Proposed Service Options
- $75 estimated additional cost to kerbside collection
- Add a glass-only kerbside bin and have a four-bin kerbside service. Current kerbside service with additional four-weekly glass-only bin collection (13 collections a year)
- Residents would be charged for the extra kerbside collection costs through the waste management charge.
- Glass-only recycling skips at Transfer Stations for glass from rural households and excess kerbside glass. Charged on volume of glass presented.
$40 estimated additional cost to kerbside collection
Add a glass-only kerbside bin and have a four-bin kerbside service. Change the frequency of landfill waste bin collection by substituting a collection every four weeks with glass-only collection to limit collection costs.
Residents would be charged for kerbside collection through the waste management charge.
Glass-only recycling skips at Transfer Stations for glass from rural households and excess kerbside glass. Charged on volume of glass presented.
$40 estimated additional cost to kerbside collection
Add a glass-only kerbside bin and have a four-bin kerbside service. Change the frequency of recycle bin collection by substituting a collection every four weeks to limit collection costs.
Residents would be charged for kerbside collection through the waste management charge.
Glass-only recycling skips at Transfer Stations for glass from rural households and excess kerbside glass. Charged on volume of glass presented.
$12 estimated additional cost to kerbside collection
No kerbside glass-only service. No glass in kerbside recycling bin, no change to current service collection.
Glass-only recycling skips at Transfer Stations for glass from rural households and excess kerbside glass. Charged on volume of glass presented.
Option One
| PROS | CONS |
| Adhering to regulations | Cost to residents receiving kerbside collections for initial infrastructure including bin lid swap over (estimated $75 per property) |
| Maximises diversion of recyclable materials from landfill including glass | Highest service cost to kerbside ratepayer due to additional bin lifts (Council is charged per lift) |
| Allows greater volume of material in the recycling bin to be recycled into new products | Potential inconvenience of having a fourth bin |
| Potential for cost of landfill bin and recycling bin to decrease due to decreased weight | Increases volume of waste and recycling collected by 120L a week |
| Residents with limited transport options will be able to access a glass-only service | Doesn’t encourage landfill waste minimisation as detailed in Council's Resource Recovery and Waste Management Strategy |
| Produces the highest volume of greenhouse gases due to additional collections |
Option Two
| PROS | CONS |
| Adhering to regulations | Cost to Kerbside Residents for infrastructure costs including bin lid swap over (estimated $40 per property) |
| Maximises diversion of recyclable material from landfill | Potential inconvenience of having a fourth bin |
| Reduces the total volume of material going to landfill by 120L every four weeks | Potential issues with waste volumes for residents who fill their 120L waste bin every week |
| Greater volume of material in the recycling bin recycled into new products | |
| Residents with limited transport options will be able to access a glass-only service | |
| Moderate cost to ratepayer at $40 per property. No additional bin lifts (Council is charged per lift) | |
| Fewer greenhouse gas emissions than option one. |
Option Three
| PROS | CONS |
| Adhering to regulations | Cost to kerbside residents for infrastructure costs including bin lid swap over (estimated $40 per property) |
| Residents with limited transport options will be able to access the service | Potential inconvenience of having a fourth bin |
| Moderate cost to rate payer at $40 per property. No additional bin lifts (Council is charged per lift) | Reduces potential volume of recycling collected by 240L every four weeks |
| Fewer greenhouse gas emissions than option one | Less volume of material recycled into new products than options one, two and four |
| Does not reduce the volume of landfill waste collected | |
| Potential issues with recycling for residents who fill their 240L recycling bin every fortnight | |
| Does not encourage landfill waste minimisation as detailed in Council's Resource Recovery and Waste Management Strategy |
Option Four
| PROS | CONS |
| Adhering to regulations | Relies on households to store and drop off glass |
| No initial costs to the rate-payer with no additional bin lifts and no Council infrastructure | Glass may still go to landfill or contaminate recycling collected |
| Lowest cost, with an estimated $12 additional cost per property | Residents with limited transport options will be not able to access the service |
| Option with the lowest volume of material diverted from the landfill | |
| Does not encourage landfill waste minimisation as detailed in Council Resource Recovery and Waste Management Strategy |