers will report back with the exact costs of providing this service as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

Cost Estimates

56.  It is important to note that the costs used for the consultation are estimates, and that the final targeted rates charges for 2021/2022 will be calculated as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 process and included in the draft Long Term Plan for consultation.

57.  Council’s cost estimates for recycling collection and processing align with the costs received through the tender process. Therefore, except for some remaining cost risks noted below, Council can have confidence that the proposed targeted rate will cover all costs to deliver this new service methodology.

58.  In light of the significant market changes to the value of recyclables over the last few years, service providers are no longer willing to take risks associated with the value of recyclables. Therefore, officers have assumed that the value associated with processed recyclables is zero, in order to be conservative with regard to the future costs. This also explains why estimated costs for the service are significantly higher than in the past or compared to service costs in other Councils that have in place existing contracts. This does also have an upside however, in that if the value of recyclable materials recovers, Council would receive revenue from the sale of recyclables.

59.  There are remaining cost risks associated with contaminated recycling. Collected recyclables (excluding glass) are to be processed by OJI in Seaview. Processing costs increase significantly if contamination exceeds 10%, and OJI may no longer accept the recycling at all if contamination exceeds 21%.

60.  Costs associated with managing contamination, including disposal as waste, would be charged back directly to Council. Therefore, it is vital that Council actively manages this aspect through a range of initiatives aimed at encouraging residents to reduce the amount of contaminated recycling they put out.

61.  Introducing the new recycling service with a greater capacity has the potential to reduce future taxation costs (waste levy and carbon tax) associated with a reduction in rubbish going to the landfill.

 

Managing Contamination

62.  Officers, in collaboration with the successful service provider, will work on the following initiatives in order to reduce contamination in the recycling collection. Service providers were asked to include details in their tender proposals on their contamination management approach.

63.  Education: Council’s communication and education campaign associated with the roll-out of the new service will provide residents with information on how to use the new bins and crates, and what materials are acceptable. This will need to reach all households in order to be effective, and will need to involve a range of channels, including letter drops and online information. As part of this, we will work closely with organisations such as Kāinga Ora and Regional Public Health to reach all members of our community. There is also a need for on-going educational work and repeat messaging once the service is in place.

64.  Pre-collection audits: Contamination inspectors, typically employed by the service provider, are to be used to audit bins at least once per year, prior to the collection truck emptying them. This would be part of the service contract. In practice this involves a person walking the inspection area, logging contamination reports and photos directly on a tablet, and providing the household with relevant feedback, including information on what to improve as the case may be (eg via a sticker on the bin, or via letter from the Council or service provider).

65.  Kerbside hopper cameras: Collection trucks will be fitted with cameras in the truck hopper unit, which will allow the operator to view the recycling contents as the bin is emptied. Upon contamination being identified, this will be logged in the operator’s management system, and the respective household will be provided with advisory information (eg via a sticker on the bin, or via letter from the Council or service provider).

66.  Regulatory backstop: Officers propose that once the new solid waste bylaw is in place (consultation on the new bylaw is currently under way), a relevant control be added to enable Council to withdraw or suspend the recycling service at a property in response to repeated contamination (eg three strikes). This is in order to avoid repeated contamination adversely affecting the effectiveness and cost of the overall recycling system.

Recycling Stations

67.  Council currently operates four recycling stations, where users can drop off material beyond the capacity of the crates (two of these have not yet reopened since the COVID-19 lockdown). These stations are unsupervised and are prone to abuse in that they attract illegally dumped waste and the recycling collected there tends to be highly contaminated. Due to the significant increase in capacity for collecting recycling at the kerbside (currently about 50 litres per week vs about 150 litres per week in future), it will be possible to remove these recycling stations.

68.  Based on current usage patterns, retaining unsupervised recycling stations does not align well with some of the review objectives.

69.  The recycling station in front of the Seaview transfer station is privately operated, and not directly affected by Council’s proposed changes.

70.  In addition, there is currently work underway to consider design changes to Council’s transfer station at Silverstream landfill, to enable the establishment of a free-to-use resource recovery area that can be supervised. If funded and implemented, this could be used to provide a second recycling drop off point. Concept plans have been completed.  The next step is to prepare a business case and following that seek funding for development through the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

Impacts associated with national waste minimisation initiatives

71.  There are two of initiatives by the NZ Government that could affect Council’s new recycling services.

72.  A recent report “Recommendations for standardisation of kerbside collections in Aotearoa”, prepared by WasteMINZ for the Ministry for the Environment, recommended standardizing the types of plastic materials collected at the kerbside to #1, #2 and #5 only. Council’s procurement only assumed collection of plastics #1 and #2, albeit once the successful service provider has been confirmed, officers would undertake work to restart the collection of plastics #5, subject to the existence of viable markets for the collected materials.  Provided there are viable markets, this change should not adversely affect estimated recycling costs.

73.  Ideally, this change should happen in collaboration with Porirua and Upper Hutt City Councils, to avoid confusion to residents in the Wellington region. Wellington City Council already collects plastics #1, #2 and #5 only.

74.  The impact of a future product stewardship scheme for plastic packaging on Council kerbside collection services across New Zealand are not yet clear. The development of a product stewardship scheme for plastic packaging is likely to take into account existing systems such as Council recycling collections, and its development is expected to take a number of years, so it is not likely to affect Council’s new recycling services directly in the short to medium term.

Rubbish Collection

75.  To recap, Council proposed four options for future rubbish collection:

a.    a fortnightly rates-funded collection,

b.    a Pay-As-You-Throw collection,

c.     a weekly rates-funded collection, or

d.    Council no longer offering any collection service.

76.  The following tables provide overviews of the advantages and disadvantages of the different options.

Option 1: Fortnightly rates-funded

Advantages

Disadvantages

Ensures every property has access to a waste service (minimum level of sanitation for all properties)

Most cost effective for average households; range of bin sizes to be provided (80L / 120L / 240L) to match customer demand

Fortnightly collection can cater for those households producing less waste

Would reduce risk of illegal dumping and recycling bin contamination

Reduces the number of rubbish trucks on the roads and journeys, and opportunity for electrified collection vehicle fleet reduces carbon emissions

Offer assisted service for residents with disabilities

Reduced choice for households to choose their preferred service provider

Fortnightly collection less suitable for larger households

Potential odour concerns

Would adversely impact business owners that are not successful in procurement process

 

Option 2: PAYT

Advantages

Disadvantages

Only pay for bin collection when needed (would not involve bin tags, users would pay via an account or app)

Most cost effective for households that produce very little waste

Maintains choice for households to choose their preferred service provider

Some opportunity for electrified collection vehicle fleet depending on uptake, which reduces carbon emissions

Cannot ensure every property has access to a waste service (no minimum level of sanitation for all properties)

Similar risk of illegal dumping and recycling bin contamination to current situation

Cost and viability risks

PAYT not really suitable for apartment buildings

 

Option 3: Weekly rates-funded

Advantages

Disadvantages

Ensures every property has access to a waste service (minimum level of sanitation for all properties)

Cost effective for average households; range of bin sizes to be provided (80L / 120L / 240L) to match customer demand

Would minimise risk of illegal dumping and recycling bin contamination

Reduces the number of rubbish trucks on the roads and journeys, and opportunity for electrified collection vehicle fleet reduces carbon emissions

Offer assisted service for residents with disabilities

Reduced choice for households to choose their preferred service provider

Would adversely impact business owners that are not successful in procurement process

 

Option 4: Council no longer provides a service

Advantages

Disadvantages

Users free to choose their own provider

No impact on private service providers

Cannot ensure every property has access to a waste service (no minimum level of sanitation for all properties)

Increased risk of illegal dumping and recycling bin contamination

Equity concerns for low-income households

Tends to be more costly for an average household than rates-funded options, as private operators do not get the economies of scale

No reduction in carbon emissions

 

77.  Overall 71% supported a council provided, rates funded system with either option 1 or 3 as their first preference. Household size was a key driver of preference with smaller households preferring option 1 (but choosing option 3 as their second preference) and larger households preferring option 3 (but choosing option 1 as their second preference).

78.  Kiwi Consortium, a collection of waste collection operators, established an online form that enabled respondents to fill in their name and address and submit an email to Council.  The Consortium is opposed to a Council rates funded rubbish service. An additional 2,354 submissions were received via this email, mostly opposing a rates funded rubbish service.

Implementation of Option 1 or 3 (fortnightly or weekly rates-funded service)

79.  If either of the two rates-funded options is chosen, then officers will negotiate a contract with the preferred supplier of the new service, and commence work to enable the roll out.

80.  This will involve Council and the new supplier finalising an implementation plan that will ensure all non-standard serviced properties are identified and then visited to determine an appropriate solution. Appendix 4 contains information that sets out typical non-standard service situations and the types of solutions that could be applied.

81.  Persons who require assistance will be able to register with Council to request that service and will be visited to assess requirements for collection.

82.  Officers will provide updates on the contract management arrangements and progress on implementation of the new services to the Community and Environment Committee at each regular meeting.

83.  Officers will also implement an information and awareness campaign in order to make households aware of the changes to existing services.

84.  With the new service to start on 1 July 2021, the new wheelie bins and crates would have to be rolled out between May and June 2021. Recognising that some households have different waste requirements, ratepayers could opt for a different wheelie bin size by March 2021.

85.  Council’s cost estimates for the two rates-funded collection options align with the costs received through the tender process. However, it is important to note that if Council decides to go with either of the rates funded solutions, then the targeted rates charges for 2021/2022 will be recalculated as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 process. This will incorporate any changes, including changes to the waste levy, as discussed further below. The revised targeted rates will then be included in the draft Long Term Plan 2021-2031 for public consultation.

86.  Service providers have provided prices in their proposals that are for the duration of the contract period, being pegged to inflation indices as per the New Zealand Standard contract conditions, (NZS 3917).

87.  A rates remission policy will also need to be developed if any residential properties are not to be charged for this service. This situation may arise where a property cannot physically receive the service, or there is no habitable building on the site. Specific criteria would need to be developed as to when the targeted rate would not apply, or only partially apply. Consultation on the rates remission policy requires a special consultative procedure. This could be incorporated into the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 consultation process.

Opting Out

88.  In the report back to Council in December 2019 (refer HCC2019/1(2)/230, paragraph 62), officers noted that “the rates-funded refuse service model could be paired with the ability for households to opt-out of the rates-funded service.” Providing for a rates-funded service while allowing for people to opt-out does not meet some of the objectives of the review, ie cost-effective service, reducing greenhouse gas emissions so this was not progressed by officers.

89.  Importantly, two other options (“PAYT”, and Council opting out of rubbish service provision entirely) would provide the community with the ability to opt-out, should Council ultimately choose either of these two options as its preferred service model.

90.  Implementing an opt-out approach in order to provide residents with more choice would present a significant change to the proposals consulted on as part of the current LTP amendment under consideration and trigger Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This in turn would trigger requirements for further engagement and consultation. 

91.  From a financial perspective, an opt-out function is likely to have a significant impact on the cost of the Council service and therefore on the targeted rate. This is because the fixed costs associated with a full Council service (contract costs and additional administrative costs), would be spread over a smaller user base. It is estimated that at 75% participation, the targeted rate could increase by as much as 50%. In addition, implementing an opt-out is unlikely to result in a reduction in truck movements, thereby negating the carbon reduction potential and not meeting some of the review objectives.

92.  Therefore, given the significant changes to the rates-funded option(s), Council would need to carry out new consultation with the community. For these reasons officers do not recommend that an opt-out function be included in the new service provision for a rates funded option.

Implementation of Option 2 (PAYT service operated by Council)

93.  If PAYT is chosen, then officers will negotiate a contract with the preferred supplier of the new service, and commence work to enable the roll out. Officers will also implement an information and awareness campaign in order to make households aware of the changes to existing services.

94.  Importantly, this new service would ideally be rolled out as soon as possible and well before 1 July 2021, in order to increase probability of higher uptake and lower cost and viability risks. If Council waits until 1 July 2021 before it commences a PAYT service, then other providers that were not successful with the Council tender may decide to actively pursue some of the market share of the current bag collection before the new Council PAYT service commences.

95.  Because of the uncertainty over the cost of the service due to the uncertainty over level of uptake, Council would need to underwrite the costs associated with that risk.  The underwrite would need to be funded from general rates.

96.  There are also some transitional costs, depending on the supplier selected for delivering PAYT. By way of example, if the preferred supplier is different to our existing provider, Council would have to pay the fixed costs of its existing bag collection contract with Waste Management NZ, while at the same time transitioning its own customers onto the new system early. By reducing bag sales, Council would also significantly impact revenue for the bag service. The more people transition to the new PAYT bins, the bigger the impact on bag revenue for the 2020/21 financial year. This reduction in revenue would then need to be offset from general rates.

97.  With regard to the procurement process, a total of five service providers entered tenders for a PAYT option. We are aware that three of these providers currently operate a PAYT system within New Zealand. Two types of PAYT solutions were offered by service providers.  These were through the use of a specialised app or using radio frequency identification, each with their advantages and disadvantages.

98.  Note that there is one service provider that is already offering a PAYT service to residential properties in Lower Hutt on a commercial basis.

Implementation approach for Option 4 (Council no longer offers a service)

99.  If Option 4 is chosen, then officers will implement an information and awareness campaign in order to make households aware of the changes to existing services.

100.     Officers would also stop the procurement process for rubbish collection services. Note that by doing so, Council would also stop the procurement for a green waste collection service, as this was tendered as part of the rubbish collection part. However, in light of a decision for option 4, it is not clear that there would be any value in continuing with a rates-funded green waste service option.

101.     In addition, as part of the upcoming Long Term Plan 2021-31, Council would likely need to consider an increase in resourcing for enforcement regarding litter and illegal dumping activities, and associated handling and disposal costs. The details including costs of this have not been worked out at this time.

102.     Council would also need to consider the introduction of a relevant control in the new solid waste bylaw to ensure that companies that operate in Lower Hutt will service any residential property that requests it.

Waste levy and Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) impacts on rubbish collections

103.     The NZ Government has announced increases to the waste levy from 1 July 2021. ETS costs may also increase.

104.     It is important to note that the associated cost increases will affect any Council or private collection service. Indicative annual cost impacts are as follows, using Council’s fortnightly and weekly rates-funded proposals as examples:

Financial Year

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25

Waste Levy ($/tonne)

$10

$20

$30

$50

$60

ETS Assumption ($/tonne CO2)

$35

$50

$50

$50

$50

Total annual cost per household (incl GST)

FORTNIGHTLY, 240L

$115

$123

$129

$142

$149

Total annual cost per household (incl GST)

WEEKLY, 120L

$144

$152

$159

$171

$178

 

Waste minimisation and waste collection methodologies

105.     Economic incentives are a factor in driving the right consumer behaviour, and all options that Council consulted on incorporate elements of this. In options 1 and 3, households would be able to choose a bin size that suits their needs, and in option 2 households would only pay when the bin is emptied. In option 4, residents would be able to choose who to engage in terms of service frequency and bin size. The NZ Government’s increases to the waste levy and any changes to the cost of carbon would amplify the price effect at the kerbside. However, there are other factors beyond the cost of rubbish collection or bin size that drive the amount of waste going to landfills.

106.     Education is an important tool in ensuring the effectiveness of kerbside waste collection systems, in terms of enabling residents to make the right decisions on what materials to put into the recycling and waste bins (see commentary earlier in this paper).

107.     It is also a necessary tool for helping residents reduce their waste in the first place. Council currently has in place a number of initiatives, or provides funding and support for initiatives that aim to help residents in reducing waste. This includes waste minimisation guidance for event organisers, the World of Waste tours for students, the EnviroSchools Programme, and the sortwaste.nz portal.

108.     Beyond education, regulatory changes also play a key role in driving down waste at the source. The NZ Government recently announced that a number of products be declared priority products under the Waste Minimisation Act, including plastic packaging and e-waste. Regulated product stewardship helps shift the responsibility for waste and what happens to products at the end of their useful life to manufacturers, importers, and retailers. Container deposit schemes and other take-back schemes are an example of product stewardship.

109.     The NZ Government is also currently consulting on two proposals related to plastic design, use and disposal. It is proposing to move away from hard-to-recycle plastics, starting with a phase-out of some polyvinyl chloride (PVC, #3) and polystyrene #6 packaging, and some single-use plastic items. This is part of a long-term shift toward a more circular economy for plastics where packaging materials are made of higher value materials that are easier to recycle.

110.     Regulatory initiatives such as these will help enable a reduction in waste, in that consumers will be left with fewer items that cannot be recycled.

 

Green Waste

111.     Green Bins-TransparentTo recap, Council proposed the introduction of an optional four-weekly green waste collection service, paid through a targeted rate.

112.     There was strong support for the introduction of this service offering, and just under 50% of respondents indicated that they would be interested in taking up the offer.

113.     If chosen, this new service would be implemented alongside the new recycling and rubbish collection options 1, 2 or 3.

114.     Council’s cost estimates for green waste collection and processing are in line with the costs received through our tender process. Therefore, Council can have confidence that the proposed targeted rate will cover all costs to deliver this new service methodology. However, risks exist in relation to the uptake of the service, ie if the uptake is lower than expected, then estimated collection costs may be higher.

Food Waste

115.     A separate food organics collection or a combined food and green waste collection, as is in place in other Councils, was not offered for consultation. The key reason is that there is currently insufficient processing infrastructure available in the region, and further analysis and preparatory work is required, ideally in cooperation with other councils in our region in order to realise economies of scale. Further to this, Wellington City Council will commence a food waste trial later in 2020, and it would be beneficial to build on lessons learnt.

116.     However, with the roll-out of the recycling and rubbish services, Council will undertake an intensive information and awareness campaign. Officers propose that this will feature advice on how to better manage and minimise food waste at home (compost, worm farm, bokashi), as an intermediate step before a long-term approach is finalised.

117.     In addition to this, Council could investigate working with a social enterprise to undertake a food waste recycling pilot project, though limited in-house resourcing would be available for this.

Other household situations

118.     For an overview of how options 1, 2 and 3 would be implemented for certain household situations, such as multi-unit dwellings, please refer to Appendix 4. A brief summary is provided below.

 

Servicing of multi-unit dwellings

119.     In multi-unit apartment buildings, where access or space is limited, an assessment and on-site visit will need to be carried out before the roll-out of the new services, to determine and agree the preferred approach with the property owner(s). This may involve the provision of bins for shared use by the residents of that property. Servicing of these properties could also involve smaller collection vehicles that can cater for non-standard collections.

120.     Should the PAYT rubbish collection option be selected by Council as its preferred collection methodology, then officers propose that this service will not be made available for multi-unit dwellings. The owner or operator of that property could continue to engage a private service provider for regular servicing, and match total rubbish bin capacity to the needs of the residents in that property.

Servicing of properties on private and alongside rural roads

121.     Properties can be located on private or alongside narrow rural roads where the standard collection approach may not be feasible for a variety of reasons (e.g. health and safety, lack of space for trucks to manoeuver, etc.).

122.     In such situations, an assessment and on-site visit will need to be carried out before the roll-out of the new services, to determine and agree the preferred approach with the property owner(s).

Assisted service

123.     Wheelie bins can be challenging for the elderly and those people with mobility issues. A wheel-in-and-wheel-out service is proposed to be offered. Other councils offer such service; total costs are small in relation to the total service cost. This service would be made available at no additional cost.  Some service providers have indicated that this service is currently provided free of charge.

Next Steps

124.     Following decisions, officers will engage in negotiations with the preferred supplier(s), and finalise contracts for sign off by the Chief Executive. This is expected to be completed by the end of September.

125.     Once contracts are in place Council and the new supplier will prepare an implementation plan that will ensure all non-standard serviced properties are identified and then visited to determine an appropriate solution.

126.     Persons who require assistance will be able to register with Council to request that service and will be visited to assess requirements for collection.

127.     Officers will provide updates on the contract management arrangements and progress on implementation of the new services to the Community and Environment Committee at each regular meeting.

128.     Officers will also need to prepare the final LTP Amendment documents. These are required to be audited. Council will need to formally adopt the amendment to the LTP 2018-2028. It is proposed that this is presented to Council on 27 October 2020.

129.     Officers will prepare a communications/education plan for the planned roll out of services, a full implementation plan will be finalised in coordination with the chosen service provider(s).

What we are recommending and why

130.     Council officers have considered the information, including community feedback, in the preparation of this report, in the context of the five review objectives. 

131.     In terms of the rubbish service, option 3 for a weekly rates funded service has been recommended for the following reasons:

a.   It ensures access to a waste collection service in an equitable manner across the wider community, in order to help protect residents and the environment from the harmful effects of waste;

b.   it provides choice on bin size and associated costs that will assist in incentivising a reduction of waste;

c.   it is a cost effective solution for most households; while not the lowest cost option (fortnightly cheaper) the concerns expressed by submitters in relation to sanitation issues and larger households should be taken into account; 

d.   it provides service improvements that are more inherently safe; this option reduces the number of truck movements in the city;

e.   it is an effective option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the collection of waste, by minimising the number of total trucks movements and by enabling a move to electric collection vehicles;

f.    it provides a service that is the best fit in regard to what the community wants and can use, based on the results of the community consultation; while 37% had a fortnightly service as their first preference, 71% of submitters to the Council consultation document supported a rates funded option.

132.     The PAYT option has not been recommended for the following main reasons.

a.   There are concerns and uncertainties around cost.

b.   There are concerns around accessibility to the service for all properties.

c.   There are concerns about the effect on recycling contamination as those with affordability issues decide not to use a waste service at all.

d.   It is a less effective option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as there will continue to be multiple truck movements from a variety of service providers.

133.     Option 4 has not been recommended for the following reasons.

a.   There are equity concerns for low-income households.

b.   Not as cost effective as other options as there is not the same economies of scale as under a rates funded option.

c.   There are concerns about the effect on recycling contamination as those with affordability issues decide not to use a waste service at all.

d.   It is a less effective option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as there will continue to be multiple truck movements from a variety of service providers.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

134.     The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

135.     Opportunities for emission reductions have been considered in the body of the report, in terms of the potential electrification of collection vehicles, and the increased diversion of green waste through an optional green waste collection service.

Consultation

136.     The results of the consultation on Council’s rubbish and recycling collection proposals are contained in Appendix 1 to this report.

Legal Considerations

137.     Council has undertaken consultation on the proposals in accordance with the decision-making, consultation and planning requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

Financial Considerations

138.     The financial implications of the options have been considered in the body of the report.

 

 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 - Engagement and Submissions Analysis - Rubbish and Recycling

29

2

Appendix 1A - Consultation Results

37

3

Appendix 2 - Scope of procurement process and evaluation method

65

4

Appendix 3 - Kerbside collection services offered or planned by other Councils

67

5

Appendix 4 - Non Standard Service Provision

71

     

 

 

 

Author: Bruce Hodgins

Strategic Advisor

 

 

Author: Jörn Scherzer

Manager, Sustainability and Resilience

 

 

Author: Jenny Livschitz

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

Author: Wendy Moore

Head of Strategy and Planning

 

 

Author: Bradley Cato

Chief Legal Officer

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Helen Oram

Director Environment and Sustainability

 

 

Approved By: Jo Miller

Chief Executive

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 - Engagement and Submissions Analysis - Rubbish and Recycling

 

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

13 August 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/900)

 

 

 

 

Report no: LTPAP2020/5/185

 

Engagement and Submissions Analysis - Rubbish and Recycling

 

 

 

 



Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to provide Council with analysis of the submissions received and the results of engagement activity undertaken during the Recycling and Rubbish engagement and consultation.

 


Recommendations

That the Subcommittee:

(i)    notes the overall results of the engagement and consultation on proposed changes to the city’s recycling and rubbish system;

(ii)   notes the details of activity prior to and during the Recycling and Rubbish engagement and consultation 15 July to 16 August 2020;

(iii)  notes that a submission was received from Kāinga Ora after the closing date for submissions;

(iv) agrees to accept the submission from Kāinga Ora; and

(v)  notes the summary analysis of feedback received.

For the reasons outlined in the report.

 


Background

2.   Council was due to consult with the community on changes to the city’s approach to rubbish and recycling as part of a draft LTP 2018-28 amendment process. Due to Covid-19 we needed to change our plans. The focus shifted to working with our community to get through the lockdown in the best shape possible given the uncertainty affecting all aspects of life in Lower Hutt. We made a decision to defer consultation on rubbish and recycling and develop an emergency budget for the 2020/21 Annual Plan - Getting us Through – Kia tae ki tua.

3.   Immediately following approval of the 2020/21 Annual Plan, Council turned its attention again to the city’s rubbish and recycling system.  The key drivers for the proposed changes are:

a.   Getting better job at protecting our environment by keeping recycling and rubbish out of our stormwater system, our harbour and our river;

b.   Preventing/reducing illegal dumping of rubbish directly contaminating the environment and/or recycling stations around the city resulting in all materials having to go straight to landfill.  Cleaning this up costs ratepayers many thousands of dollars every year.

c.   Improving and making a positive contribution to protecting our environment for future generations;

d.   Having a system for rubbish and recycling that works for everyone is needed, including those whose choices are limited by affordability;

e.   Cutting carbon emissions, reducing the amount of waste going to landfill and achieving a circular economy approach to waste management.

4.   Our community has voiced its growing concern about the environmental impact of our recycling and rubbish collection system.  Many submitters to Getting us Through – Kia tae ki tua urged Council to continue with the review of our recycling and rubbish system aligning the system with our wider waste minimisation and sustainability objectives.

5.   The current recycling and rubbish collection services’ contracts expire on 30 June 2021 and new contracts must be in place by that date. Decisions made now will shape how the city’s recycling and rubbish system is managed and delivered.

Discussion

Communication and engagement

6.     Sustained effort was put into the communication and engagement prior to and during engagement on the proposed options for changes to the city’s rubbish and recycling systems.  This included:

a.      Online, print, face to face, radio, video – included two-page advertorial in Hutt News, full page advertisements Hutt News following weeks, other suburban print media, billboards, Neighbourly, media releases, articles, consultation document in libraries and hubs, Video - over 2000 views, Virtual Town Hall sessions 138 registered, 70 attended

b.      Bang the Table digital engagement site – 13.6k total visits, 10.5k aware – one single visit to the site or project, 6.7k informed -  taken the next step and downloaded a document or visited FAQs, contributed to share an idea etc, 3.8k engaged – completed forms, contributed to surveys, asked a question etc

c.      Facebook – Over 51k people saw a FB post, Ads reached over 97k people, Live sessions - 2 question and answer Mayor and Chief Executive Facebook live sessions held on HCC’s Facebook and there were 4100 and 3100 views respectively.

d.      Bins Tour 30 July to 7 August, bins representing the sizes outlined in the options for change were on display at council facilities across the city and Queensgate

Submissions

7.     A total of 6,345 unique submissions were received - 3,991 responses were received via the online feedback form, have your say email, post and phone with an additional 2,354 received from an email set up by Kiwi Consortium.

8.     Around 268 individuals who submitted an email via Kiwi Consortium also entered one via the Council’s online feedback form. Of those 268 emails, 150 submitters had altered the original text provided by the Consortium.  In some cases the text still aligns with the points made by the Kiwi Consortium - in some cases it does not.  It was not possible to include these submissions in the overall quantitative analysis as they did not directly address the proposed options.

9.     There are approximately 3,500 to 3,800 responses to the questions asked in the Council form[1]. The margin of error based on this level of response indicates that Councillors can be confident that the results are 95% likely to reflect the overall views of all residents within +/- 2 percent.

10.   Council received a submission from Kāinga Ora after the submissions closing date. Members must decide whether to accept this submission or not. Officers recommend that the submission is accepted. 

11.   The high number of submissions reflects both the communities’ interest in recycling and rubbish in the city and the work that went in to ensuring people can make informed decisions. 

12.   There was a good response across wards. The figure below shows the proportion of respondents compared to proportion of total population by ward

Ward

Consultation respondents

Total Population

 

No.

%

No.

%

Central

634

17%

17265

17%

Eastern

730

20%

17670

17%

Harbour

643

17%

18654

18%

Northern

462

12%

16032

15%

Wainuiomata

474

13%

18561

18%

Western

762

20%

16353

16%

Other

18

0%

 

 

13.   Nearly all respondents (99%) stated they lived in Lower Hutt. Of the 18 who stated they did not live in Lower Hutt, four owned a house/townhouse in Lower Hutt.   Based on proportion of the population, there was good representation from all areas although Western Ward residents were slightly over represented and Wainuiomata slightly under.

14.   A very small number of those[2] aged under 20 years made an individual submission. Those aged under 30 were under represented with all other age groups except those aged 80 or over being over represented compared to their proportion of the population.   The majority of submissions came from people under 50 years (50%), with 6% of these under 30 years old.

Age

Consultation

Population (aged 15+)

Under 20

0%

8%

20-29

6%

17%

30-39

24%

18%

40-49

23%

17%

50-59

18%

16%

60-69

14%

12%

70-79

11%

7%

80 +

2%

4%

Not stated

1%

 


 

Submissions analysis

Recycling

1.   

Agree with proposed replacement option

Yes

76%

No

24%

 

15.  Support for the proposed recycling collection was significantly higher among larger households with 81 to 85% of households with 3 or more people supporting the proposal.

 

16.  73% of two person households supported the proposal and 64% of single person households. Comments indicate that bin size is the key reason some smaller households did not support the proposal.

 

Rubbish

 

17.  There were four options to consider:

a.       Council provides a fortnightly rubbish bin collection service;

b.       Council provides a pay-as-you-throw rubbish collection service;

c.       Council provides a weekly rubbish bin collection service; and

d.      Council no longer offers a rubbish collection service.

18.   Residents were also asked to indicate their support for Council providing an opt-in green waste collection service where Council could provide households with a 240-litre green waste wheelie bin collected every four weeks. Households would only pay for this service if they opted-in by 31 March each year.

Options

19.  Overall 71% supported a council provided system with either option 1 or 3 as their first preference. 13% supported a Council provided pay as you throw system as their first preference and 14% supported council no longer providing a rubbish collection service as their preference.  The results for each option are:

Option 1

Council provides a fortnightly rubbish bin collection service

Option 2

Council provides a pay-as-you-throw rubbish collection service

Option 3

Council provides a weekly rubbish bin collection service

Option 4

Council no longer offers a rubbish collection service.

Rank 1

37%

13%

34%

15%

Rank 2

34%

24%

34%

9%

Rank 3

15%

50%

25%

11%

Rank 4

14%

12%

7%

68%

 

20.  The results are shown by ward in the graph below.

Household size

 

21.  Nearly half of one person households ranked option 1 as first choice. Their second preference is pay as you throw. Many of the comments from respondents who live alone are that they don’t have enough rubbish to warrant more frequent collection.

22.  Around half of larger households (5 or more people) selected option 3 as their number one choice. Preference for option 1, 2 and 3 is directly driven by household size. Preference for option 4 is not correlated to household size.

Household size

Option 1

Council provides a fortnightly rubbish bin collection service

Option 2

Council provides a pay-as-you-throw rubbish collection service

Option 3

Council provides a weekly rubbish bin collection service

Option 4

Council no longer offers a rubbish collection service.

1

45%

23%

20%

13%

2

40%

17%

28%

15%

3

35%

11%

41%

13%

4

33%

10%

42%

16%

5

30%

10%

47%

14%

6

31%

5%

52%

12%

 

23.  Submitters were also asked several other questions which identified specific service issues that could be factored in to any decisions about what and how services might be provided in certain circumstances.

 

24.  All household sizes were represented. Those living alone (1 person households) and those in larger 6 or more person households are slightly under represented; those living in 2 and 4 person households slightly over represented.

Household size

Consultation

Total population

1 person

13%

23%

2 people

36%

31%

3 people

18%

18%

4 people

21%

16%

5 people

8%

7%

6 or more people

3%

5%

 

25.   Most respondents (94%) lived in a standalone house or townhouse. A small number of multi-unit, apartment and retirement home residents also provided feedback.

26.   Most respondents (89%) owned their own home.

Green waste

 

27.  76% of submitters supported Council providing an opt-in green waste collection service.

Question

Response

Support an opt-in green waste service

Yes

76%

No

24%

Use a green waste service

Yes

46%

No

54%

Support free recycling services at these education providers

Yes

81%

No

19%

 

28.  While there is strong support for having an opt-in service slightly less than 50% of submitters said they were likely to use this service.

 

29.  81% of submitters supported free recycling services for education providers.

 

Financial considerations

 

30.  There are financial considerations related to the option chosen.  These will be addressed when this decision is made.

Iwi

31. Mana whenua as kaitiaki support a review of Council’s focus on core infrastructure, the prioritisation of spending on three waters and protecting environment (LTPAP2020/4/112).

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

32.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

33.  Environmentally, recycling and rubbish collection is one of our biggest issues. More efficient collection systems and minimising what is sent to our landfill will contribute to reducing the impact of our waste on the environment. Effective change needs a system-wide approach that aligns with our wider waste minimisation objectives which include reducing litter, reducing waste going to landfill and less contamination in our recycling.

Consultation

34.  See earlier discussion on communications and engagement.

Legal Considerations

35.  There are no legal considerations.

 

 

Author: Wendy Moore

Head of Strategy and Planning

 

 

 

Author: Caryn Ellis

Senior Advisor to the Chief Executive

 

 

 

Author: Catherine Taylor

Senior Research and Evaluation Advisor

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved By: Anna Welanyk

Director Transformation and Resources

 

 


Attachment 2

Appendix 1A - Consultation Results

 

Appendix 1

Responses

A total of 6,345 unique submissions were received for the Rubbish and Recycling consultation; 3,991 responses were received via the online feedback form, have your say email, post and phone. An additional 2,354 were received from an email set up by Modern Waste.

Interim calculations indicate that around 268 individuals definitely submitted an email via Modern Waste and one via the Council’s online feedback form and approximately a further 300 have probably done the same. Around 150 of the Modern Waste submitters had altered the original text provided by the Modern Waste. In some cases the text still aligns with the points made by the Modern Waste - in some cases it does not. Further analysis of the emails with altered text is being undertaken.

Analysis of the Modern Waste email submissions is included at the end of the document. It was not possible to include these submissions in the overall quantitative analysis as they did not directly address the options proposed. There are about 3,500 to 3,800 responses to the questions asked in the Council form[3]. The margin of error based on this level of response indicates that Councillors can be confident that the results are 95% likely to reflect the overall views of all residents within +/- 2 percent.

 

Demographics of respondents

Nearly all respondents (99%) stated they lived in Lower Hutt. Of the 18 who stated they did not live in Lower Hutt, four owned a house/townhouse in Lower Hutt.

Based on proportion of the population, there was good representation from all areas although Western Ward residents were slightly over represented and Wainuiomata slightly under.

Figure 1: Proportion of respondents compared to proportion of total population by ward

Ward

Consultation respondents

Total Population

 

No.

%

No.

%

Central

634

17%

17265

17%

Eastern

730

20%

17670

17%

Harbour

643

17%

18654

18%

Northern

462

12%

16032

15%

Wainuiomata

474

13%

18561

18%

Western

762

20%

16353

16%

Other

18

0%

 

 


Figure 2: Proportion of respondents compared to proportion of total population by ward

Household size

All household sizes were represented. Those living alone (1 person households) and those in larger 6 or more person households are slightly under represented; those living in 2 and 4 person households slightly over represented.

Figure 3: Proportion of respondents and total population by household size

Household size

Consultation

Total population

1 person

13%

23%

2 people

36%

31%

3 people

18%

18%

4 people

21%

16%

5 people

8%

7%

6 or more people

3%

5%

 

Figure 4: Proportion of respondents and total population by household size

Age

A very small number of those aged under 20 years made an individual submission. Those aged under 30 were under represented with all other age groups except those aged 80 or over were over represented compared to their proportion of the population.

Figure 5: Proportion of respondents and total population by age group

Age

Consultation

Population (aged 15+)

Under 20

0%

8%

20-29

6%

17%

30-39

24%

18%

40-49

23%

17%

50-59

18%

16%

60-69

14%

12%

70-79

11%

7%

80 +

2%

4%

Not stated

1%

 

Figure 6: Proportion of respondents and total population by age group


 

Dwelling type

Most respondents (94%) lived in a standalone house or townhouse. A small number of multi-unit, apartment and retirement home residents also provided feedback.

Figure 7: Proportion of respondents and population by dwelling type

Dwelling type

Consultation

Population

Standalone house or townhouse

94%

Separate house

82%

Multi-unit block

4%

Medium density

18%

Apartment building

1%

High density

1%

Retirement home

0%

Other

0%

Other

2%

 

 

 

Home ownership

Just below 90 percent of respondents owned their own home; this is considerably higher than the proportion of the population who own in Lower Hutt.

Figure 8: Proportion of residents and population who own the home they live in

Tenure

Consultation

Population

Own

89%

61%

Rent

10%

31%

Other

1%

7%

 

Figure 9: Proportion of residents and population who own the home they live in

 

Only 10% of respondents owned a property within Lower Hutt that they did not live in.


Results

Recycling proposal

A total of 3,900 respondents indicated whether they supported the recycling proposal or not.

Figure 10: Proportion of respondents who supported, or not, the recycling proposal

Agree with proposed replacement option

Yes

76%

No

24%

 

Figure 11: Proportion of respondents who supported, or not, the recycling proposal

           

 

Recycling proposal by household size and ward

Support for the proposed recycling collection was significantly higher among larger households. Between 81 and 85 percent of households with 3 or more people supported the proposal however, just under three quarters (73%) of two person and less than two thirds (64%) of single person households were in support.  The comments indicate that the size of the proposed bin was the key reason smaller households did not support the proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 12: Support for recycling proposal by household size

The level of support was not influenced by where people lived.

Figure 13: Support for the recycling proposal by ward

Why/Why not

Supported recycling proposal

Over half (56%) of the 2,972 respondents who supported the recycling proposal left a comment about why they were in support. The key themes among the comments from those who supported the proposal were: wind and weather issues; the size of the bin; collection frequency

 

Wind

Key themes

·    The amount of recycling currently blown around as the current crates are not fit for purpose

·    Concerns that the new 240 litre recycling bins may get knocked over in the wind

 

“The current crate option does not keep the recycling in the crate on windy days.”

 “Heavy winds often interrupt my recycling efforts and have caused my bin to go missing (blown up the street and lost down a bank).”

“The current crates are hopeless in the wind. We are constantly picking up recycling that has blown out of the crates and crates that have blown onto the road.”

“Stop cardboard and plastic flying around on recycling day.”

“I'm sick of seeing recycling flying up the roads because people decide to use cardboard boxes and not place something heavy on top to keep it from flying away. Recycled bins work a treat in other provinces so why not!”

“Present collection not working to contain recycling from blowing away on windy days.”

“I think a lot of paper and cans fly out of the crates on a windy day. I've had three nets over my bins over the years, but they get broken during rubbish collection. The lightweight paper and cans in the wheelie bin is a good idea, but I'm still concerned they could fly out of bins on a particularly windy day. Is there a catch on the wheelie bin lids to keep them shut? Korokoro is a high wind zone area and I have seen wheelie bin lids lift up in the high winds.”

“The wheelie bin will be better to contain mixed recycling - however, we do have wheelie bins also blown over in severe weather so the lids need to be substantial and well fitting.”

“Would like to see the wheelie bins fitted with clips on their lid to maintain closure. I have seen many such bins blown over in high winds. Otherwise I think this is a good move to keep the rubbish firmly in place and the wheelie aspect is easier for people with limited mobility.”

 

Costs

Key themes

·    That the new system was cheaper and offered better value for money

·    Several stated they agreed along as it was included in their rates

·    Some comments indicate a level of misunderstanding – stating that they don’t currently pay anything

 

“Practical and cheapest option”

“Cheaper option and more convenient to wheel a bin than lift it, because I have a bad back.”

“Keeps payments simple being together with rates. I’m happy with a new larger recycling bin option. Current bins don’t hold enough and I don’t like how they have no lids causing items to litter the streets. I feel the pricing is really reasonable.”

“Value for money and efficient from household perspective”

“It’s the cheapest option and fortnightly collections for recyclables is better.”

“Seems logical and affordable”

“As long as the cost is part of our rates. Not an extra cost to rate payers. I currently recycle and use green crate and never have paid a cost for that service.”

“Seems logical and affordable”

 

Size

Key themes

·    Respondents liked the increased capacity for recycling that the new option would give them

·    Many mentioned the crates did not offer sufficient capacity

·    Several were worried about the size of the bin and would like to have a smaller option

·    Increased ability to recycle due to the increased size of the bin

 

“Current crate is inadequate and I put some recycling into my rubbish currently.”

“It would encourage us to recycle more. As a large family the crates just aren’t large enough for all we could recycle.”

“I like the idea of a wheelie bin to keep all recycling contained inside and a bigger option than we currently have.”

“We need much larger size containers for recycling and ones with lids”

“The current recycling bin is insufficient for the amount of our recycling”

A wheelie bin is way bigger than the current option, allowing for way more recycling to be done without having to store it and be constantly storing extra bags around the house.”

Different size / prices of recycling bins should be considered as different sizes of households is relevant and quantity of recycling also relevant.”

I agree with the proposal to have wheelie binds and fortnightly collection. There needs to be an option of bin sizes to acknowledge that households can be sized differently. Our household has 5 adults and 3 children - we will produce more recycling than a 4 person household or a 2 person household. Give us size options!”

 

Collection Frequency

Key themes

·    Many supported the fortnightly frequency

·    Some wanted a more or less frequent collection

“I think it’s good for people to be aware of how much plastic they are using and by doing it fortnightly might be a good step in awareness for some people. The downside would be if you forget/away, you have to wait another couple of weeks to recycle and hard to remember what week it is for what”

“Fortnightly collection makes more sense would also hopefully make residents more aware of recyclable items when shopping.”

“The only thing I would change would be collection every week rather than every fortnight but I acknowledge this would impact the cost of the bin and might not be justified at this stage due to the current low rate of recycling”

“A larger bin is more efficient and doesn’t need a weekly collection”

“I think that if a wheelie bin provided fortnightly is adequate.”

 

Did not support recycling proposal

Of the 928 respondents who did not support the recycling proposal 883 (95%) gave a reason for not supporting. The key themes from respondents who mentioned their reasons for not supporting the recycling proposal were: cost; collection frequency; size of the bin; storage and accessibility issues, and; a preference for the current system.

A large number of these comments directly and explicitly related only to the rubbish options proposed.  The question was changed in week 2 to try and clarify that this question related to recycling and not rubbish but this did not have a significant impact on the type of comments received.

 

Costs

Approximately a third of comments mentioned cost the key themes among these comments were:

·    Rates are already high and don’t want a further increase

·    Against increase in cost when items that can be recycled has decreased

·    Cost of recycling should be reduced to encourage more people to recycle

·    A level of confusion about how things are currently paid for

“A big increase in cost for no extra value”

“I believe the idea is great but the people shouldn’t have to pay we already pay enough in our rates”

“Too expensive for the small amount that some households put out normally.”

“Too expensive considering there is a lot we can't recycle now.”

“As a couple, a 240-litre wheelie bin for mixed recycling is quite harsh for $105 since that we now only recycle plastics numbered 1 and 2, compared to 1-5 previously.”

“I don't agree to an increase in price.  We have reduced all our waste, and want to enjoy the benefits of this.  We would only fill an 80 litre bin in a month, and yet we would be charged for fortnightly 120l bin.  It hardly seems fair, nor does it encourage people to reduce their waste both recyclable and general waste.  Not that there is far less recyclable waste being collected now too, so that has had an impact on our quantity of recycling.”

“These costs should be covered by our current rates. People should be encouraged to recycle, not penalised. Landfill waste should be the focus of increased costs for residents.”

“It’s an ok idea, but I think if we want to reduce waste a flat rate cost would not really encourage that; recycling should be free.”

“Paying for it will discourage it”

 “If charges are introduced this will be a dis-incentive to recycle, it will simply go in the general rubbish, so as not to incur additional charges.”

“Currently recycling is free, adding a cost to households for recycling will discourage a lot of lower income households to recycle.”

“Put it in my rates and I'll say yes”

“Firstly what is the cost per annum? Second how will we pay for this? Will our rates go up or is it part of our rates now and will we pay for it separately?”

“It’s a cost I can't afford.  It’s currently free”

“All 3 bins should be a free service like Christchurch and Nelson”

“Are you going to remove the charges on my Rates for the weekly recycling on my rates which is $40, I think its sucks that you have the cheek to ask ratepayers to pay for something we already pay for which really is not good enough, are the council going to remove this fee first or hide amongst all the other charges?”

 

Collection frequency

There were two opposing themes that emerged from respondents:

·    Those who wanted their recycling picked up more frequently, and;

·    Those who felt a 240l bin was large enough that it would only need to be collected monthly

There were also several comments that:

·    Mention a concern over the confusion that might come from fortnightly collection

·    Appear to be related to rubbish collection rather than recycling

“Rubbish and recycling needs to be collected weekly. Evidence of this was when we couldn't put out recycling the city was full of dumped stuff.”

“I agree with the wheelie bins. I actually think crates need to be abolished and all replaced with wheelie bins but collection needs to be weekly. If you are going to encourage sustainable living people will easily fill a wheelie bins up in a week therefore collection would need to be weekly to avoid spill over of rubbish polluting the community.”

“I like the proposal but it should be weekly not fortnightly.”

“Because we try and recycle as much as we can so would fill a recycling bin by the end of a week. Would prefer weekly recycling collection so we don't have leftover recycling we have to store.”

“While I am fine with a wheelie bin to collect recycling, I do not agree for this to be fortnightly. At our house, we try to recycle as much as possible, and our recycle waste volume is greater than our rubbish. Fortnightly collection frequency is too low, it needs to continue to be weekly.”

“Collecting this once a fortnight is too often for me. I only put out my recycling bin once a month or every 5 or 6 weeks.”

“I do not generate enough recycling to warrant such a regular collection. An option to reduce cost with a reduced collection schedule would help.”

“Including something that is suitable for households that produce a low level of recycling or a less frequent pick up would work better for me.”

“I do not have enough recycling to justify fortnightly collection.   Monthly would suit me better.”

“Fortnightly collection will confuse people putting out recycling, particularly renters moving to different suburbs or from other cities. A lot of people would just start dropping recycling in the rubbish.”

“The fortnightly nature would cause bins to smell and we'd likely forget to put them out on occasion.”

“I'm happy with the current weekly system. It's more hygienic than a fortnightly system.”

“Fortnightly collection is ridiculous. I prefer to use a private operator, this way I can choose what is best for me.”

“If you miss a collection then the smell after one month could be significant.”

 

Size

The size of the bin included in the recycling proposal was mentioned by respondents and was often included in comments about cost and collection frequency. Many respondents were keen to see options made available in terms of the size of bin available.

“Different size / prices of recycling bins should be considered as different sizes of households is relevant and quantity of recycling also relevant.”

“I agree with the proposal to have wheelie binds and fortnightly collection. There needs to be an option of bin sizes to acknowledge that households can be sized differently. Our household has 5 adults and 3 children - we will produce more recycling than a 4 person household or a 2 person household. Give us size options!”

“I don’t need that much space for recycling. Smaller options should be available.”

“Would like to have the option for a smaller 120L wheelie bin at a cheaper cost.”

“I would prefer smaller bins or less frequent collections have a lower cost. We currently fill our 45L bin about once a fortnight, so paying for 240L a fortnight seems a bit ridiculous. I understand larger households may need the option of larger bins, and it is important to recycle what we don't reuse.”

“I am happy with the bin for recycling that can’t blow around and the crate for heavier glass, but people who need the half-sized wheelie bin are penalized financially.  Yes it will still incur the collection cost, but there will be less recyclables to be processed with the smaller bin.  So the smaller bin will be cheaper for council. I currently put my green recycling bin out about every three weeks, so definitely won't need the large wheelie bin.”

“We do not need a 240 litre bin for recycling. Add some other bin size options. Most of our recycling is glass.”

 

Storage and Accessibility Issues

Key themes

·    Nowhere to store bins

·    Difficulty moving the bins

·    Access issues due to steep driveways or steps

“I only have space for one wheelie bin. I live on a steep hill and some of my neighbours use bags due to steps and nowhere to store a wheelie bin.”

“Live on a property with a steep drive, large wheelie bins are an inconvenience both to wheel in and out and also causes a storage issue - especially if there is a second wheelie bin for rubbish”.

“Manoeuvring a wheelie bin is difficult for me. And I don't need that much space.”

“I do not have space on my property for an additional Wheelie bin other than the existing rubbish bin. Can cope with a crate due to size and ability to store in garage”

“I don't mind the proposal being put forward however a crate for the glass seems a bit crazy when it can be the heaviest thing so a good option would be to have the glass in a wheelie bin types solution. Another point to raise is a single person living on their own with limited mobility, how are they expected to put out to bins. Have you considered for those who live in apartment type buildings with very little space for rubbish bins, how are they expected to house the bins.”

“Not possible to use wheelie bins at our house due to steps access”

“Don’t have space for additional bin. Not interested in separating recycling.”

“I don't have room to store three wheelie bins (1x rubbish + 2x recycling). The carport is not big enough for wheelie bins and my car. The only other place is by the front door - I'll be very annoyed if I'm forced to walk past the rubbish bin every time I enter/exit my house. Also, I'm in a wheelchair and live alone. So I cannot move the wheelie bins, wash them out when they smell, etc.”

 

Prefer current system

Key themes

·    wanted the current system to remain, felt that it was working well

·    some of these comments may relate to rubbish collection rather than recycling or are mis-informed

“We have very little recycling. We do not want a large recycling wheelie bin. The current recycling green crate works well for us.”

 “The green crate being used now is more than sufficient for my household.”

“Existing system is fine. We have a big council-provided bin with a stretchy cover over it. Works fine. Replace all the smaller crates with bigger ones like ours.”

“As I am happy with how things are now and find your way more expensive.”

“The system is working as is. Changes would put people out of work unless Council intends offering the collection to the existing companies.”

“Present weekly arrangements works well. I want to support local NZ business and not offshore firms.”


Rubbish Options

A total of 3,820 submitters ranked at least their most preferred option. Nearly 90 percent of submitters gave each option a rank.

Figure 14: Respondents ranking of the 4 rubbish options outlined

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Rank 1

37%

13%

34%

15%

Rank 2

34%

24%

34%

9%

Rank 3

15%

50%

25%

11%

Rank 4

14%

12%

7%

68%

 

Figure 15: Proportion of first preference ranks for each rubbish option

 

                                       

 

Figure 16: For each rubbish option the proportion of 1 to 4 rank responses received

Rubbish option by household size

Nearly half of one person households have ranked option 1 as their number 1 choice. There second preference is pay as you throw. Many of the comments from respondents who live alone are that they don’t have enough rubbish to warrant more frequent collection.

Around half of larger households (5 or more people) selected option 3 as their number one choice. Preference for option 1, 2 and 3 is directly driven by household size. Preference for option 4 is not correlated to household size at all.

Figure 17: The proportion of first preference ranks received by each option by household size

HH Size

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

1

45%

23%

20%

12%

2

40%

17%

28%

15%

3

35%

11%

41%

13%

4

33%

10%

42%

16%

5

30%

10%

47%

14%

6

31%

5%

52%

12%

 

Figure 18: The proportion of first preference ranks received by each option by household size

 

Rubbish option by ward

Where people lived had little influence on their preferred option. Respondents who live in the Harbour ward were the most likely to prefer option 1, and those in the Wainuiomata ward option 3. However, this is correlated to where those living in small and larger households came from. Therefore the driver of difference remains household size.

 

 

Figure 19: The proportion of first preference ranks received by each option by ward

Ward

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Harbour

43%

14%

33%

10%

Northern

38%

13%

30%

20%

Eastern

36%

15%

32%

17%

Central

33%

10%

38%

20%

Wainuiomata

36%

10%

41%

14%

Western

37%

19%

35%

9%

 

Figure 20: The proportion of first preference ranks received by each option by household size

 

Comments on Rubbish Options

Respondents were asked why they had ranked the four options the way they had. Some respondents gave an explanation for their complete choice 1 to 4, while others gave a short comment relating to their preferred options. Therefore these comments have been analysed by the option the respondent ranked number one; their preferred choice.

Option 1 = Rank #1

Costs
Key themes:

·    Support of Option 1 was related to people wanting the cheapest option for themselves

·    People noted that a Council-run service was cheaper than private companies


“A fortnightly collection is what we currently use but your option is cheaper than the commercial one we currently use.”
“If people have to pay for rubbish removal, you will find domestic rubbish dumping in parks, streets, public places”
“I want to pay as less as possible. I suspect rent increase is looming because of the rates increase. Cheaper the service, less it spills into my rent.”
“Cost of rubbish collection is best placed on those with higher income who can afford multiple homes.”

Collection Frequency

Key themes:

·    Fortnightly was the most suitable for people’s lifestyle

·    Many said that they only produced enough rubbish to fill the bin fortnightly

·    Some wanted a fortnightly collection as they thought it would encourage people to produce less rubbish

·    It was noted that there was a certain stability in a regularly scheduled collection


“Pay as you throw might be cheapest for me but I prefer a 'set and forget' option of regular scheduled service.”
“Regular is best as don't want extra work to order pick-ups.”
“I also don't want to have to think about keeping track of the pay as you throw system. That just sounds like more complication.”

Size and design of bin

Key themes:

·    A wheelie bin was more suitable than plastic bags for its durability

·    A bin with a lid sheltered the rubbish from the rain and other weather conditions

·    Some hoped that choosing the size of the bin would help people to think about the volume of rubbish they produced


“Maybe a 120l bin would be better as default size as 240l may encourage reckless rubbish creation”
“The reason I've paid for a private collection is because I didn't like buying plastic bin bags and leaving them in the street for animals to rip open and display my rubbish to the neighbourhood.” 
“Also the bags are a pain to have to remember to buy.”
“Need to be careful of the size of the bin to encourage less waste. Big bins people will just fill them.”

More Council involvement

Key themes:

·    Concern that a service impacting the environment/ health would be better in the hands of the Council rather than businesses


“Privatisation of essential public services such as waste collection inevitably leads to poor outcomes. Poorer households would struggle with exorbitant bills, the company would sacrifice environmental or health and safety standards to cut costs”
“Fewer trucks on the road with less competition”

“It makes it easy for me and I am happy to also take Councils preference as what would work best”

Concern for environment

Key themes:

·    Many wanted others to consider their environmental impact more carefully with the change

·    People commented that there needed to be a shift in focus from business and profits  towards reducing negative impacts on the environment


“Halving the rubbish truck trips is a great way to cut greenhouse emissions while trucks are not electric. It might also make households think more carefully about what they buy and thus what they put in their bins.”
“I would prefer option 2 as our household is trying to reduce waste and we only throw a rubbish bag per month. But if the overall environmental impact of the service is lower with option 1 as I understand from the comparison options and the FAQ, then my preference goes to the option that, overall, has a larger positive impact on the environment.”
“It makes sense to organise this around fortnightly collections, which makes me think even more carefully about waste.”
“The private sector do not care about the environment they only care about profit. “

General agreement
Key themes:

·    Some commented that Option 1 was there preference as it was simplest to remember and for ease of use

·    People noted that the system was due for a change to be more like other places where Option 1 was used successfully

·    Several stated that Option 1 was the most logical option


“Option 1 works well in Christchurch where we used to live. Fortnightly rubbish is about right and prefer bin to bags”
“Option 1 fits in with our consumption and lifestyle”
“Option 2: would be financially the best option for us and I like the idea that people pay more for disposing of more rubbish, as it could act as a deterrent to consume. But in reality I believe it will result in more waste being put into recycling bins or dumped.”

“Pay as you go sounds more complicated to administer”

 

Option 2 = Rank #1

Cost and waste reduction were the main themes, but these were often seen as interlinked when people considered their own waste load and finances.

“I want a rubbish collection system that rewards my waste minimization and only charges me for the waste my household generates.”

Cost

Key themes:

·    People see Option 2 as the most cost effective option for them personally

·    Some preferred this option over others as they noted that they did not want to be paying disproportionately as they produced much less rubbish than others

“We definitely favour the $4.50 per pickup solution as many people only put their rubbish out intermittently.”

“I only use one bag per month and am damned if I can see why I should subsidise people who produce huge amounts of waste.”

 

Waste reduction

 Key themes:

·    Several thought that the PAYT option would cause people to try and reduce their waste

·    It was noted that Option 2 could factor into a better awareness of recyclable material if people were taking notice of their rubbish load

·    Many comments said people felt this was the most suitable option for them as they produced very little waste themselves

·    A few thought that large commercial producers of waste should take more responsibility

·    Some noted that the other options were too frequent in their collection time to align to their lifestyle

A pay as you throw encourages people to recycle more and throw less out.”

"A weekly/fortnightly rubbish bin collection doesn't reward people to decrease their rubbish.”

“A pay as you throw service should greater incentivise correct use of recycling and careful purchasing of products to produce less unrecyclable and un-compostable waste “

“As a family we aim to reduce our waste in general, so for us it's very expensive to pay for something we don't use much.”

“I think if people had to pay for it more, they may be more conscious of how much they throw out, which would be better for the environment”

“I would also really like to see all the supermarkets take responsibility more.” 

“I only currently put out a rubbish bag every 5 or 6 weeks.  Weekly collection doesn't work for me.”

 

General comments

Key themes:

·    Option 2 was favoured by some as they were impressed with working examples overseas

·    Many chose this option as they did not like the idea of having a bin for rubbish, and wished to remain with bags

·    Flexibility for only using the service when required

“In The Netherlands they introduced rubbish bin collection where wheelie bins where weighed. The more you put in, the more you would pay. A bit more modern than ""pay as you throw""."

“A wheelie bin is not viable because I've got a lot of steps.”

Option 3 = Rank #1

Most of the comments related to the reasons why weekly rather than fortnightly collection of rubbish was important; thus making a comparison with option 1 rather and outlining the perceived drawbacks of this option.

Confusion

There was concern that a fortnightly collection frequency would confuse people and that if this confusion led to missing the collection day it would result in rubbish not be collected from  a household for a month.

“Thinking of other households I worry that there would be confusion as to which week was collection week. Each week you would need to think about whether it was the week or not. I anticipate people forgetting, bins overfilling, rubbish being dumped.”

“Either weekly or fortnightly are ok but if you mix up fortnight or are away you could have 1 month old rubbish so prefer weekly.”

“Have had fortnightly big bins before. Is a pain to remember which week they go out. End up with smelly rubbish piling up in the bin. Smaller bin every week much more effective.”

“I like my bin emptied every week. If you miss putting your bin out you only have to wait 1 week. But if it’s fortnightly it’s too long for the next empty.”

“Weekly collection makes it easier to manage, especially if a collection is missed.”

 

Hygiene/smells

The key negative outcome of a fortnightly rubbish collection mentioned by respondents centred on hygiene and health concerns. The key points mentioned were:

·    The smell of two week old rubbish, in particular food scraps and packaging.

·    Hygiene and health issues of having two week old food in the bin and the follow on issue of needing to have the bins cleaned

·    The possibility that smelly and rotting food could attract rodents and other animals

“Inevitably increased un-emptied bins that linger longer, becoming smelly and unhygienic.  With a two week cycle, a missed collection could see refuse remaining on a property for a month:  not a healthy situation in summer!”

“Even when wrapped, rotting kitchen waste (especially meat, poultry and fish) begins to smell in a few days. Having it by the back door for two weeks is an unpleasant, unattractive and unhealthy prospect - so Option 3 is preferable to Option1.”

“Personally I would prefer my general rubbish to be collected weekly .In the summer bins can become quite smelly if they are not washed out regularly. We wash our bin out on a regular basis but I know that many don’t.”

“We have children in nappies and do not want refuse & faecal matter festering on property for a fortnight,; god forbid you miss the collection day and it's there for an entire month.”

“Weekly rather than fortnightly collection is preferred to ensure the neighbourhood remains clean especially in the current environment where the emphasis/focus is cleanliness and keeping excellent hygiene. Weekly collection will maintain this. Risk of that fortnightly collection could create unhygienic practices, diseases spreading in the neighbourhood from extra storage time in the household/back yards.”

“Don't want the rubbish sitting round for a week, smell, rodents etc.”

“Rubbish left for 2 weeks will attract rodents and insects”

 

Cost

The cost of option 1 was mentioned positively by respondents in terms of:

·    The comparison with current contracts held with private providers

·    The cost of weekly vs fortnightly option being better value for money when looking at cost per pick up

“Making it private makes it difficult and expensive for the elderly or those who don't know how to readily check price comparisons etc.”

“Councils are primarily service providers for ratepayers. Out -sourcing to a profit-making private company would inevitably mean perpetually increasing costs and, probably, an unreliable service.”

“We currently have a small 120L bin through enviro waste with weekly pick up.  This is a mixed rubbish bin (we are also allowed to put green waste in it which is great).  WE are paying $240 per year for this service (has been steadily increasing over the years) and we feel an equivalent Council service at $144 per year is much more affordable.”

“I considered option 3 to have a fairer price structure. Option 1 almost encourages people to throw out more rubbish to get their money’s worth in the default bin size.”

“I see rubbish collection as part of the council's core role and the council shouldn't be cutting corners. The economies of scale from the council contract should make it cheaper for everyone.”

 

Illegal Dumping

The illegal dumping of rubbish was mentioned by respondents as:

·    A consequence of not having a weekly rubbish collection

·    A consequence of having a service not operated by Council

“You need to think about the cost of having to clean up dumped waste when you consider the cost savings of fortnightly collections.”

“I believe a consistent collection is important and if it is not done by council it will lead to more dumping”

“I think not offering a service will result in even more dumping of rubbish, from those than cannot afford to sign up for a service. Needs to be an overall approach if it is to be successful (collectively cover both rubbish and recycling)”

“I would cope fine with fortnightly collection of rubbish but I fear that some families would resort to dumping rubbish on random street corners or around public bins.”

“If people have to organise and pay for rubbish collection independently there is likely to be dumping and piling of rubbish in undesirable locations.”

 

Size of bin

Many respondents commented on the size of the bin and their current usage which frequently saw them filling their current bin weekly.

“As a family of four with a large section we fill a bin almost every week”

“I am supportive of a council run rubbish collection system. I also don’t mind if it’s collected fortnightly or weekly. However bin size is crucial. We currently fill a 240L bin every week. We would need to have a 240L bin collected weekly, or have the ability to have 2 x 240L bins collected fortnightly.”

“My bin gets filled well before the week is up. We need weekly rubbish collection. I’m happy to use other providers so my rubbish would be collected more frequently.”

“Smaller rubbish bin would hopefully promote more recycling into the larger recycling bin.”

“We currently use a 240l bin which is full and is collected weekly. If we chose option 1 we would have nowhere to put the extra rubbish if it was collected fortnightly or would need to order two bins (therefore having 5 bins to put out each week with the new proposed recycling changes) which is not easy to do with a toddler in tow!”

“My first preference is for a weekly rubbish collection service, as the amount of rubbish my household produces can vary substantially. Some weeks we do not fill a bag, while others we may put two bags out.”

Option 4 = Rank #1

Preference for private providers

Key themes:

·    Some felt there was more flexibility with private providers

·    Private providers allowed the mix of different types of waste in their bins

·    Some were already with a private contractor and did not wish to change

“I want to shop around and have choice as to which service I use.”

 “I like that I can put green waste into the same bin alongside my usual rubbish.” 

“Don't want anything to change, works the way it's going currently.”

 

Uneasiness with full-Council control

Key themes:

·    It was a common fear that other options would put private providers out of business and cause people to lose their jobs

·    Some mistrusted Council’s motives

“Just let the private contractors do their job and save money and they know how to run a business. HCC get my hard earned cash for their enjoyment”

“Because I prefer to be able to choose who my provider is. I do not think it should be for the council to make that decision for me”

“Cost and lack of confidence in the council to deliver”

“Don't want local companies to lose out, I support them and don't like the idea of a monopolised system at all.”

Green Waste and Schools

An optional add on green waste service that included a 240 litre bin collected monthly was out lined in and respondents were asked if they supported the provision of such a service and if they would use it. Council also used this feedback form to gauge interest from respondents in the possibility of making recycling collection services few to schools, early childhood centres and kohanga reo in Lower Hutt.

Figure 21: Support for green waste, use of green waste and support for recycling in education providers

Question

Response

Support an opt-in green waste service

Yes

76%

No

24%

Use a green waste service

Yes

46%

No

54%

Support free recycling services at these education providers

Yes

81%

No

19%

 

Three quarters of respondents supported Council offering an opt-in green waste service and of these nearly half said they would use the service. There were several comments about this service with three groups emerging:

·    Those who supported the service but would not use it due to concerns about the monthly collection not being frequent enough especially in summer

·    Those who supported the service but would not use it because they composted, or did not have a garden

·    Those who supported but would not use, and those who did not support, because they used their current rubbish wheelie bin to dispose of green waste

“I think green waste should be emptied fortnightly, the waste will start to decompose within a month time frame causing methane and nitrogen gas from the decomposing which could end up being a health and safety issue, I'd recommend fortnightly removal or at least in summer as the growing season is far more e.g. more frequent grass mowing.”

“Green waste should be collected weekly in daylight saving and monthly rest of year”

“I would participate in green waste recycling if it was a weekly service. I fill my 240 bin up almost weekly.”

“All households should be encouraged to compost their green waste. But where this is not possible, then I agree with having a green waste collection service provided.”

“We compost our own green waste.”

“I no longer have a garden but would have used green waste recycling in past.”

“Great that Council is tackling this problem. I’d like to see more encouraging of re-use and reduce too.”

“Only reason our household wouldn't use a green waste bin is because we don't produce any.”

“I want to be able to have green waste removed… I want it to be collected with my rubbish as it currently is with the private operator. Any rubbish - household or garden - should be able to go in the bins”

“Presently I can put garden rubbish into my weekly wheelie bin.”

 

 

Almost all the comments about providing free recycling services to the education providers outlined fell into three groups:

·    Those who felt this was not something Council should do, and that this was something the Ministry of Education was responsible for

·    Those who supported the concept but were keen to see it accompanied by education and awareness

·    Those who supported the concept but only in state funded and not for profit education providers, not private or profit making entities

“Schools are government owned and operated.  They should meet the costs of running them.”

“If anyone should be subsidising schools it should be central government, not the poor old ratepayers.”

“If recycling services become free for education services, can it also be required that these organisations also actively educate the children they are educating about waste, recycling and what happens to the things we throw away.”

“I support free recycling schemes in schools and other educational institutions because that is the best way to change habits for all of us.”

“In regards to recycling services to school this would add education and awareness to our tamariki.”

“If education providers are to get free recycling services I'd like to see some (or some more) attention to recycling added into the curriculum.  We've had a family with two primary school age children staying with us and I've been appalled at the amount of recycling that they generate and their lack of awareness of good recycling practices.”

“Many childcare centres are for profit - I only support the subsidy really for the education services that are not private businesses and run for profit/shareholders.”

“Only support free recycling for public education entities, not fully private schools”.

“I’d prefer recycling to be free for early childhood centres, kohanga etc. that are not run for profit. Early childhood centres that are in fact businesses should pay for their own recycling.”

 

 

 

Final comments

Two of the main themes that came from the final comments made by respondents have already been mentioned – green waste collection and the provision of free recycling services to some education providers. The other four key themes amongst these comments were: costs; waste reduction, food waste, and; the Council versus private provision of service.

Costs

Respondents who mentioned cost mostly mentioned one or more of the following four themes:

·    That any increase in cost was acceptable/tolerable in order to achieve better community outcomes.

·    Concerns for those who may not be able to afford any increase in costs

·    The impact on rates and the inclusion, or not, of the cost of rubbish collection in rates

·    The cost of the Council’s proposed options being higher than the current private providers’ charges

“The rubbish and recycling needs a major upgrade. Our rates will go up but our community will benefit in the future.”

“I'd be prepared to pay more so I can recycle more”

“I've lived in Maungaraki for three years now and I'm sick of picking up other people's rubbish off my property because they don't secure it properly.  It's about time the council provided every property with secured wheelie bin's for rubbish and recycling collection and I'm happy to pay my fair share for this service.”

“Please be mindful of pricing. There are a lot of low income households in Lower Hutt and if there are households that don't use these services as frequently as others, they shouldn't be penalised for it.”

“Keeping costs down per household is highly important otherwise it will encourage illegal dumping.”

“Please ensure the best deal is obtained to minimise rates increases.”

“I pay in excess of $4,000 p.a. in rates and expect the cost of rubbish and recycling to be included in this.  I don't expect an increase in rates.”

“Rubbish's collection should be part of the rates and taxes”

“Better that the cost gets included as part of rates bill so cost is split over the year.”

“The proposed expenditures for the suggested rubbish wheelie bins is not comparable to households using the council bags. The rates alone are already high and this is just another scheme to increase it. If we are demanded to use the bins as it’s the only available option in the future I then demand too that the costing is reviewed and lowered down to the equivalent cost of 1 council bag a fortnight.”

“My negative comment would be that proposed pricing is more expensive than a commercial operator”

“A good idea but as private options are cheaper and more regular this does not make sense”

“Value for money from our waste care providers is really good as they are less than what you have quoted.”

 

Waste Reduction

These comments included ideas for what else could be done to reduce waste and a call for action and education around reducing waste and increasing the amount of materials that could be recycled. Some comments also mentioned increasing education and awareness about what could and could not be currently recycled and the impact of contamination.

“It’s good you are thinking about this. Could you please start collecting all plastics 1 to 7 for recycling again? One day I would love it if you created bylaws to make Lower Hutt the first single-use-plastic-Free city in NZ.”

“I agree with your attempts to modernise recycling. As a society we are becoming more aware of the issues caused by non-recyclable plastics. I urge the council to do all they can to remove plastic products from our community if they are not able to be recycled.”

“Recycling options need to be expanded in Lower Hutt.  The restriction on acceptable plastics now has unfortunately resulted in additional items going to landfill.  Ultimately, legislation on manufactures to provide sustainable packaging solutions needs to be in place.  However in the meantime processing options for current recyclable products need to be found and preferably locally.”

“Reduce and reuse so that recycling is not the first option people consider. Happy with the direction of this proposal overall.”

“It needs to truly work towards reduction of waste and incentivising recycling but also reduction as a first principle”

“There are still a number of issues that may occur such as people putting things into the bins that they shouldn’t. I also think we have to work on soft plastic packaging. There also should be education programs so that kindergarten and primary kids learn more about recycling as they may be able to help influence home.”

“I would like to see very visible and clear messaging from the council over the proper use of the new system, to educate and inform. Suggestions include obvious pictogram instructions on wheelie bin lid, mailbox drops, fridge magnets etc., which can be retained per household. Additionally random audits/inspections that may result in consequences for illegal or inappropriate contents in bins.”

“I am still concerned at the lack of education regarding what can and cannot be recycled, and this seems to vary depending on the source. You really need to push this education through as it may end up accounting for a huge amount of otherwise recyclable content being tossed at the landfill.”

Council or Private Provision

There was a split amongst respondents with several stating that rubbish collection was a core Council service, while other felt that rubbish collection should be left to private providers

“I support the direction in which the Council wishes to go. While rubbish might not be a discussion everyone wants to have or a service everyone wants to pay for, it is one of those goods that we all benefit from, both in terms of clean environments to live in and longer term sustainability of our planet. I have lived in a country where rubbish disposal was not something understood to be the government’s responsibility and have never forgotten the smell.”

“I feel the best option, whichever is chosen, is charging through rates. This would then hopefully end illegal dumping and there would be a cleaner city.”

“I consider that rubbish disposal is a basic council service and it should not be up to each household to go looking for private providers. Option 4 is not acceptable. The council should not abdicate the responsibility for community rubbish disposal.”

“Just stay out of the rubbish business as it's not for council to do.”

“Council should not have anything to do with rubbish disposal service.”

“Leave users to sort directly with private sector, they’ll provide competition with each other and HCC can save the cost and hassle.”

“Don't understand why you are doing this. It is not core Council business”

 

Food waste

Several respondents were keen to see the introduction of a food waste collection service

“Food waste option in future should be looked at.”

“Food waste isn't included and I would really appreciate a local place I can drop off or a facility to pick up this type of waste which is very easily compostable and I would use this probably fortnightly/monthly basis.”

“I really think it would be good to collect food waste. It’s producing methane in the tip. You could make compost and sell it locally.”

“I'd love to have an organic (green waste) bin for both food and garden waste -- like Christchurch.”

 

Kiwi Consortium Submissions

 

A collection of waste collection operators – Al’s Litta Binz, Low Cost Bins, Econowaste, Daily Karts and Earthcare Environmental – established a form that enabled respondents to fill in their name and address and submit an email to Council. The default text included in the email is included in the box.

Dear Councillors

This is a submission on the councils proposed changes to rubbish collections.

• I support a modern waste system in which I can choose the collection frequency, price and bin size to suit my family. I support having my choice of waste provider, allowing me to select a bin size and service frequency that suits my household's needs.

• I do not support a rubbish system that increases my rates.  I only want to be charged for the waste my household generates on a user pays basis.

• I want a rubbish system that supports local business and the community. I do not support a system which existing local operators will no longer be able to provide a service. I #supportlocal

• I do not support options 1 and 3- a council-run rubbish monopoly and fortnightly rubbish collections, unless there is an ‘opt-out provision’ where I get my money back. I want a choice of provider and a solution that suits my household.

• I support options 2 and 4 - pay as you throw or existing private collection, where I can choose my collection provider and collection frequency.

As a ratepayer – I want a modern waste system which gives me choice and flexibility – and #supportslocal.

These submissions could not be added to the general analysis for a number of reasons including; the options were not ranked and no clear preference order was stated; they did not include any data realign to recycling, green waste or recycling in schools, and; the information was sent to a target audience not the general public.

A total of 2,581 submissions were received. This number reduced to 2,354 once duplicates were removed. Nearly all (93%) of these were from Lower Hutt residents; 6% were from Upper Hutt and 1% did not provide an address.

Within the email the text could be altered. 120 respondents chose to alter their submission from the original text provided by Kiwi Consortium. Most chose to remove one or more of the bullet points provided. Some completely altered the text.

“On the proposed changes, I would support where I could choose the collection frequency, price and bin size to suit our family of two.”

“I like option 3 because of the frequency of service offered, but don't like the 120l bin size offered. You should be able to offer 240l as an option. I like option 1 for the bin size but the frequency needs to be weekly. I also encourage the council to investigate a composting service. I have used such a service in Australia and it significantly reduced the volume of material entering the general waste bin.”

“I sent a submission through modernwaste.co.nz earlier today but hadn’t done enough research. Since reading more I would like to remove that email I sent. I now believe that the council Option 1 is a good fit for our family.  Apologies for the confusion”

“Please disregard all submissions on a form like this. They are all being led astray by some faceless geek who doesn't even live in Lower Hutt and who wants to see people who can't afford to pay for their own waste to be collected having to just dump it somewhere like the river bank or the beach. Keep Lower Hutt Clean; please don’t go for Option 4”

“I do not support the waste management system becoming a monopoly service with no competition to control market pricing and service quality.   Option 1 directly challenges my consumer right to choose and risks increased future rates burden being imposed on rate paying residents.”

“The Council is not a good business operator and should leave the current efficient system as it is. It appears to me that the Council has come up with a solution before they have identified a problem that needs solving. Council staff should be more productively employed than dreaming up stuff like this.”

“None of your options addresses my household needs. I currently have a weekly private collection service for a 240l bin. I pay more than double your proposed price for fortnightly collection of this bin size. It would make sense to leverage the council’s procurement scale to offer rate payers a better deal on waste collection, where I can choose the bin size and frequency of collection that suits my family. Then we can individually negotiate with private providers.”

These submissions, in general, could not be included in the quantitative analysis as no feedback on the recycling, green waste or education in schools was provided in the submission. And, although an indication is given for their preference for the rubbish option question no clear, objective rank is offered.

In the few cases where the text has been altered a clear indication of preference indicated these responses were included in the analysis.

 

 


Attachment 3

Appendix 2 - Scope of procurement process and evaluation method

 

Appendix 2: Scope of procurement process and evaluation method

Scope of Request for Proposals

Services

Scope

Recycling mixed kerbside collection

Fortnightly rates-funded

240l wheelie bin for mixed recycling (paper, cardboard, tin, plastics #1 and #2)

45l crate or wheelie bin for glass

Including processing and sale of recyclables

Potential provision of recycling collection for schools and early childhood education centres

Rubbish kerbside collection

Three service methodologies:

·    Fortnightly rates-funded, with choice of wheelie bin size

·    Weekly rates-funded, with choice of wheelie bin size

·    PAYT, with 120l bin

Green waste collection

Four-weekly rates funded, on an opt-in basis

Including processing of green waste at a composting facility

Bin and crate supply

Initial bulk bin supply and distribution, and ongoing bin supply and maintenance (as part of kerbside service provision)

Evaluation Criteria

Attribute

Weighting

Health and safety

Pass/Fail

Financial stability

Pass/Fail

Capability of the Respondent to deliver
(including track record and relevant experience)

20%

Capacity of the Respondent to deliver
(including key personnel, plant and equipment, and information systems)

17%

Electric vehicles
(demonstrating their electrification strategy and use of electric vehicles for service delivery, with a minimum of 30% electric vehicles, measured by km travelled per year, from the commencement of the Contract term)

3%

Respondents Proposed solution
(including consideration of methodology, sustainability and health and safety management)

30%

Price

30%

TOTAL

100%

Evaluation Process

A Proposal Evaluation Team (PET) was established and consisted of three Council staff and a representative from Morrison Low.

The evaluation method used to assess proposals was the Price Quality method. A ‘two-envelope’ system was used for the evaluation. This means that respondents must provide all financial information relating to price, expenses and costs in a separate file.

In this evaluation method, quality (non-price attributes) and mandatory requirements are assessed first. The Non-Price Scores are then confirmed and the Supplier Quality Premium (SQP) calculated and agreed.

Following completion of the scoring, the electronic file containing financial information is presented to the PET. The PET then ranks Proposals without any bundle discount. Following this ranking, the panel applies bundle discounts and assesses any added value items to calculate an Added Value Premium (AVP). The PET then assesses which Proposals to shortlist based on best value-for-money over the whole-of-life of the Contract(s) i.e. the scores and the total costs over the whole-of-life of the Contract(s).

 


Attachment 4

Appendix 3 - Kerbside collection services offered or planned by other Councils

 

Appendix 3: Kerbside collection services offered or planned by other Councils

Christchurch

Current service

Service changes

Type: Recycling

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 240l wheelie bin for co-mingled recycling (paper, cardboard, cans, and glass), can opt for larger or smaller bin

N/A

Type: Rubbish

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 140l wheelie bin, can opt for larger or smaller bin

N/A

Type: Food and garden waste

Frequency: Weekly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 80l wheelie bin, can opt for a larger organics bin

N/A

 

Timaru

Current service

Service changes

Type: Recycling

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 140l wheelie bin for co-mingled recycling (paper, cardboard, cans, and glass), can opt for a larger bin

N/A

Type: Rubbish

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 140l wheelie bin

N/A

Type: Food and garden waste

Frequency: Weekly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 140l wheelie bin, can opt for a larger bin

N/A

 

Dunedin

Current service

Service changes

Type: Recycling

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 240l wheelie bin for mixed recycling (paper, cardboard, cans, plastics), can opt for smaller bin, crate for glass only

N/A

Type: Rubbish

Frequency: Weekly

Funding: PAYT

Methodology: rubbish bag but residents can opt for private bin collection service

In early 2020, consulted on feedback for change to rubbish collection, with bags to be replaced by a weekly or fortnightly rates-funded wheelie bin collection. Formal consultation to be done as part of the LTP 2021, rollout potentially in 2022/23.

 

In early 2020, consulted on feedback for potential introduction of a rates-funded food and garden waste wheelie bin service. Formal consultation to be done as part of the LTP 2021, rollout potentially in 2022/23.

 

Auckland

Current service

Service changes

Type: Recycling

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: various sizes of wheelie bin for co-mingled recycling (paper, cardboard, cans, plastics, and glass)

N/A

Type: Rubbish

Frequency: Weekly

Funding: Rates or PAYT (depending on area)

Methodology: wheelie bins or rubbish bags (depending on area)

Rubbish collections to be standardised to PAYT bins from 1 October 2021 (choice of bin size 80l, 120l, 240l)

 

Type: Food waste
rolled out progressively across the city

Frequency: Weekly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: small food bin

 

Hamilton

Current service

Service changes

Type: Recycling

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 240l wheelie bin for mixed recycling (paper, cardboard, cans, plastics), crate for glass only

New system has been in place since 1 September 2020, previously crate for co-mingled recycling

 

 

 

Type: Rubbish

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 120l wheelie bin

New system has been in place since 1 September 2020, previously rubbish bag collection

Type: Food waste

Frequency: Weekly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: small food bin

New system has been in place since 1 September 2020, no previous food waste collection service

 

Tauranga

Current service

Service changes

Type: Recycling

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: glass only, no Council service for mixed recycling

 

New service to commence 1 July 2021 - (decision pending)

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 240l wheelie bin for mixed recycling (paper, cardboard, cans, plastics), can opt for smaller bin, crate for glass only

Type: Rubbish

Frequency: Weekly

Funding: PAYT

Methodology: rubbish bag but residents can opt for private bin collection service

New service to commence 1 July 2021 - (decision pending)

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 140l wheelie bin, can opt for larger or smaller bin

 

New service to commence 1 July 2021 - (decision pending)

Type: Food waste

Frequency: Weekly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: small food bin

 

New service to commence 1 July 2021

New service to commence 1 July 2021 - (decision pending)

Type: Green waste

Frequency: Four-weekly

Funding: Rates, but opt-in

Methodology: 240l wheelie bin

 

Rotorua

Current service

Service changes

Type: Recycling

Frequency: Fortnightly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 240l wheelie bin for mixed recycling (paper, cardboard, cans, plastics), crate for glass only

N/A

Type: Rubbish

Frequency: Weekly

Funding: Rates

Methodology: 120l wheelie bin, can opt for larger bin

N/A

 


Attachment 5

Appendix 4 - Non Standard Service Provision

 

Appendix 4: Non-standard household situation analysis

Some properties and households have certain challenges for kerbside waste collection servicing, when compared with the average household. This includes multi-unit dwellings, properties alongside private and rural roads, and properties with steep or long drive ways.

Potential solutions are set out below for addressing relevant challenges. In all cases, before any solutions are finalised and agreed, an on-site assessment would need to be carried out.

Multi-unit dwellings (MUD), including retirement villages and apartments

Challenge

Description

Possible solutions

Space

Insufficient space to store individual bins for each household

Could offer MUDs the option of using larger bins in a centralised (potentially lockable) location instead of each household having individual bins/crates. However, if there is less bin capacity than their allowance under their rates, this would not reduce the cost of their service.

 

Access

Narrow access, or bins stored in basements with low roof that standard collection truck cannot access

Contractor walks into basement or property and wheels bins out to the kerbside for emptying.

 

Cost of service

MUDs are currently serviced under commercial contracts with private waste companies, meaning they are charged based on the number of bins they have on site (rather than the number of households), and at commercial rates.

MUDs are charged the same as others, per household. However, due to the economies of scale in a rates-funded system, servicing costs for all households competitive.

 

 

Private roads

Challenge

Description

Possible solutions

Access

Some private roads are unsafe (eg limited room to turn standard collection truck)

Contractor to use smaller trucks to service those properties

Damage to road

Council could be liable in case of damage to the private road

Council to obtain waivers from residents. Where waivers cannot be obtained, affected residents would have to take bins to nearest public road.


 

Other

Challenge

Description

Possible solutions

Safety issues along rural roads

Some rural roads are unsafe for collection vehicles to stop frequently (eg Wainuiomata Coast Road)

Contractor to use smaller vehicles to service those properties individually, or a dedicated lockable collection point with larger shared bins could be established.

Steep, unsealed or long drive way

Difficulties for residents to wheel out bin to kerbside

Bin hooks available for residents (cars, vans, utes, or ride-on) to tow the wheelie bins to the kerbside, even for vehicles without a tow bar. These are commercially available (eg bin towa, bin hook).

Residents could store bins at the end of their drive (eg in a small lock up).

Assisted wheel-in and wheel-out service for residents meeting relevant eligibility criteria at no additional cost.

Disability

Resident unable to wheel bin to kerbside

Assisted wheel-in and wheel-out service for residents meeting relevant eligibility criteria at no additional cost.

 

 

 

          


MEMORANDUM                                                  74                                               15 September 2020

Our Reference          20/1022

TO:                      Mayor and Councillors

Hutt City Council

FROM:                Kate Glanville

DATE:                08 September 2020

SUBJECT:           Electoral Voting System

 

 

Recommendation

That Council resolves to undertake a poll of electors on the electoral system to be run in conjunction with the 2022 triennial local government elections to be held on 8 October 2022.

 

Purpose of Memorandum

1.    To consider the recommended item ‘Electoral Voting System’ from the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee dated 7 September 2020.

Background

2.    A report from Council’s Electoral Officer was considered at the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee meeting held on 7 September 2020.

3.    The officer’s recommendations in the report were as follows:

That the Committee:

(i)    adopts one of the following options that are available to Council under the Local Electoral Act 2001 in determining the electoral system to be used in the triennial general elections for the Hutt City Council and its Community Boards from 2022:

 

(i)    to resolve to continue with the status quo of using the First Past the Post electoral system for the next triennial general election in 2022;

(ii)   to resolve to change the electoral system to Single Transferable Vote for the next two triennial general elections in 2022 and 2025; or

(iii)  to resolve to undertake a poll of electors on the electoral system to be used for the next two local triennial elections in 2022 and 2025, noting that this option will cost $175,000 for which there is no current budget provision; and

(ii)   notes that a do-nothing approach has the same effect as resolving to continue with the status quo, with the use of the FPP electoral system continuing.

 

4.    The Committee recommended to Council the following:

RECOMMENDED: (Cr Mitchell/Cr Briggs)           Minute No. PFSC 20514

 

“That the Committee recommends that Council resolves to undertake a poll of electors on the electoral system to be run in conjunction with the 2022 triennial local government elections to be held on 8 October 2022.”

 

5.    The reason the recommendation needs to be considered at this time is so that the decision can be included in the public notice that will be published later this week.

 

 

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Kate Glanville

Senior Democracy Advisor

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved By: Bruce Hodgins

Electoral Officer



[1] The margin of error is +/- 1.56%

[2] 0% indicates that there were responses but the % was less than 0.5% so rounds to 0%. If no one in a group responds then a ‘—‘ is used.

[3] The margin of error is +/- 1.56%