Agenda of City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 16

24/2/2021

REPORT TITLE: Request for Speed Limit Reduction 490 to 601 Huon Road South Hobart

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager City Mobility

Director City Planning

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to advise the Council that as result of reviews to speed behaviours on Huon Road at South Hobart, it is recommended to lower the speed limit between two existing 60km/hour zones from 70km/ hour to 60km/ hour.

1.2. The section of road between 490 Huon Road and 601 Huon Road is approximately 2.491 km in length, and currently signed at 70km/hour. However, in the radar results from 25 May to 1 June 2020, 15% of users travelled above the signed limit including up to 102 km/hour.

1.3. A Road Safety Audit was undertaken by consultants, Pitt and Sherry in October 2020 from 432 Huon Road and the Jackson Bend Track (first bend south of the Strickland Avenue/ Huon Road intersection). The report found that the road configuration and condition was deficient on a range of measures when considered in terms of the 70 km/hour limit.

1.4. The speed reduction will support safety outcomes for all road users in accordance with Tasmanian Department of State Growth Towards Zero Action Plan 2020-2024, by providing for consistency in speed limit signage in this peri-urban location, and will decrease the severity of injury and likelihood for death due to the reduction in kinetic forces in crashes.

2. Report Summary

2.1. From the intersection with Congress Street, Huon Road begins to ascend. Within approximately 560 metres, the character of the road changes from suburban to suburban fringe, often referred to as peri-urban. The residential uses become more-sparse and driveways connect to Huon Road at irregular locations consistent with the subdivision layout of small collections of houses on either side of the road through the ascent to the connection with Strickland Avenue.

2.2. The City of Hobart has received numerous request to apply to the Transport Commissioner to improve conditions and lower the speed limit on the existing 70km/hour zone between approximately 490 and 601 Huon Road, South Hobart including:

2.3. As a result of resident representations, City of Hobart including the Traffic Engineering Unit undertook the following actions:

· Individual response to each complainant confirming the suitability of the speed limit at 70km/hour;

· Site visits including the identification of capital improvements to the road such as uphill bicycle lanes and motorcycle rail guard;

· Review of road configuration in accordance with Australian Standard - Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Speed controls (AS1742.4);

· Road Safety Audit by Pitt and Sherry Traffic engineering consultants.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The report be received and noted.

2. The General Manager be authorised to make application on behalf of the City of Hobart to the Transport Commission for speed limit changes broadly in keeping with the proposed changes described in Attachment B.

4. Background

4.1. On 5 November 2019, Senior Traffic Engineer, Owen Gervasoni advised a resident by email:

The guidance for the setting of speed limits in Australia is outlined in the Australian Standard AS1742.4. The speed limit to be set in that standard are:

· 100 km/h on rural arterial roads (less than 20 residences per km)

· 80 or 90 km/h on urban or rural arterial roads in sparsely built up areas (more than

· 20 residences per km, but less than 25% of the road frontage on both sides of the

· road is developed);

· 70 or 80 km/h on urban arterial roads in partially built up areas (between 25% and

· 90% on the road frontage on both sides of the road is developed);

· 60 km/h on urban arterial roads in fully built up areas (more than 90% road frontage on both sides of the road is developed).

Huon Road between Hillsborough Road and Strickland Avenue has less than 25% of road frontage developed, and would just have the more than 20 residences per km that allow it to avoid falling into the default 100 km/h basket.

So basically, the Australian Standards call up either a 80 or 90 km/h speed limit as the suggested limit for this road. The Australian Standards do allow the posted speed limit to deviate by +/- 10 km/h from this suggested limit.

The 70 km/h posted speed limit appears to be the lowest speed limit that could be applied based on the standards. One of the general principles of the determining of speed limits is that the speed limit shall not be set so low that a significant number of drivers will not be able to understand the reason for it and hence not observe it. It is my opinion that setting a speed limit of 60 km/h or less would not be credible to drivers, and that well-meaning and reasonable drivers would not observe the speed limit. As previously described, the power to make changes to speed limits does not reside with Council, rather it rests with the Department of State Growth / Transport Commission. It is my view that a change in speed limit is not appropriate, and therefore I am not able to request a change in speed limit from the Department of State Growth / Transport Commission.

4.2. In October 2019, the Pitt and Sherry Road Safety Audit found that:

During the road safety audit, a number of common road safety hazards were identified as follows:

· Limited forward sight distance and non-desirable curve radius around bends

· Limited sight distance from property accesses, especially in the vicinity of bends

· Lack of sufficient drainage along the road

· Vegetation growth and rockfall along the road

· Power poles and trees located within clear zones

· Lack of edge lines, shoulder widening and Raised Reflective Pavement Markers (RRPM) along sections of the road; and

· Lack of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists including a lack of lighting and protection.

The identified road safety hazards are in line with the issues identified by City of Hobart and issues arisen from complaints to the City of Hobart. There is an opportunity to mitigate cyclist and pedestrian issues by providing better facilities such as the provision of cycle lanes, especially for uphill sections, and the provision of footpaths, footpath barriers, pedestrian crossing facilities and lighting.

4.3. Throughout 2020, City of Hobart Council has commenced its’ response to the Road Safety Audit findings by planning for uphill bicycle passing facilities as indicated in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 Proposed City of Hobart Capital Works Project - Huon Road Uphill Bicycle Passing Facilities

4.4. A vehicle radar was installed for one week from 25 May to 1 June 2020 (Saturday to Saturday) in the 70km/hr section of Huon Road between 490 and 601 Huon Road.

4.5. The radar results indicate that the 85 percentile of vehicles speed was 67km/hr.

However, the suitability of an 85^th percentile methodology for accepting road safety is not necessarily suitable to all road conditions. 490 – 601 Huon Road has specific conditions which affect road safety including:

· Incline and alignment (sightlines)

· Road width and shoulder condition (unformed gravel and deep stormwater culverts)

· Likelihood of fauna presence

· Lack of lighting

· Vegetation overhang

· Ice slip

· No cycling facilities

· No pedestrian facilities

4.6. The radar results indicate that there is a behaviour for speeding in the section of road between 490 and 601 Huon Road, including beyond the 70km/hour speed limit.

Figure 2 City of Hobart Radar results 25 May to 1 June 2020 where vehicles exceeded the speed limit

4.7. As speed increases, both the incidence and severity of road injury also increase. Even occupants of motor vehicles face a sharp rise in fatality risk when speeds exceed 40 km/h if the vehicle crashes into a rigid object, such as a tree or pole (Archer, Fotheringham, Symmons, & Corben, 2008).

4.8. Crash Statistics for 490 – 601 Huon Road dating from 2015 were provided by the Department of State Growth Crash Data Unit 16 June 2020 as follows:

Figure 3 Department of State Growth Crash data from 2015 by type and time of day

Figure 4 Department of State Growth Crash data from 2015 by location

4.9. In addition, in 2014, a major incident to a pedestrian causing critical injuries and hospitalisation. Refer to Attachment A.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The recommendations need to be supported by a report from the road owner that includes the following information regarding the characteristics of the road:

· Road function

· Road standard

· Road owner

· Roadside development

· Road alignment

· Road accesses / intersections

· Traffic volume

· Pedestrians

· Length

· Adjacent speed zones

· Proposed signage locations

· Crash history

5.2. In relation to signage types the following is recommended:

5.2.1. Replace the 70km/hour speed limit signage from 490-601 Huon Road South Hobart with 60km/hour speed limit signage thereby lowering the speed limit for that section of road by 10/km/hour.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Matters of road safety are supported by Strategic Objective 2.1 of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015‑2025 as follows:

“2.1 A fully accessible and connected city environment.

2.1.3 Identify and Implement infrastructure improvements to enhance road safety.”

6.2. The desire to reduce the speed limit from 490 – 601 Huon Road by 10km/hour is suitable given:

· The function of the road as a multi-use access and recreational corridor;

· The likelihood for unexpected conditions on the road (pedestrians, fauna and ice);

· The existing condition of the road facilities particularly for pedestrians and cyclists;

· The lack of lighting;

· Consistency of speed limits at 60km/hour to the peri-urban extent of the city through to the Ferntree Tavern.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Nil for Financial Year 2019-2020.

7.1.2. Should Council decide that a change to the current speed limits be requested of the Transport Commissioner then the preparation of an appropriate supporting report would need to be undertaken including costings for the proposed signage changes. The cost of this would be cover within the existing operating budget.

7.1.3. For the Financial Year 2020-2021 an estimated budget of $5,000 is proposed.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Subject to Section 59 of the Traffic Act 1925, the City of Hobart has responsibility for the care control and management of local highways (such as Huon Road) under Section 21 and 30 of the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982.

8.2. The Transport Commission, pursuant to Section 59 of the Traffic Act 1925 has issued a direction to Tasmanian Highway Authorities (Transport Commission Direction – 2014/2) that requires those authorities to only install traffic signs and linemarking in compliance with the Australian Standard Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, consider the AustRoads national guidelines, and to comply with Department of State Growth specifications and standard drawings.

8.3. The City of Hobart has a responsibility to consider and respond to issues raised by the community on our road network.

8.4. For matters raised concerning traffic signs that the City of Hobart has authority to alter / install, the risk to Council is managed by relying on professional advice about the suitability of a proposed change, and by installing signage that complies with the Transport Commission instruction issued under Section 59 of the Traffic Act 1925.

8.5. For matters raised concerning traffic signs that the City of Hobart does not have the authority to alter (regulatory speed limit signs, traffic signals and parking controls on State roads with a speed limit over 70 km/h), the risk to Council is managed by relying on professional advice and either referring the matter to the Department of State Growth with a request to make alterations, or advising that the City of Hobart does not support a change, but that the party making the request may contact the Department of State Growth directly if they wish to pursue the matter.

9. Delegation

9.1. The responsibility for the approval of speed limits sits with the Transport Commissioner, within the Department of State Growth.

9.2. As the road authority responsible for the management and maintenance of Hobart Central Business District and Retail Precincts Centre environments, the Council can request changes to speed limits on Council roads.

9.3. The Manager City Mobility and all positions to which that position reports have delegation to approve changes to signage and linemarking on those public streets for which the City of Hobart is the Highway Authority (except for speed limits, traffic signals and parking controls on State roads with a speed limit over 70 km/h).

As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.

Louisa Carter

Manager City Mobility

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 19 February 2021

File Reference: F21/8583

Attachment a: Hobart Teenager Critical After Being Hit by a Car ⇩

Attachment b: Proposed Speed Limit Reduction 490-601 Huon Road ⇩

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 28

24/2/2021

REPORT TITLE: Pura Milk Factory, Lenah Valley - Heavy Vehicle Use of Augusta Road - Status Update

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Roads and Capital Works

Director City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The Council, at its meeting of 8 July 2019, resolved a series of actions for the Response to the Petition – Pura Milk Factory Lenah Valley – Heavy Vehicles, one of them being:

1.1.1. The City continue to work with Pura Milk in respect to mitigating the effects of noise from heavy vehicle movements within the Augusta Road/Giblin Street corridor, with a further report to be provided to the Council.

1.2. This report is to provide an update on the matter.

2. Report Summary

2.1. A report was provided to the City Infrastructure Committee meeting on the 19 June 2019 in response to a petition tabled at the Council meeting of 15 April 2019, objecting to the permitted operation of B-double trucks servicing the Pura Milk factory located in Lenah Valley.

2.2. The City has investigated various grant funding program opportunities to fund the Augusta Road resurfacing project, however the outcome has not been favourable.

2.3. The City has continued to work with Pura Milk and has added additional conditions on the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) permits to assist with reduction of noise levels from heavy vehicle truck movements.

2.4. Augusta Road will continue to be managed as per the City’s Road Asset Management Plan.

3. Recommendation

That the status update outlining the City’s actions in respect to the heavy vehicle usage of August Road, Lenah Valley in relation to operations at the Pura Milk factory, be received and noted.

4. Background

4.1. A report was provided to the City Infrastructure Committee meeting on the 19 June 2019 in response to a petition tabled at the Council meeting of 15 April 2019, objecting to the permitted operation of B-double trucks servicing the Pura Milk factory located in Lenah Valley.

4.2. The Council, at its meeting of 8 July 2019, resolved that:

1. The Council decline the following requests of the petitioners, on the grounds outlined in the officer’s report, listed as item 6.4 of the City Infrastructure Committee agenda of 19 June 2019.

(i) The immediate cessation of Pura truck movement between the hours of 7pm and 7am in the Augusta Road/Giblin Street corridor.

(ii) The immediate introduction of a 5-tonne heavy vehicle weight limit in the Augusta Road/Giblin Street corridor.

(iii) The immediate resurfacing of Augusta Road with noise abating bitumen between Edge Avenue and Giblin Street.

2. The City continue to work with Pura Milk in respect to mitigating the effects of noise from heavy vehicle movements within the Augusta Road/Giblin Street corridor, with a further report to be provided to the Council.

3. The Council write to the Federal Member for Clark, Mr Andrew Wilkie, to lobby the Federal Government on behalf of the City to seek funding to resurface Augusta Road with noise abating bitumen between Edge Avenue and Giblin Street.

4. The petitioners be advised of the Council decision.

(i) The correspondence to include the Council’s intent to write to the Federal Member for Clark seeking funding to resurface Augusta Road with noise abating bitumen between Edge Avenue and Giblin Street.

4.3. The resolution has been actioned accordingly.

Grant Funding and Assistance from Federal Government

4.4. The Council wrote to the Federal Member of Clark, Mr Wilkie detailing of the Council’s decision and seeking assistance from Mr Wilkie to secure funding for the road resurfacing work on Augusta Road.

4.4.1 The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr McCormack has since responded to the request by Mr Wilkie detailing the various grant funding available through the Australian Government Grant Program, more specifically the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program (HVSPP).

Mr McCormack also encourages the City to consider the use of the Roads to Recovery (R2R) funding for the project.

4.4.2 The City progressed with the application of Round Seven of the HVSPP however the road resurfacing project at Augusta Road was determined to be ineligible for the grant funding as the funding is mainly applicable for the roads that are on the National Land Transport Network such as Brooker Highway.

The objective of the program is to increase the productivity and safety of the heavy vehicle operation, which the project did not qualify.

4.4.3 The limited R2R funding was also considered however was channelled to other higher priority projects which has poor road conditions and greater safety concerns.

4.5. The City has also submitted the Augusta Road resurfacing project to various grant funding program that has been announced by the Federal Government as part of the economic stimulus program in response to the impact of Covid-19.

However the outcome has not be favourable.

Pura Milk

4.6. The City continued to work with Pura Milk and a high level meeting carried out on the 28 August 2020 between the Lord Mayor, City’s representative and Pura Milk.

4.7. The meeting resulted in a positive outcome, with Pura Milk committed with assisting the City to mitigate the effect of noise from heavy vehicle movements within Augusta Road/Giblin Street corridor.

4.8. At the time of the preparation of the City Infrastructure Committee meeting dated 19 June 2019, there were three long term NHVR license being issued to the heavy vehicle operators to access Augusta Road and Giblin Street, being:

4.8.1 SRT Logistics

4.8.2 Hingston Transport

4.8.3 Booth Transport Pty Ltd

4.9. Hingston Transport:

The NHVR permit has since expired and has not been renewed.

There are currently two NHVR permit remaining:

4.9.1. SRT Logistic:

The permit was due in October 2020 and has since been renewed.

The applicant originally applied for a 3 year extension but the City recommended the approval of a one year permit and the addition of the following conditions:

· Maximum speed limit of 20km/hr from 9pm to 6am between Giblin Street and Edge Avenue.

· No use of air brakes in residential area.

The first condition was accepted by NHVR but the second condition was rejected by NHVR as it was deemed to be an unlawful condition.

4.9.2. Booth Transport:

The permit expired in April 2020 and was automatically renewed by NHVR with the new permit now expiring on the 6 February 2021.

The impact of this to the noise level is less significant as the existing permit condition does not allow any travel between 9pm to 6am.

4.10. The City remains committed to help mitigate noise issues of the road.

The new permit that reduces the travelling speed limit from 50km/hr to 20km/hr between 9pm and 6am will have some positive impact to the reduction of noise level.

There are various articles and studies that support this.

One being VicRoads Traffic Noise Guideline published on April 2013.

4.11. The City will continue to work with Pura Milk to identify any possible actions that may assist to reduce the noise levels from the heavy vehicle movement on Augusta Road.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the management of the surface of Augusta Road continue as per the Roads Asset Management Plan.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The following are the relevant key strategies from Capital City Strategic Plan 2019-29:

Strategies 5.2.3 Develop, upgrade and maintain the City’s network of roads, bridges, cycleways, footpaths and walkways.

Strategies 5.2.4 Identify and implement infrastructure improvements to enhance access and road safety and reduce air and noise pollution.

Strategies 7.3.1 Enhance asset management practices, to ensure assets meet future needs and respond to the impacts of climate change.

Strategies 8.1.1 Practise integrity, accountability, strong ethics and transparency in the City’s governance, policymaking and operations.

Strategies 8.1.2 Practise and communicate good city governance and decision-making.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1 Not applicable.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.1.2 Not applicable.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.1.3 Maintenance on Augusta Road continues to be funded through the annual operating budget.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. No level, risk or legislative considerations identified.

9. Delegation

9.1. The matter is for the Committee to receive and note.

Mao Cheng

Manager Roads and Capital Works

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 19 February 2021

File Reference: F20/135060

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 42

24/2/2021

REPORT TITLE: State Government Waste Announcements - Container Refund Scheme and Waste to Landfill Levy

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Cleansing & Solid Waste Policy Coordinator

Manager Cleansing and Solid Waste

Director City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of recent announcements by the State Government to introduce initiatives in the Waste field, namely a Container Refund Scheme for beverage containers, and a Waste Levy on all waste to landfill and seek endorsement of the City’s proposed feedback to the Local Government Association of Tasmania.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The State Government announced on 4 February 2021 two key initiatives under its draft Waste Action Plan;

2.1.1. A draft Waste and Resource Recovery Bill, which will allow for the introduction of a Waste Levy in Tasmania, and;

2.1.2. A preferred model for a Container Refund Scheme

Waste Levy

2.2. The Waste Levy is scheduled to be implemented in November 2021.

2.3. The rate of the waste Levy is proposed to commence at $20 per tonne, increasing to $60 per tonne over a 4 year timeframe.

2.4. The Levy will apply at the point of disposal, and only applies to items landfilled.

It will not apply to green waste/organics that are composted, kerbside recycling, or other recycled waste such as metals, concrete and clean fill.

2.5. The City as a whole generates annually around 12,000 tonnes of waste that is landfilled, with the majority of waste landfilled by the City generated through its kerbside waste collection service.

2.6. City Officers are in broad support of the draft Bill on the basis that:

2.6.1. The funding collected through the imposition of a Waste to Landfill Levy be fully re-invested for use in waste management and minimisation;

2.6.2. Funding collected from the imposition of the Levy be used to reimburse regions for the loss of waste levies currently in place, and reimburse Councils who have invested in regional waste initiatives where an existing levy is not in place;

2.6.3. Consideration be given to the implementation of the Levy at an initial rate of $20 per tonne, increasing annually by $10 per tonne (to a maximum of $60 per tonne) rather than a $20 increase every second year, as currently proposed; and

2.6.4. The proposed commencement of the Levy on 1 November 2021 be noted, however kerbside collection of waste to landfill be excluded from the Levy until the 1 July 2022 (to align with Councils’ annual rates notices).

Container Refund Scheme

2.7. The Container Refund Scheme is scheduled to be implemented in 2022, and a preferred model has been selected by the State Government.

2.8. The preferred model is a split responsibility model involving a Scheme Coordinator (administration and finance) and a Network Operator (that operates the network of collection points). This model is in use in NSW and the ACT.

2.9. The Refund applicable will be 10 cents per eligible container.

2.10. City Officers are in broad support of the Scheme on the basis that:

2.10.1. The operational model has split responsibility between the administration and finance of the Scheme and the network operator; and

2.10.2. There be a broad range of accessible collection points for the containers to be returned.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The report on the State Government Waste Announcements - Container Refund Scheme and Waste to Landfill Levy, be received and noted.

2. The following feedback be provided to the Local Government Association of Tasmania on the proposed implementation of a Container Refund Scheme and the draft Waste and Resource Recovery Bill.

Container Refund Scheme

(i) The implementation of the Scheme is supported on the basis that:

(a) The operational model has split responsibility between the administration and finance of the Scheme and the network operator; and

(b) There be a broad range of accessible collection points for the containers to be returned.

Draft Waste and Resource Recovery Bill

(ii) The Draft Bill is supported on the basis that:

(a) The funding collected through the imposition of a Waste to Landfill Levy be fully re-invested for use in waste management and minimisation;

(b) Funding collected from the imposition of the Levy be used to reimburse regions for the loss of waste levies currently in place, and reimburse Councils who have invested in regional waste initiatives where an existing levy is not in place;

· Such reimbursements should reflect population and waste tonnage within the regions.

(c) Consideration be given to the implementation of the Levy at an initial rate of $20 per tonne, increasing annually by $10 per tonne (to a maximum of $60 per tonne) rather than a $20 increase every second year, as currently proposed; and

(d) The proposed commencement of the Levy on 1 November 2021 be noted, however kerbside collection of waste to landfill be excluded from the Levy until the 1 July 2022 (to align with Councils’ annual rates notices).

4. Background

4.1. The State Government released a draft Waste Action Plan in 2019, aimed at providing a framework to address waste and resource recovery challenges within Tasmania.

4.2. A report was provided to the Council’s City Infrastructure Committee on 21 August 2019 on the draft Waste Action Plan, and the City of Hobart in collaboration with the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) and other councils, provided a response to the draft plan to the State Government shortly after its release.

4.3. Two of the key actions within the plan are the implementation of a Waste Levy by 2021, and the implementation of a Container Refund Scheme by 2022.

The City is supportive of both actions, and has been lobbying the State for a number of years for an appropriate Waste to Landfill Levy.

4.4. Both initiatives have been released for comment with LGAT to collate local government response for submission to the State Government.

Waste Levy

4.5. The Minister for Environment and Parks announced on 4 February 2021 the release of its draft Waste and Resource Recovery Bill, which will allow for the introduction of a Waste Levy in Tasmania.

https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/environmental-management/waste-and-resource-recovery-bill

The Bill also provides for the formation of a Waste and Resource Recovery Board, which will oversee the draft Waste Action Plan, and allocate funds raised by the levy.

4.6. By placing a higher cost on disposal, waste levies provide a financial incentive to divert waste from landfill, and promote re-use and recycling avenues, while also providing funding for waste and resource recovery initiatives.

4.7. The Levy will apply at the point of disposal, and will only apply on waste disposed/buried.

It does not apply to green waste and organics composted, clean fill, or various recycling streams such as kerbside recycling, cardboard, concrete and steel recycled.

4.8. The Tasmanian waste levy is currently proposed to start at $20 per tonne, and increase to $60 per tonne over a 4 year time frame.

The staged increase is intended to give businesses and local government time to plan for alternatives to landfill or to cater for increased costs.

4.9. It is estimated that around 450,000 tonnes of waste is disposed of per year in Tasmania.

The EPA estimate that the waste levy will generate 8.3M in revenue in its first full year, and 16.8M in its fifth full year.

4.10. The EPA has detailed indicative funding sources for the levy collected, being the administration of the Board, EPA waste regulation, litter and illegal dumping, funding the regional waste groups, and the remainder to a Waste Fund.

These are indicative only, and the City, through LGAT will be seeking a significant portion to be directed to the regional waste groups and the Waste Fund.

In 2019-20, it is estimated that $1.54B in funds was raised through landfill levies across Australia.

4.11. Of the $1.54B raised, an estimated $569M, or 37% nationally was reinvested into activities relating to waste and recycling, state EPA’s or climate change activities.

By state, the re-investment level was estimated at 19.9% in NSW, 25% in WA, 72% in Victoria, 73% in South Australia, and 77% in Queensland.

Funds not reinvested are either retained in consolidated state revenue, or retained in nominated funds such as Victoria’s Sustainability Fund, or SA Green Industries fund.

Waste levy rates vary around the country, and differing levies apply within states themselves, such as between metro and non-metro areas.

The following diagram produced by the National Waste & Recycling Industry Council in their October 2019 Review of Waste Levies in Australia provides an overview of levies across the country in 2019-20.

4.12. There are exemptions in some jurisdictions for certain waste types, such as waste collected as a result of a natural disaster, illegal dumping, and dredge spoil.

4.13. The City will be advocating for a high level of reinvestment, at least equal to or higher than Vic, SA and QLD (over 70%).

Whichever reinvestment model is implemented by the State, there will be a secure funding source to implement waste reduction programs, reduce waste disposal, and drive government and business investment in the waste avoidance sector.

4.14. For all external customers to the City’s landfill and waste transfer station, the City will effectively be acting as a collection agent, collecting the levy from the customer, and transferring direct to the State.

This will have no financial impact on the City.

4.15. Waste Levies have been used to fund various waste management programs and projects across the country such as:

· Kerbside FOGO services and organics treatment infrastructure.

· Illegal dumping and litter prevention programs.

· Infrastructure and incentives for large scale facilities for resource recovery and recycling projects.

· Assistance to Local Government and industry to transition and modernise following changes to international markets.

· Management of contaminated land and high risk hazardous wastes.

· Implementation of a Container Deposit Scheme (WA).

4.16. It should be noted that while the waste levy will be implemented in late 2021, it is not expected that revenue will be available to the waste sector immediately.

4.17. There are three regional waste groups in Tasmania that have all at some time charged a landfill levy.

Any such levies will cease to be applied once the state-based levy comes in.

Initial advice is that the State will provide the regional waste groups with funds from the levy revenue equivalent to what they were previously recovering, or in the case of the southern region (currently not applying a levy), equivalent to what they are contributing to the southern waste group and expending on regional waste programs.

4.18. Given that there will be a reduced income from an incomplete first year of levy application (6-7 months only if starting in November 2021), a requirement to direct funds to the three waste regions, and administration such as setting up the Waste and Resource Recovery Board, it’s likely that funds from the waste levy may not be available for the first couple of years of its implementation.

4.19. Most states set aside a specific fund or funds for collection of levies over time, such as the Waste Less Recycle More in NSW, the Sustainability Fund in Victoria, and the Green Industry Fund in SA.

Funds such as these continue to receive levy income annually, added to existing balances, and can hold levies in reserve enabling multi-year programs to be implemented.

The EPA has indicated there will be a Waste Fund, which will then apportion funds to various projects and sectors.

4.20. The Waste Levy is scheduled for introduction in November 2021 however it is the City’s submission that kerbside collection of waste to landfill be excluded from the Levy until the 1 July 2022 (to align with Councils’ annual rates notices).

Container Refund Scheme

4.21. The Minster also announced on 4 February 2021 the government’s preferred model for a Container Refund Scheme.

https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/environmental-management/container-refund-scheme

4.22. The scheme will see a refund of 10 cents for all eligible drink containers returned to a designated return point.

4.23. The scheme aims to reduce litter and increase recycling rates by placing an increased value on empty containers.

This has a multiple impact of incentivising people to keep hold of containers and return to a collection point for a refund.

The secondary benefit is people are likely to seek out and collect littered containers to redeem for a refund.

4.24. The chosen model is a split responsibility scheme, involving a Scheme Coordinator who will run the administration and finance of the scheme, and a separate Network Operator who will run a network of collection points and ensure the recycling of materials collected.

4.25. The model preferred by the State Government is already operating in NSW, and the ACT, and being developed in Victoria.

A NSW EPA Regulatory Impact Study into their Container Deposit Scheme illustrates the financial and material flows under the scheme as follows:

Collection points will likely involve existing facilities such as waste management centres, but may also involve reverse vending machines (commonly conveniently placed at supermarket carparks in NSW) and other local community group locations.

4.26. The various types of refunds available are not yet known, however in other states refunds are not limited to cash, and can include a donation to charity, or redeemable voucher for use at participating businesses.

4.27. The scheme will benefit local community groups who will be able to accept donations of beverage containers that they can then collect a refund on.

Groups and clubs that have cafeteria and bar facilities will also benefit from the collection of consumed containers on premises and at events.

4.28. There are limitations to the containers eligible for a refund under the scheme.

As the scheme is based on reducing litter, it aims to capture beverage containers most likely to be consumed outside of the home.

The parameters of the scheme are not based on material type, such as plastic, glass, or steel, and there will be cases where similar containers are made of the same material, with some eligible and others not.

A couple of examples from existing schemes are listed below:

Eligible for refund Not Eligible

Glass soft drink/beer bottle Glass wine bottle

Small juice containers Juice containers over 1L

Flavoured milk container under 1L Flavoured milk over 1L

Any plain milk container

4.29. The State Government will need to ensure that there are sufficient collection points installed around the state to allow maximum participation.

4.30. The scheme will result in less material being collected by the City through the kerbside recycling service.

The Council is aware that the cost to process recycling has in recent times increased significantly.

A reduction in the amount of material collected will lead to a reduction in the cost to undertake the kerbside recycling service.

4.31. There will be eligible containers remaining within the kerbside recycling stream.

Not everyone will participate and prefer the convenience of the kerbside service.

In these instances under other models, audits are used as a basis to estimate the average number of eligible containers per tonne of material delivered to the recycling facility – it is simply too hard to count individual items when delivered in mixed kerbside recycling loads of up to 4 tonnes.

This estimated rate is applied when calculating the refund applicable to the recycling contractor from the Scheme Coordinator.

A contract negotiation will be required to agree on what part of this might be returned to the City.

4.32. The City’s kerbside data indicates that the service is collecting the following amounts of waste materials that will contain eligible containers:

Material	% of total stream	Estimate of eligible containers within stream	Possible cost saving if removed (per year)
Glass	44%	30%	$83,000
Aluminium	1%	90%	$5,500
PET plastic	2%	50%	$3,000
HDPE plastic	2%	25%	$1,500
Mixed plastic	5%	20%	$6,000
			$99,000

4.33. Glass is by far the most prevalent item in the kerbside waste stream, and it is estimated that small glass beverage containers account for just under half of all glass, the remainder being wine, spirits, and jars.

Nearly all aluminium is beverage cans, and there are very few steel beverage containers.

Around half of the PET plastic would be small enough beverage containers to be eligible (water, soft drinks) with the remainder being too large (1.25L soft drink, 2L juice).

The majority of HDPE are plain milk containers, and as such not eligible.

There will likely be no eligible paper or cardboard containers.

4.34. Given there will be reduced volume in the kerbside recycling stream, it is expected that there will be service efficiencies gained through the collection of less material, enabling trucks to collect more bins and reduce fuel usage from fewer hauls to the recycling contractor.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The City will contribute to the development of both the Container Refund Scheme and Waste Levy through workshops with the State Government and other parties, including LGAT and industry.

5.2. The weighbridge software operated at McRobies Gully has the capability to incorporate a Waste Levy, charged in addition to the regular tipping fee.

5.3. The City already operates a range of recycling programs that will lessen the impact of the waste levy for both the City and customers.

These include the kerbside FOGO and recycling services, and on site recycling programs such as organics/composting, steel, concrete paint, and glass.

The levy will be applicable to all City waste buried, including kerbside waste, litter bins, street sweeping waste, and general mixed waste from Council programs and services.

The levy will not apply to recycled material such as organics from our parks and gardens, or concrete from the City’s civil works projects.

Through the recycling programs already in place, the City has significantly lessened its financial impact, by avoiding the levy on over 10,000 tonnes of material per year, with the breakdown (for 2019/20) applying as follows:

Levy Applicable

Council disposed to landfill 12,200t

Levy not applicable

Council generated and composted on site 850t

Kerbside FOGO 4,000t

Kerbside Recycling 4,570t

Concrete Recycling 1,300t

5.4. Further details on both the Container Refund Scheme, and the Waste Levy will be provided to Elected Members as they are finalised by the State Government.

5.5. The City will continue to liaise with the State Government on these initiatives, through the Southern Region MoU to work together on waste projects, coordinated by the LGAT.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. These initiatives align with the City’s Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030 and its aim of zero waste to landfill by 2030.

The development and implementation of the Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030 is identified in the City’s Strategic Plan (3.2.5).

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. No impact.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. The Waste Levy will impact future years’ financial results, applying to all council generated waste disposed of to landfill. This includes kerbside collected waste.

7.2.2. At a starting rate of $20 per tonne, the impact of the Levy on the City will be approximately $250,000.

In 2025 the impact will be approximately $720,000 if current waste disposal rates are maintained.

7.2.3. This levy will be passed onto residents who use the service.

7.2.4. It is proposed that the funding received by the State from the imposition of the Levy be used to reimburse regions for the loss of waste levies currently in place, and reimburse Councils who have invested in regional waste initiatives where an existing levy is not in place.

7.2.5. The Container Refund Scheme will likely result in reduced operating expenditure in relation to recycling processing costs, however this is yet to be determined.

A very initial estimate suggests a possible saving of $100,000 per annum might be achieved.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. No impact.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There will be legal issues to work through in regard to ownership of materials collected through the kerbside recycling system, and how the City’s contracted recycling processor recompenses the City for any eligible containers within the kerbside recycling stream.

9. Marketing and Media

9.1. There will be significant marketing and media in relation to both initiatives, however this will largely fall to the State Government to facilitate.

10. Delegation

10.1. The matter is delegated to the Council.

Jeff Holmes

Cleansing & Solid Waste Policy Coordinator

David Beard

Manager Cleansing and Solid Waste

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 19 February 2021

File Reference: F21/11118; 2016-0192

Attachment a: Draft Waste and Resource Recovery Bill - Explanatory Paper ⇩

Item No. 6.5

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 75

24/2/2021

REPORT TITLE: Hobart Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Reports: 2018 - 2019 & 2019 - 2020

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Senior Climate Change Officer

Manager Smart & Sustainable City

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This is the final report for the City’s 2010 – 2020 corporate energy and greenhouse gas program and the successful achievement of its reduction targets. It also provides the updates for the 2018 - 2019 and 2019 – 2020 annual reporting periods (Attachment’s A & B).

1.2. It has been prepared in response to a City Infrastructure Committee resolution made at its meeting of 19 September 2018, being:

“That a further report be provided in 12 months on the City’s corporate greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.”

1.3. The reporting was delayed due to the Council’s restructure and reallocation of roles and responsibilities associated with the City’s energy and greenhouse gas emissions program, followed by the Covid public health emergency in early 2020.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The 2019 - 2020 Annual Report (Attachment B to this report) shows that the City achieved its corporate energy and greenhouse gas emissions targets, from 2010 levels by 2020, reducing its:

2.1.1. Energy use by 40.4% exceeding its 35% target;

2.1.2. Greenhouse gas emissions by 19.9% exceeding its 17% target.

2.2. Annual cost savings to the City, over the duration of the program, have resulted in savings of $1.2 million per annum.

Corporate Energy Use

2.3. The corporate energy target measured energy use (electricity and liquid fuel: petrol, diesel and gas) from across the councils corporate assets and services.

2.4. The 2019-2020 report showed that the Council reduced its energy use by 40.4% from 2010 to 2020. This has resulted in savings of 263,331 GJ over the decade.

Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2.5. The corporate emissions-target measured emissions from waste decomposition in the McRobies Gully Landfill, along with emissions associated with energy use: consumption of electricity; and fuels -petrol diesel and gas; across the Council’s assets and services.

2.6. The 2019-2020 annual report shows that the City exceeded its emissions target of 17% by reducing its corporate emissions by 19.9% (4,424 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO₂-e)) from the 2009-2010 baseline year.

Energy Savings Reporting

2.7. Activities required to achieve the corporate targets were guided by the Energy Action Plans that are produced biannually, with annual update reports provided to measure progress towards its targets. Copies of the Energy Action Plans and Annual Reports are available on the City’s’ website https://www.hobartcity.com.au/City-services/Environment/Sustainable-Hobart/Reducing-the-City-of-Hobarts-energy-use.

2.8. The City’s program was widely recognised by local government across Tasmania and nationally, with knowledge and information on its actions learnings shared through Energy Tours with other southern councils. The program also informed the City’s corporate reporting requirements to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy using the Carbon Disclosure Project reporting platform.

2.9. On the 23 November 2020, the City of Hobart endorsed a 20% reduction in corporate greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 as part of the Sustainable Hobart Action Plan.

2.10. It is proposed that a further report be provided by April 2021 that identifies the next Energy Savings Action Plan measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the associated target.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. A further report be provided by April 2021 that identifies the next Energy Savings Action Plan measures to reduce corporate greenhouse gas emissions by 20% on 2020 levels by 2030.

2. Opportunities for positive media about the City’s achievements in regard to greenhouse gas emissions and energy use be sought.

4. Background

4.1. The City, in 2014, established strategic and evidence-based corporate targets for its energy use and greenhouse gas emission of 35% and 17% respectively from 2010 levels by 2020. Energy Action Plans were produced to identify biannual tranches of actions and Annual Update reports were prepared to measure progress towards the targets.

4.2. The Energy Action Plans identified specific activities to reduce corporate energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions, while the City’s Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030 incorporates actions to minimise greenhouse gas emissions related to waste.

4.3. The corporate emissions target built on an earlier target whereby the City’s emissions were successfully reduced by over 60% from 2000 levels by 2010; demonstrating a long-term commitment to continual improvement of its operations, sustainable and best practice action.

4.4. There was no previous corporate energy target (for the 2000 to 2010 period). However the inclusion of an energy target as part of the 2010‑2020 corporate targets enabled a deep dive into actions that have successfully resulted in improved energy performance across council assets and services significant cost savings to the Councils on its energy bills. It focused on the reduction of consumption of electricity and liquid fuels (diesel, petrol, gas) across corporate assets including: fleet, buildings, recreational assets, pumps and streetlights etc.

4.5. In terms of Council’s corporate emissions these are measured across two areas of emissions, those:

4.5.1. Directly emitted (Scope 1) from Council activities: methane (CH4) from the long term decomposition of waste in McRobies Gully Landfill (CH4 is 25 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide); and carbon emissions associated with combustion of fuels (petrol and diesel) for vehicles and fleet; and natural gas used in facilities; and

4.5.2. Resulting from the processes of generating, transmitting and distributing electricity (Scope 2) that is consumed across the Council’s assets: buildings, streetlights and pumps etc.

4.6. The 2018-2019 reporting cycle was delayed due to the restructure of the Council’s Divisions and the reallocation of roles and responsibilities combined with the effects of the public health emergency.

4.7. The annual reporting is also used to inform the Council’s annual reporting requirements to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, for which it is a member.

Key actions and savings

4.8. Greenhouse gas emissions from the McRobies Gully Waste Management Centre continue to decrease due to the higher amounts of waste diversion away from landfill, in part due to the new Food Organic Green Waste Organic (FOGO) Services introduced in November 2019. This was the main contributor to the reduction in emissions compared to the previous year.

4.9. Cogeneration of landfill emissions continues to show a progressive decline as legacy emissions are destroyed.

4.10. The City’s energy use also continued to decline and was 8.1% lower than the previous year. Since 2009-2010 use has been reduced by 40.4% achieving the energy reduction target of 35% in 2019-2020.

4.11. A number of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects were completed in the 2019-2020 year, though less than in previous years due to COVID19. The most significant works were heating upgrades at the Council Centre and the Town Hall, alongside Argyle Street Carpark toilet facility upgrades and LED lighting upgrades in the Elizabeth Street Mall.

4.12. The total cost of building upgrades was $143,500. This investment is expected to return $559,000 in energy savings, 780 tCO2e in greenhouse gas savings to City of Hobart over the next decade.

4.13. The City’s corporate Energy Action Plan for the period 2018 to 2020 was endorsed by the Council in October 2017. Of the actions listed in this Plan, 36 have been completed or are in progress and 28 are yet to be commenced. In addition, a further eight projects not listed in the Plan were completed.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. A further report be provided by April 2021 that identifies the next Energy Savings Action Plan measures to reduce corporate greenhouse gas emissions by 20% on 2020 levels by 2030. The Energy Savings Action Plan’s outlines the actions over the next three years to achieve the target and annual update reports measure the City’s progress towards its new target each year.

5.2. The information provided in the annual report (Attachment A to this report) will be finalised in line with corporate branding requirements and be published on the City’s website.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The projects undertaken to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions support the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015 – 2025, specifically;

6.1.1. Objective 6.3.4: Pursue corporate and community environmental sustainability.

6.1.2. Objective 6.3.3: Extend the City’s sustainability leadership in energy and closed loop resource systems.

6.1.3. Objective 6.4.1: Adopt a holistic approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation across all pillars of the strategic plan.

6.1.4. Objective 7.3.2 Enhance asset management practices, to ensure assets meet future needs and respond to the impacts of climate change.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. In 2019-2020 the funding of greenhouse gas emission and energy use reduction projects was provided from several sources, including the Greenhouse Gas Reserve Fund (which is set at $100,000 per annum), an amount of $100,000 per year to implement capital projects listed in the Energy Savings Action Plan and more significantly from project specific budget allocations.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. The primary source of energy efficiency investment is a nominal allocation of $300,000 in the Sustainable Hobart Action Plan.

7.2.2. As projects are implemented savings in energy and maintenance costs are identified and incorporated into forward budgets.

7.2.3. Where significant further cost effective projects are identified and cannot be accommodated within available budget allocations, reports will be provided to the Council seeking funding approval on a project by project basis.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. Asset related considerations and life cycle costs are taken into account in the assessment of each project.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There are no legislative requirements in regard to energy use or greenhouse gas emissions, with the City’s facilities being below national greenhouse gas reporting thresholds.

8.2. Reduction in energy use lowers the financial risk to the City in regard to any future increases in energy charges.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. In addition replacement of mercury vapour and fluorescent lights with LED technology is reducing the waste and recycling issues associated with mercury.

9.2. Energy and greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to be lowered as the result of projects and operational improvements and thus reducing the City’s environmental footprint.

10. Marketing and Media

10.1. There is potential for positive media on the City’s successful achievement of its corporate energy and greenhouse targets.

10.2. The annual report, provided as Attachment A, will be published on the City’s website.

11. Delegation

11.1. This is a matter for the City Infrastructure Committee to consider.

Katrina Graham

Senior Climate Change Officer

Robert Stevenson

Manager Smart & Sustainable City

Date: 19 February 2021

File Reference: F20/114066

Attachment a: 2018/2019 Annual Report ⇩

Attachment b: 2019/2020 Annual Report ⇩

People	We care about people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
Teamwork	We collaborate both within the organisation and with external stakeholders drawing on skills and expertise for the benefit of our community.
Focus and Direction	We have clear goals and plans to achieve sustainable social, environmental and economic outcomes for the Hobart community.
Creativity and Innovation	We embrace new approaches and continuously improve to achieve better outcomes for our community.
Accountability	We are transparent, work to high ethical and professional standards and are accountable for delivering outcomes for our community.