Coffs Harbour waste could be sent to Queensland under council plan

How sending our rubbish interstate would result in a $1.2 million windfall for Council.

Council could almost halve the cost of transporting waste from the Englands Road tip by sending it interstate.

That's according to a report tabled ahead of next Thursday’s Coffs Harbour City Council meeting where three separate motions will be discussed on the region’s beleaguered waste industry.

Council is currently spending about $75,000 trucking its processed red bin waste – Mixed Waste Organic Output (MWOO) – to landfill in Tamworth.

That step was taken in 2018 after the Environmental Protection Authority deemed the product unsuitable for reuse as fertiliser. The EPA’s decision impacted a number of other LGAs and has been at the centre of a series of disputes between the council and contractor Biomass Solutions.

Council has this year taken over sole responsibility for transport and disposal of the waste for the first time and went to tender for the service in April.

The report states that if councillors adopt the confidential recommendation the cost of the scheme will drop from $2.5 million to $1.3 million.

Council have already saved about $200,000 since taking over full responsibility.

Councillor wants state compensation

Councillor Paul Amos and George Cecato at the Jetty Foreshores. Mr Amos would like compensation from the state government over the failed MWOO scheme. Photo: Tim Jarrett

Cr Paul Amos has come up with an out-of-the-box notice of motion on waste, asking Council to enter into negotiations for compensation – in the form of land – over the failed MWOO scheme.

Mr Amos says the scheme’s failure was no fault of council and while others were given support to “mitigate the financial impact” of the changes, Coffs Harbour were “unable to influence” an outcome until 2027.

The date is a reference to the council’s contract with Biomass Solutions, the contractors hired to implement and run the MWOO scheme. Relations between the parties have broken down and they are currently engaged in arbitration.

Mr Amos has suggested an appropriate form of compensation would be lands currently owned by the state government in the Jetty Foreshores Precinct.

Staff have said representations to the state government can be made provided Mr Amos makes clear which parcels of land at the jetty he is referring to.

A brief history of everything

Cr Tegan Swan (pictured) and Cr Sally Townley want a comprehensive breakdown of the region’s complicated waste issues, including records of disputes with contractors such as Biomass Solutions.

Crs Sally Townley and Tegan Swan have also put forward a notice of motion asking for a summary of recent actions relating to waste management in the LGA.

Seeking a chronological list of discussions, negotiations, offers, tenders and contracts between the council and all relevant parties, the councillors want everything on the table.

That includes details of the council’s much-publicised contract issues with Biomass Solutions. The councillors would like the cost of the disputes compared with the costs of having stuck to the original contracts and agreements.

The motion also includes provision for future waste options, something that has been discussed at recent meetings.

“Waste management is a core Local Government responsibility and has a significant financial impact on our operating capacity,” the councillors said.

“Presently we are experiencing some challenging situations regarding current and future waste operations. As such, it is important to have a clear and accurate picture of the environment we are operating in and be best placed to ensure sustainable practices moving forward.”

Staff appeared to throw cold water on some of the requests, noting that it required an “expansive body of very detailed work (to) be undertaken”.

Biomass Solutions Facility at Englands Road process the region’s red bin waste into Mixed Waste Organic Output.

“Much of that work will entail the duplication of work already done and reported to Councillors via previously issued briefing notes, councillor briefings, legal party briefings and reports,” the report states.

“Significant staff resource would be consumed to that end.”

“The Notice of Motion contains a number of directives that, while they would be faithfully attempted by staff, are either most likely impossible to deliver or are conversely unable to be complied with.”

“An example includes the Notice of Motion directive for staff to gain the signed confirmation (which presumes a consensus) of parties regarding all previous discussions, negotiations and offers between parties when at least four of those parties remain in current dispute because there is no consensus on the matters of interest.”