WasteNet has ridden roughshod over the Invercargill City Council in its head-long , potentially ill-considered and likely very expensive push for a compulsory three-bin kerbside recycling scheme, an outspoken and “duped” councillor says.
In a confidential paper prepared for a closed-door council meeting in December, Cr Jackie Kruger says the council had asked for “innovative solutions” to the thee waste streams but that WasteNet had focused on only one – a 16 year contract that she worried wouldn’t gel with the regional waste strategy.
Worse still, she felt WasteNet had not taken the appropriate steps to follow the council’s lead. It had not “appropriately or responsibly executed the objectives” of the long term council community plan (LTCCP) and had only given “token effect to our deliberate and considered” community-influenced changes to the plan.
“I feel that Council has been disrespected and bulldozed since the LTCCP signoff,” Cr Kruger says in the report supplied to Southern Squall.
“ I am not satisfied that we have been kept adequately and appropriately informed of WasteNet’s decisions and processes, most particularly in regards the most recent request for proposal processes and details. Our intent as expressed in the final LTCCP was not actioned.”
The council is considering a controversial proposal to introduce a compulsory three-bin recycling scheme for Invercargill.
Councilors are far from unanimous. Mayor Tim Shadbolt is uneasy about the process and has bemoaned incorrect publicity from council staff that the likes of Auckland already has a three bin scheme. He has urged cool heads and for further work to be done.
In her sometimes strongly-worded report, Cr Kruger says she believes WasteNet ignored the council’s express desire to consider more than one solution to the city’s waste stream woes.
Its request for proposal process only called contractors to provide only a three binned service. Any “invitation to innovation” was restricted to that sort of service only, she says.
“As a councilor I feel somewhat duped by the process, and believe that the intent behind our change from three binned to three streamed, and our request for innovation, has been manipulated, if not totally ignored,” she says.
As she did in the council meeting last month, Cr Kruger warns it is unwise for the council to hastily pursue the three bin option. It is a significant commitment councilors: need to “do some catch up” and re-consider the options before committing to a single preferred provider for a single pre-determined scheme.
“There must be options out there for us to consider and compare before embarking on a final solution. With no alternatives presented other than a three binned system, it is difficult to have peace of mind that we have done our best for the community.”
Cr Kruger was aggrieved the council was effectively only given one option for tackling the three waste streams. She wondered how councilors would ever know what other options would be suitable for Invercargill and she doubts the waste consultant offered more than one option .
She also wondered whether it is unusual for consultants to offer only one solution, and asked whether the consultant was only asked to consider one option in the first place.
Cr Kruger says the council’s waste boss, Tom Greenwood, confirmed that WasteNet was only working with contractors who could provide a three-bin solution. This is “short-sighted in my view and quashes any hope of further innovation” and – crucially – councilors did not appear to know what any of the other proposals were.
“To proceed with haste at this point is not wise, in my opinion. This is a significant commitment and we, the council, need to do some catch up and re-consider our options before committing ourselves to a single preferred provider for a single pre-determined scheme.
“There must be options out there for us to consider and compare before embarking on a final solution. With no alternatives presented other than a three binned system, it is difficult to have peace of mind that we have done our best for the community.”
She also says:
• The three bin system restricts to a ‘one-size-fits-all’ scheme and does not readily provide opportunities to introduce financial incentives or disincentives to achieve sustainability.
• The draft regional waste strategy includes home recycling ideas and consideration for a rates rebate by 2012 for households that recycle more than average. She does not believe these can be fully explored when ratepayers are financially committed to a compulsory three-bin service, whether they use it or not.
• It would be improper of the council to commit to a 16 year contract without understanding how it can give full effect to the regional waste strategy, including how incentives and disincentives can be applied towards householders while still generating sufficient revenue to pay for our contractual commitments.
• The council and community need to understand what they are getting into, “fully and up-front”, so that “there are no showstoppers further down the track” preventing the city from minimising waste and ensuring that the polluter pays more than responsible householders in future.
3 responses so far ↓
Kylie // March 11, 2010 at 1:15 pm |
To date I have never had a council officer lie to me, they may be selective in what info they provide but if you ask the right question you’ll get the right answer. That in mind, I wonder if the staff are just doing what they are told as are those tendering the process. If they were told to only investigate or tender the three bin process they were just doing their jobs. Our elected members are the ones who should be ‘sticking to the LTCCP’ as the ICC Code of Conduct says. If Cr Kruger looks further up the food chain she might find those at fault.
Red // March 11, 2010 at 3:36 pm |
I’d suggest Kylie is correct in her suggestion that answers relating to this will be “selective” depending who you speak too. The whole scenario is a muddle.
Anyone who’s ever dealt with the Councils dreadful Jackbooted, building inspectors will have likely experienced 10 different answers from 10 different people, so why would this be any easier?
FYI, City Council, most residents wouldn’t even have heard of Waste Net or know who controls it. They’re as confused as the staff taking the calls and the three bin system is seen as just another addition to their rates. I pay way over the odds now for my rates and don’t want to pay more.
Am I typical? I hide rubbish under my greenwaste when I go to the tip, as it’s so expensive. Lawn clippings go into my compost… my trash goes in my wheelie. My recyle bin is handy for fishing gear
Alan // March 12, 2010 at 11:51 am |
I feel that our council, (with the exception of Crs. Abbott and Buck) has let us down in allowing this issue to reach its present stage without calling time on it and asking for a fresh start. Perhaps it should become the responsibility of the District or Regional Councils.
The objections, flaws, mis-information and half-truths that have emerged over the past year should have alerted the councillors- individually and collectively-to the opposition to this scheme. A wealth of independent information has become available to councillors to form their own opinions.
Your December 27 article ‘Invercargill Bin Laden’ alone drew 29 comments.
I worry this fiasco will turn into a re-run of the Hedgehope solid waste landfill which cost ratepayers well over $1million dollars before it was abandoned. Even now we are subsidising it as a forestry operation through Holdco.
Crunch time is fast approaching when a decision will have to be made on which way to go, the possibility that it may go ahead frightens me. Its influence on the October elections should frighten those seeking re-election.