rotorua district council...6/1 1 strategy, policy & finance committee meeting – annual plan...

6/1 1 Strategy, Policy & Finance Committee meeting – Annual Plan Hearings Doc No: RDC-548389 8, 11 & 12 June 2015

01-15-227 ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL

DRAFT MINUTES OF STRATEGY, POLICY & FINANCE COMMITTEE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING LONG-TERM PLAN 2015-2025 HEARINGS HELD MONDAY, 8 JUNE 2015 AT 9:30AM

IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL PRESENT: Cr Raukawa-Tait (Chairman)

Mayor Chadwick, Cr Bentley, Cr Donaldson, Cr Gould, Cr Hunt (Deputy Chair), Cr Maxwell, Cr McVicker, Cr Searancke, Cr Sturt, Cr Tapsell

APOLOGIES:

Absent: Cr Kent, Cr Wepa

OFFICERS PRESENT: G Williams, Chief Executive; D Foster, Chief Operating Officer (part); T Colle, Chief Financial Officer (part); J-P Gaston, Group Manager Strategy & Partnerships (part); A Lowe, Environmental Scientist/Process Engineer; C Tiriana, Manager CE Office (part); T Senington, Solid Waste & Sustainability Advisor (part); R Viskovic, Senior Policy Advisor (part); C Peden, Governance Support Advisor.

The Chairman welcomed members, staff and members of the public to the meeting. A 1-minute silence was observed in memory of Council’s Director Kaupapa Maori, Mauriora Kingi, who passed away last week. 1. APOLOGIES

The Committee resolved: That the apologies from Cr Kent and Cr Wepa (for absence) and Cr Maxwell (for partial absences) be accepted.

Cr Gould/Cr Maxwell SPF15/06/039

CARRIED 2. STAFF REPORTS 2.1 RECOMMENDATION 1: DRAFT LONG-TERM PLAN 2015-2025 SUBMISSION HEARINGS 01-64-005\08

The Committee resolved: That the report “Draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 Submission Hearings” be received.

Cr Searancke/Cr Gould SPF15/06/040

CARRIED


3.2 SUBMITTERS

Hearing Time

Submitter Sub No.

Additional information

9.40am Mark Bolton, Fullcircle Recycling, Carter Holt Harvey

16 Mr Bolton spoke to his submission. Q – Do you believe the issue of waste processing is bigger than is addressed in LTP and would the formation of a working party be advisable to further consider? A – Yes. The danger is collecting a whole lot of products that no one wants. Q – Who in his opinion is doing the best job around the country? A – He couldn’t say. Some councils are doing really well, some not.

9.50am Libby Fletcher, Lake Tarawera Ratepayers Assn Inc

172 Mrs Fletcher spoke in support of her submission (Attachment 1).

10am Graeme and Cheryl Dohnt 58 Mr Dohnt spoke to his submission in support of a sewerage scheme for Lake Rotoehu. A ratepayers meeting is going to be held on Sunday 14 June at 10am at Otautu Bay to discuss. Q – Have you engaged with BOPRC in their LTP. A – Yes, he has explained the same thing but in a different way. As long as they are in a meaningful dialogue the MOH will delay the deadline.

10.12am John Green Lake Water Quality Society

92 Mr Green spoke in support of his submission – every lake should have a reticulated sewerage scheme. Phosphorous reduction achieving surprising results. Q - Has he ever looked at the funding mechanism – is this good use of an infrastructure fund – incl. Tarawera, Mamaku? A – Disappointed that Rotorua had not been ready to take advantage of this. Tarawera could have been singled out as a funding opportunity.

10.22am Craig Morley 196 Dr Ian McLean spoke to a Powerpoint presentation on behalf of Mr Morley (Attachment 2). Q – Which option in the waste strategy do you both support? A – Did not have a strong view himself. Would need to read Mr Morley’s submission for his view. Q – Is the recycling machine available commercially and at what cost? A – Unsure, suggested Councillors look at the video link given on the Powerpoint slide. Q – The building industry should be incentivised to reduce waste, e.g. concrete in demolished buildings? A – Difficult removing reinforcing steel but possible. May not be economically viable. Need to stop choosing the cheaper option. Q – Large amount of toxins in clothing – dyes, etc. Will worms take care of those? A – Toxins in clothing fabrics are removed through washing etc.


Hearing Time

Submitter Sub No.


Dr Ian McLean 379 Dr McLean spoke in support of his submission (Attachment 3).

10.38am Jim Stanton Lake Rotoiti Community Assn Inc

254 Mr Stanton spoke in support of his submission and highlighted:

Waste strategy – bins won’t work around lakes.

Reduce debt.

Rates – look at how rates are apportioned. Removing differentials will increase inequities. Rates are imposed for services provided. Use UAGCs, targeted rates and differentials as well.

The hearing adjourned at 10.55am for morning tea and reconvened at 11.07am.

Hearing Time

Submitter Sub No.


11.08am Mark Christie, Waikato Bay of Plenty Football

245 Mr Christie spoke in support of his submission. He provided copies of a brochure ‘Whole of Football Plan’. Mr Christie agreed to supply a priority plan for which sportsfields needed floodlighting. Q – Centralised sportsground – do you have an area in mind? A – Not really but request a smaller existing sports ground with stadium seating.

11.18am Lesley Haddon 14 Ms Haddon spoke in support of her submission re feral cats problem at Tarawera transfer station. Q - Are you aware that SPCA are working with animal control and are meeting with community groups to discuss the problem? A – It doesn’t appear to be working. Q –Should the ratepayer pay for eradicating feral cats? A – Council can’t just ignore the problem.

11.26am Robin Horne, Bin Boys 20 Mr Horne spoke in support of his submission. Questioned figures provided in Waste Strategy document for price per ratepayer for proposed waste collection services. Concerned landfill will become unviable. Close landfill and go to transfer stations will add a further cost of $100 p/ton to dispose of. Supports introduction of kerbside recycling and a crate. Suggested continuing with rubbish bags in short term, and look at using private contractors in the future. Attract Waste Management back to dumping their rubbish at landfill (which would make the landfill more viable) which means they could use their facilities for recycling only. Q – Could he explain how he arrived at the figure of $126 per ratepayer? A – Simply for collection of recycling and rubbish and disposal of it. Other councils had quoted much higher figures for same. The $226 figure includes Parks and Reserves, littler control, transfer station, rent of building and equipment and staffing of that building.


Hearing Time

Submitter Sub No.


11.40am David Howie, Waste Management NZ

194 Mr Howie spoke in support of his submission. He strongly supports proposal to eliminate bag collections and replace with wheelie bins. Important to separate glass at source. Q – Explain suggestion of user pays charges for larger MGB sized bins? A – Many people may need a larger bin, but council should provide this as an optional extra. Q – Is there a market for glass? A – Only clear, green and brown glass - if separated. Q – Would his company be interested in a private/public partnership? A – Always open to discussion with councils but more interested in a primary solution for Rotorua. Q – Does he collect green waste? A – Yes, locally. Have an agreement with Living Earth. Some goes to landfill.

11.50am John Webber, Glass Packaging Forum Scheme

39 Mr Webber spoke in support of his submission. Imperative that glass separated at source. Kerbside recycling will increase volumes of recyclable materials collected. His company offers to provide some financial support to Council for separated glass. Q – Does he monitor the success of similar collections in other areas? A – His company focuses on monitoring areas where they have made a grant. Q – Has there been any significant change to the size of the crate or volume over time? A – Would suggest that the 45 litre size is best as a larger crate would become a burden to older people, although a 60 litre bin might work.

11.55am Peter Fredricsen, Materials Processing Ltd

66 Mr Fredricsen spoke in support of his submission. Kerbside recycling would make the in-town recycling centre less viable. Important to sort glass at kerbside. Revise landfill fees to encourage more use by commercial organisations. Against proposal to close landfill and Council to retain ownership. Q – Can Council keep components of the recycling centre (incl shop and education centre) – but also go to kerbside recycling? A – Council would have to look at higher service charges or reduced facility. Q – E waste – is this an option to include in current recycling centre? A – Yes with some significant investment.

12.05pm Phil Cross, Crewcut Home Services

99 Mr Cross spoke in support of his submission. Recommends Council continue current waste practises until further assessments can be completed. Q – Why had he questioned whether MOH was in support? A – The MOH’s comments should have been included in the WMMP report for completeness.


Attendance: Cr Maxwell left the meeting at 12.13pm.

Hearing Time

Submitter Sub No.


12.13pm Rosemary Michie 340 Mrs Michie spoke in support of her submission, which had been circulated separately (Attachment 4). Rates increases = increased rents = increased poverty. Keep City Focus. Aquatic Centre upgrade not a priority. Changing refuse collection not a priority and a 2-weekly collection may not be adequate. Support for Library. Have users been asked about the proposal for a child health facility? Parking may be a problem. Q – Lower rates – would she be in favour of some Council fees going up to keep rates lower? A – No, would prefer that Council reduced capital works.

12.25pm Penny Garland O-I New Zealand

17 Ms Garland spoke in support of her submission. Support Council’s proposal for separate glass collection. It means that paper and cardboard could be processed onshore. Q – How could a crate of coloured bottles make it to the collection centre unbroken/unmixed? A – It is sorted at the kerb. Q – How do they undertake collections? A – Their company is the buyer of the product, they are not a collector. Q – In your experience, how do most councils collect recyclables? A – Most councils have some form of a kerbside recycling service. Rotorua has a lot of satellite communities which is why she believes the in-town recycling centre has been retained for so long. Q – Who provides the best end product - councils or private contractors? Or is a private/partnership better? A – Whatever works best for each community. If you don’t have the expertise it is better to contract out to a private operator.

The hearing adjourned at 12.33pm and reconvened at 1.10pm.

Hearing Time

Submitter Sub No.


1.10pm Leigh Richards-Ward Mokia Community Assn –

193 Ms Richards-Ward spoke in support of the association’s submission for a youth space. She was accompanied by students from the following schools: Rotokawa, Lynmore, Owhata, Mokoia Intermediate and Rotorua Lakes High School.

Leigh Richards Free Parking

368 Ms Richards-Ward spoke in support of the ‘Free Parking’ programme. The sports coordinator at Rotorua Lakes High also spoke in support. Lewis, a student at Rotorua Lakes High School also outlined the benefits of the programme. Meretaka Brown-Houghton who runs the ERAP programme at Puketawhero Park, was then introduced.


They answered the following questions: Q – Are students given the opportunity to transition into a sporting code? A – Local people such as Meretaka can help facilitate this transition. Q - Which sportsgrounds would be a priority? A – Te Koutu, Western Heights and Fordlands programmes are outside school hours so are run on reserves; the other programme is run within school hours at the school. Q – Would there be any long-term funding available through Sport NZ (for this programme)? A – They provide funding for the first 3 years only. Funding requested from Council is to assist with the transition. The expectation is that MCA would take responsibility for the programme by January 2017.

Julianne Wilkinson clarified that the programme was applied for 3 years ago through Sport NZ’s ‘Active Communities’ fund with the understanding it would then transition into a community-led programme.

Leigh Richards- Mokoia Community Association

193 Ms Richards-Ward spoke in support of the association’s proposed partnership agreement. Q – Would you stipulate which projects to work on together? A – They are already collaborating with Council to identify needs. Important to retain some flexibility. Q – Eastside transport needs – how much of an issue is it for students crossing Te Ngae Road to get to Puketawhero Park? A – Lynmore School and Rotokawa School students do experience problems crossing. Please keep in mind with future planning.

1.39pm Chris Sutton

223 Mr Sutton spoke in support of his submission. There needs to be a better connection with the rural people. Q – Are you aware that if the restructure of the Aquatic Centre doesn’t go ahead, it may need to be closed? A – Maori were aggrieved when the land was taken from them, and if it is unsuitable to build on it should be given back to them. Q – Do you feel as a rural ratepayer that your levels of services have improved/dropped over recent years? A – Council had listened to his previous request to not spray grass verges. Rural people don’t feel like they’re receiving council services to the same extent (as urban-dwellers). Q – Why the disconnect? A - There had been meetings but nothing had come out of them. Q – What is best mechanism to trigger community groups forming? A – A lot of agricultural industries communicate via email – get those people networking via Council officers. Schedule meetings as needed.


Hearing Time

Submitter Sub No.


1.50pm Garry Olney South Waikato Achievement Trust

248 Mr Olney and Mr Ensor spoke in support of their submission regarding waste strategy and in particular E-waste. Q – How many are currently employed at the Tokoroa facility, and do they stay long-term or move on? A – At the moment they run a recycling operation for South Waikato District Council, employing 18 people. 6 work in the E-waste division. It is a stepping stone for further job opportunities, but they also offer long-term jobs. Q – What sort of recycling do they process? A – Plastics 1-7, paper, cardboard, steel and aluminium cans, glass (green, brown and clear) and E-waste. Leaded glass (from E-waste) can be exported to Korea. Q – How do they source their product? A –Truck does pickups. People drop off E-waste. Q – Do they have a weekly kerbside collection? A – Fortnightly collection in South Waikato area. E-waste has to be dropped off. Some drop off points provided.

2.00 Neil Callaghan 363 Mr Callaghan spoke in support of his submission on:

Wastewater treatment and disposal;

Waste strategy;

Development of CCO for Castlecorp Q – What did he mean by extension of the drop-off facility

at Tarawera transfer station? A – He would be concerned to see the facility

discontinued. Suggested the Molok system as used by Rodney District Council.

Q – Would Tarawera ratepayers be prepared to have a targeted rate for such a service?

A – Would consider, but the cost could be mitigated by removing the weekly collection, resulting in a saving.

Q – How would Tarawera residents feel about the discontinuation of the rubbish collection service?

A – Before the transfer station was established the skip system was used. It had been an open system, which meant that out-of- town people could dump their rubbish. Current transfer station extremely well used – just needs fine tuning.

Q – Would he suggest a targeted rate for ‘Out-of-forest by 2018’ project?

A – All Rotorua ratepayers should pay for this project, as lakes water quality affects us all.

2.13pm Dennis Walsh Regency Park Estate Retirement Village

32 Mr Walsh spoke in support of his submission on the topic of rates remissions. The maintenance of the village complex is covered by residents over and above their annual rates of approx. $2k. Asks that discounted rates be considered for Regency Park Estate residents, or continue the same level of rates but that Council take over maintenance of the village’s infrastructure. Q – Has the level of service provided by Council to their residents increased or decreased? A – About the same. Commented that if Council changed


to using waste bins rather than paper bags, getting 60 bins out to the kerbside would not be practical. Q – Do each of the units pay a UAGC or is there a single UAGC for Regency Park? What is the body corporate fee? A – Regency Park pays rates of $32k per quarter but has to pay for maintenance of its own infrastructure – street lights, driveway sealing, etc. Q – Have previous submissions made a difference? A – No Q – Is this the same for other retirement villages, e.g. Redwood Village? A – Not sure if Redwood Village offers unit titles, although he knows Lakeview Villas do. Not sure about Cantabria or Glenbrae. Q – What would he consider a fair rate on a $200k unit? A - $1300 to $1500 pa would be fair. Q – How many residents are eligible for a rates remission? A – Maybe 15.

2.25pm Jane Eynon-Richards Rotorua Citizens Advice Bureau

207 Ms Eynon-Richards, accompanied by their Deputy Chairperson Sandy, spoke in support of their submission on the following topics:

Funding application

Community House Q – Do they see their organisations as a good fit with the Child Health and Library hub? A - Yes Q – What main groups do they refer to mainly within Community House? A - Salvation Army and Foodbank. She sees their organisation as a good fit as an information hub.

2.35pm Elaine Fox Tenants Committee, Community House

Suzi Tetenberg spoke on behalf of Elaine Fox. Concerned about the proposed demolition of Community House which houses 17 organisations. Would like a similar facility in the central city with accessible parking for staff and clients. Other groups have also expressed interest in being included. Q –Was the alternative building that they had been shown the old police headquarters in Hinemoa St? A – Yes Q – Would she consider that the above building would be suitable? A – People would probably get lost trying to find their way around, or accidentally locked in.

The hearing adjourned at 2.42pm for afternoon tea, and reconvened at 3.10pm.


Hearing Time

Submitter Sub No.


3.08m Gene Roberts 434 Mr Roberts spoke in support of his submission. $7k rates p/a going up to $10.5k (a 39% increase). The increase of $3.5k will not result in any extra services, and is due to the change in how rates are calculated and capital value rises. Rates must be fair and equitable and in relation to services received. Council needs to focus more on cost control. Annual rates increases should not be automatic. Q – How could Council do things more efficiently and at a lower cost? A – Stick to core services. Q – How long has he owned his property, and what movement in recent valuation? Had he considered objecting to the recent valuation? A – Had owned the property for 3 years. Have had a significant increase in farm value. He had not objected. Q – Were his stock numbers going to remain the same, and is his road sealed? A – Yes to both. Q – Would he be happy if some Council services were cut back? A – They don’t receive many services to cut back. Q – What were his feelings on Grow Rotorua? A – Should not actively choose which businesses should be attracted to Rotorua, but should make it easy for any business to establish here. Q – Is he aware of how much the value of dry stock farms have reduced? A – One he knows has gone down 2%. Calculating rates using capital values only is flawed.

3.23pm Greg Rzesniowiecki 386 Mr Rzesniowiecki spoke to a Powerpoint presentation in support of his submission (Attachment 5).

3.32pm Ian McLean 250 Mr McLean spoke to a Powerpoint presentation in support of his submission (Attachment 6). Q – What does he mean by governance structure? Is he not confidant in the steering group? A – The LTP mentions the need for a governance group. Does need high level expertise which may not be available within the retail sector of the town. Also need an unbiased view not able to be provided by retailers.

3.45pm Ray Hewlett 167 Mr Hewlett spoke in support of his submission re cycleways – Ngongotaha, Sulphur Flat to forest and the ‘Green Corridor’. Asked that Council put aside funding for a cycle track around Lake Rotorua. Q – Regarding his suggestion that Council increase rates for next 4 years @ 5% - would that be supported by the community? A – Low rates rises lead to paying for it in future years, as is now the situation. 3% would be going backwards. Q – Is he aware of Rotorua Trails Trust, which is looking at options for mountain bikers, road cyclists and horseriders?


A – Yes. However, he is especially concerned about the safety of cyclists on the road out to Mourea. Q – Is he aware what the proposed drop of the UAGC will have on farmers? A – Commercial ratepayers have more ability to defray rates expenses through tax savings.

Attendance: Cr Raukawa-Tait, Cr Sturt and Cr Searancke left the meeting at 4pm. The hearing adjourned at 4pm and reconvened at 4.19pm. Cr Hunt assumed the chair.

Hearing Time

Submitter Sub No.


Glen Snelgrove Lake Rotoma/Rotoehu Ratepayers Assn

306 Mr Snelgrove did not appear.

4.20pm James Billing on behalf of Rose Hiha-Agnew Keep Rotorua Beautiful

294 Mr Billing and Mr Rick Mansell spoke in support of this submission. Supported 4b with aim of going to 4a after 2 years. KRB helps facilitate education regarding recycling. Asked that Council keep KRB as it is now, i.e. working with Rotorua Lakes Council. Q – Did his reference to ‘single use’ bags include paper bags? A – The majority of bags are not needed – people should use recyclable bags. Q – Please comment on KRB’s eventual plans to move to a trust? A – This proposal is still in the very early stages.

The hearing adjourned at 4.35pm.

6/1 11 Strategy, Policy & Finance Committee meeting – Annual Plan Hearings Doc No: RDC-548389 ATTACHMENT 1 8, 11 & 12 June 2015

Good Morning, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity of speaking to you this morning on behalf of the Lake Tarawera Ratepayers Assoc. Lake Tarawera is often referred to as a “national treasure” and the “jewel in the crown” of the Rotorua lakes and yet it is the only significant Rotorua lakeside community not serviced or planned to have a wastewater reticulation system. Water quality in Lake Tarawera is steadily declining as measured by increasing TLI levels, which consistently exceed the target TLI. Since 2002 the LTRA has been concerned about the water quality in Lake Tarawera. In 2006 a voluntary annual donation fund was established to assist the University of Waikato in furthering our knowledge of water quality issues in the lake. LTRA members have contributed a total of $42,500 to date, which is extraordinary for a small community. These funds have assisted the establishment of a climate station, the establishment and ongoing maintenance of the monitoring buoy, and measuring the volume of, and analysing the nutrients in the surface flows to the lake. This work has highlighted the complexity of the Lake Tarawera situation as 80% of the inflow is believed to enter Lake Tarawera as groundwater, probably from the 7 surrounding lakes. As a direct result of the ongoing sampling programme since 2006 we have built up a data set of knowledge for Lake Tarawera that is only equalled by that for Lake Rotorua in the Rotorua district. In 2005 a working party was established by Environment Bay of Plenty to generate an action plan for Lake Tarawera. This working party recommended reticulating wastewater and implementing land use controls on the immediate catchment to control nutrient inputs to the lake. Bay of Plenty Regional Council never promulgated this proposed action plan although Lake Tarawera was nominated as one of the Rotorua lakes that required central government funding assistance to implement a wastewater reticulation scheme. At some stage Lake Tarawera was dropped off this list due to a perceived lower priority in the need for a reticulated wastewater scheme for the Lake Tarawera community. BoPRC generated additional draft proposed action plans but no further action plan working groups were established to progress this matter. Recently the community and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council formed a working party for the implementation of Tarawera Lakes Restoration Plan. Again one of the prime recommendations was for the reticulation of wastewater to immediately reduce the input of nutrients to the lake. In early 2014 the LTRA identified water quality as the main issue for Lake Tarawera and has communicated the decline in water quality to Lake Tarawera ratepayers through the LTRA newsletter and also at its annual general meetings. There was a meeting at Okareka in April 2014 to discuss wastewater reticulation and numerous meetings have taken place between myself and other LTRA committee members with elected and permanent RLC staff. The work done by the RLC and BOPRC on the Rotorua Lakes is much appreciated and must continue, but the Tarawera community is extremely frustrated in its ability to receive attention and support for the urgent need to address both health and water quality issues effecting Lake Tarawera. Reticulating wastewater is guaranteed to slow the deterioration of water quality in Lake Tarawera. Lake Tarawera is too important a source of recreational value to all New Zealanders to allow water quality to continue to deteriorate when a known solution is available. We are very concerned that most of the other Rotorua lakes are maintaining or improving in water quality while


Lake Tarawera continues to decline. It is regional and local governments’ responsibility to not allow this to happen or they will be held accountable in the future by our children and grandchildren other New Zealanders and overseas visitors. Therefore the Lake Tarawera Ratepayers Association Inc. requests the immediate inclusion of a project for investigation and financial support for a wastewater reticulation scheme for Lake Tarawera in the Council’s Long Term Financial Plan. LTRA requests that this matter is treated with urgency and requests that the Council includes support and funding in the 2015 – 2016 financial years. The LTRA further submits that there is already significant community support, scientific knowledge and evidence, and other technical information for Rotorua Lakes Council to proceed to immediately establish a Public Steering Committee to oversee the consultation, including all key stakeholders to enable the final recommendations on a preferred option to be recommended to the RLC. The LTRA seeks the RLC to set aside sufficient funds for the establishment of a Public Steering Committee immediately. WASTE SRATEGY The proposed change to a fortnightly MGB curbside collection for refuse and recyclables and a crate collection for glass and the possible closure of the transfer station is completely impractical for the Lake Tarawera lakeside community. This community comprises of 91 permanent residents and 318 holiday homes. The LTRA acknowledges that a curbside MGB collection could work for permanent residents and would deliver a decreased health and safety risk for collection vehicles operators, but holiday home residents would be unable to use the service due to the difficulty of being present on collection day. If holiday homes placed MGB’s on the roadside for emptying and vacated the premises this would result in empty MGB’s being left on the roadside for weeks or months at a time, which is obviously not practical. As the Tarawera Transfer Station has been an outstanding success, we request that the RLC keeps this facility open Thank you for your time


Rotorua Lakes Council: Submission on Draft Waste Strategy 2015 Dr Ian G. McLean 119 17th Ave, Tauranga 3112 021 547556, 07 3468971 (work), 07 5794670 (home) I would like to speak to this submission. I work at Waiariki Institute of Technology teaching sustainable living and resource management. I am a ratepayer in Rotorua and lived in Rotorua until several years ago. I support, in principle, the efforts of RLC to

reduce waste flowing through our community,

raise awareness and education standards in relation to understanding about waste production and waste as a resource, and

close the loop in terms of re-utilisation of waste products. RLC should work towards closing the landfill altogether. It is time to treat all waste as a resource that can be re-used, and to incentivise that objective. The approach should include both sticks and carrots, and I suggest:

If waste disposal of recyclables is to be made easier (as with kerbside recycling), considerable education about “how” and “why” should accompany that strategic approach

Costs of disposing of recyclables should be kept low, but I support a direct charge for kerbside recycling that is not funded through rates (e.g. through a commercial operator)

Costs of disposal to landfill should progressively increase and become relatively high

At least some recycling centres should continue to operate, with disposal available at no cost

People need better education and understanding about how to dispose of plastics. In particular: o RLC should work towards a complete elimination of single use plastic bags, including the

so-called environmentally friendly bags that break down in sunlight (in reality they simply become smaller pieces of plastic). That effort should begin with retailers such as supermarkets, who are the main source of those bags. E.g., introducing a 10 cent charge for single use bags reduces the number of bags going out the door by about 70%. Examples are The Warehouse and Mitre 10.

o RLC should work towards elimination of single use plastic drink bottles from our community. While this is more of a national problem and is more difficult to achieve locally, RLC could lobby government to require a deposit on those bottles. It should also make recycling bins much more readily available and accessible.

o The mountains of soft plastic that we produce each day, and which are a major ingredient now of waste heading to landfill, needs to be given value and treated as a resource. RLC should work in with other local councils to explore options for local reprocessing of this plastic into other usable resources (such as fuel).

Businesses that generate large amounts of waste (such as the building industry) should be incentivised to reduce waste production through being supported to require reduced delivery of waste to building sites (reduce the waste stream at source), and should be subject to increasing annual costs of disposal.

If methods can be found to process waste locally, then local support of those initiatives through marketing opportunities may need some initial support from Council (e.g. through preferential purchasing).

rotorua district council...6/1 1 strategy, policy & finance committee meeting – annual plan...

Documents