Report
Date
: 1 September 2021
To
: Mayor and Councillors
Tararua District Council
From
: Marco Alben
Project Manager
Subject
:
Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
Item No :
11.5
1.
Recommendation
1.1
That the report from the Project Manager dated 13 August 2021 concerning the
Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services (as circulated) be received, and
1.2
That Council adopt the following recommendations arising from the review of its solid
waste services activity undertaken in accordance with Section 17A of the Local
Government Act 2002:
•
Governance for solid waste services continue to be undertaken by the Council.
•
Funding for solid waste services continue to be determined by the Council.
•
Delivery of al Council solid waste services (new and existing) be done via a
Council contract with another person or agency.
Executive Summary
To have the Council formal y adopt the outcome of the section 17A review conducted on the
Tararua District Council’s solid waste services.
Tararua District Council (TDC) have recently conducted a solid waste services review, under
S17A of the Local Government Act (2002). A 17A review is conducted every six years or when
significant changes to service levels are proposed. 17a reviews cover infrastructure, service,
or regulatory functions, and must consider options for governance, funding, and delivery.
On the 16th of June 2021, a workshop was conducted to introduce the draft S17A review and
increase the level of service. The outcome of the workshop was the report being supported in
principle, with formal adoption of the recommendations to be ratified in the August 2021
Council meeting.
The following recommendations are proposed:
• Governance for solid waste services should be by the Tararua District Council.
• Funding for solid waste services should be by the Tararua District Council.
• Delivery of all Council solid waste services (new and existing) is done via a Tararua
District Council contract with another person or agency.
2.
Options
2.1 Governance and Delivery for All Solid Waste Services
Section 17A requires that a review of the governance function must consider the
relative advantages of (i) governance by a local authority, (ii) governance by a joint
committee, or (i i) governance by another type of shared governance arrangement,
such as Council owned CCO’s.
Governance is about who has the right to (a) make binding decisions on the overal
objectives for the provision of the service, and (b) set the strategic framework in which
the service operates under.
There are opportunities to provide joint services by another local authority to collect
and dispose of organic and green waste, however at this stage joint services wil not
be feasible for transfer station operations and kerbside services. There are no
opportunities to explore CCO’s
(Council-control ed organisation) as these do not yet
exist in the Tararua District.
The recommendation is that governance for solid waste services should be by the
Tararua District Council.
Page 2
Report on Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
8 September 2021
Analysis of services
Governance Options
Advantages
Disadvantages
Governance by the
• Council has statutory
• Governance on a wider scale may
Council
obligations for solid waste
enable access to more options and
(status quo)
management, both in service
reduced cost through economies
provision and in strategic
of scale; Council elected members
[Waste Collection,
planning; Council wil have
may have restricted capacity (time
Transfer station,
direct governance control over
and understanding) to provide
kerbside col ection, and
delivery of waste services to the
effective governance.
recycling]
district, data collection for
• The cost of time and effort is
future decisions will also be
significantly higher than any other
easily accessible and faster
proposed governance strategy.
turnaround times for issue
resolution and adaption to
future WMMP'S will be easier.
Governance by a joint
• Could be more effective and
• The joint committee will need to
committee
efficient for governance to be
consider the needs and
provided by a joint committee
requirements of the joint
[Waste Collection,
with another council, for
governance area, which may result
Transfer station,
example with CHB; particularly
in decisions being made which,
kerbside col ection, and
if there were to be shared
while in the best interests
recycling]
service provision through
generally, are not in the best
contracting or similar
interests of Tararua District.
arrangements.
• While joint decision-making could
• The ability to share the risk
be seen to provide advantages, it
could prove to be beneficial
could have a negative impact due
when joint decision-making is
to the different outlooks and
spread across a larger
culture of partnerships with
knowledge base.
another district council.
Governance by shared
• Council could govern in
• Shared governance arrangements
arrangement CCO or
partnership with (for example)
for waste services are uncommon.
other.
a community representative
Where these exist, they are usually
group. This could enable a
a partnership between Council and
[Waste Col ection,
wider range of preferences and
a well-established community
Transfer station,
options for service delivery
group, which is not currently the
kerbside col ection, and
being considered. More input
situation
recycling]
from the community could help • In the Tararua District, although
drive and steer the levels of
these organisations do exist a
service for more effective
relationship of this nature could
service performance
take years to operate as a
management.
performing unit and not in silos.
Report on Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
Page 3
8 September 2021
2.2 Funding Options for all Solid Waste Service Delivery
17A requires that a review of funding must consider the relative advantages of:
1.
funding by the local authority,
2.
funding by a joint committee,
3.
funding by another type of shared arrangement.
Funding arrangements involve the way financial resources are garnered and distributed
to support the levels of service. With a large percent of waste services in the Tararua
District provided by the private sector, these services are currently funded through
payments from customers directly to their chosen service provider.
It is important to note that the Council offers a waste drop off facility at the transfer
station which in most cases prove to be financially viable for consumers.
The recommendation is that funding for solid waste services should be by the Tararua
District Council.
Funding Options
Advantages
Disadvantages
Kerbside col ections funded
• Council has a clear
• Council has no control over
through user-pays charges
ability to distinguish between
the type and extent of
and private arrangements
its responsibilities and those
services offered to
between householders and
of private operators.
householders, nor any
industry.
This encourages individuals to
changes made to these
Other services funded by
find solutions for their own
services higher than
Council through rates.
waste.
average household costs.
• Users can factor the financial
• Lack of clarity for the public
impact of getting private
on service responsibilities.
(Status quo)
collection services versus a
• Council has no control of
drop off charge at a Council
what passes through the
managed facility into their
waste stream and the
financial planning.
monopoly type funding is
controlled by private
organisations, Council
could be offering the same
or more adequate services
at a lower cost to the
consumer.
Kerbside collection of waste • Council has statutory
• Funding solid waste
and or Recycling
obligations for solid waste
services by Council will
management, both in service
usual y mean that the costs
(Funding by the Council)
provision and in
of the services need to be
strategic planning. Funding
recovered through rates
waste services through
charges, targeted rates
Council enables economies of
charges, or some method
Page 4
Report on Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
8 September 2021
scale to be achieved and is
of service user charge. In a
often the cheapest way to
community that is
provide waste services to a
particularly sensitive to
community.
increases in charges by
Services funded through
Council, this could result in
Council should ideally also be
some negative public
governed through Council.
perception.
This ensures that
• Recovering costs through
the agency which is
targeted rates or user
responsible for charging
charges would result in
members of the
increased administration
community for solid waste
needs to ensure individual
services is also making
customers are being
decisions as to what those
charged correctly.
services would be (in
consultation with the
community).
Transfer station (Funding by • Council’s obligations for solid • Funding solid waste
the Council)
waste management, in service
services by Council will
provision and in strategic
usual y mean that the costs
[Status Quo]
planning can be managed,
of the services need to be
control ed, and reported on
recovered through rates
while maintaining strict
charges, targeted rates
adherence to service
charges, or some method
performance measures and
of service user charge. In a
levels of service.
community that is
• Funding waste services
particularly sensitive to
through Council enables
increases in charges by
economies of scale to be
Council, this could result in
achieved and is often the
some negative public
cheapest way to provide
perception.
waste services to a
• Recovering costs through
community. Services funded
targeted rates or user
through Council should ideal y
charges would result in
also be governed through
increased administration
Council. This ensures that
needs to ensure individual
the agency which is
customers are being
responsible for charging
charged correctly.
members of the community
• The possibility exists that in
for solid waste services is also
order to maintain future
making decisions as to what
growth, Council may incur
those services would be (in
more operational charges.
consultation with the
community).
Report on Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
Page 5
8 September 2021
Funding by a joint
• Where services are governed
• Funding services jointly
committee
by a joint committee (such as
usual y involves consistent
with another council) the
charges being applied. This
(Al services offered by
services could also be funded
can mean that some
Council)
in a similar way. This would
customers may end up
ensure that funds are
paying more for the service
recovered consistently.
than if it were funded
Governing and funding
directly through Council.
services jointly usually
Funding services jointly is
requires that the services are
only feasible where the
reasonably consistent across
services are reasonably
the area. This could result in
consistent across the area
cost savings through
where costs are being
economies of scale, and cross
recovered. This may mean
subsidisation between highly
that services are provided
populated areas and less
which are not the ideal
densely populated areas.
option for Tararua District
ratepayers.
Funding by another type
• Council could provide services • Council would need to hold
of shared arrangement such
in partnership with the private
a significant level of control
as a CCO.
sector and community groups,
over service provision,
with the private sector
which would require an
(Al services offered by
continuing to charge a portion
agreement being reached
Council)
to householders, and Council
with the private sector and
recovering costs for a fixed
community groups. It
portion. This could result in
is likely that the private
some reduction in cost to the
sector would still like to
householder although to an
retain some control over
unknown extent.
services that are provided,
• A possibility could be to have
however. There would be
the private sectors supply bins
increased administrative
to the community at a rate
costs for Council, and
subsidised by Council and
possibly also for the private
have the operational costs
sector. This may also cause
subsidised while maintain a
confusion to householders
transfer station drop off
with respect to who they
facility for the private
are paying, for what
contractors to be used at a
service.
discounted rate in which both
parties could benefit from an
alliance type model.
• No funding arrangements
have been identified in a CCO
setting as these groups do not
exist.
Page 6
Report on Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
8 September 2021
2.3 Delivery Options for Solid Waste Kerbside Services
Section 17A requires that a review of the method of delivery must consider the relative
advantages of service delivery by:
• In-house
• Council CCO
• Multi-party CCO
• Another local authority
• Another person or agency
The existing services, and what alternative types of service could be preferable for the
Tararua region, have been audited and described in detail in supporting service review
work carried out for Council by Waste Not Consulting Ltd.
This section considers the method by which the services would be delivered, rather than
what the services would be. All service provision options assume that the same service
packages are being considered.
The alternative service provision scenarios were developed in consultation with staff.
There are two dimensions to cost in respect of kerbside waste and recycling services:
the cost of Council service provision, and the cost to the householder. These are
different because households can sign up to private rubbish col ection services (as they
currently do in the Tararua District’s more densely populated towns) in addition to
whatever services Council provides. Even where Council provides rubbish services, some
households may choose to subscribe to a private service (for example if it provides more
capacity, is more frequent, offers on-property col ection etc.).
It is recommended that the delivery of all Council solid waste services new and existing
is done via a Tararua District Council contract with another person or agency.
Report on Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
Page 7
8 September 2021
Delivery Options
Advantages
Disadvantages
Private delivery of al
• Customers can choose to
• In most cases users cannot cancel
services
utilise Council drop off
a service before contractual term
facilities to dispose of
ends, without incurring penalties.
(Another person or
general waste at a
• Not all areas able to access
agency)
potential y lesser cost.
services.
• Customers currently have a
• Does not address peak periods
range of choices, both for
(e.g., summer holiday).
the type of service
• Consistent district-wide
provided and the service
education is difficult. Limited
provider itself. This is the
availability of data.
case to a greater extent for
• Implementing national initiatives
the more urban households.
(such as consistent container/bin
• Private companies carry
colours) is difficult.
most risks pertaining to
• The total community cost of the
contamination of waste and
service is higher than a standard
have contingencies in place
Council provided service package
to manage accordingly.
would be expected to cost.
• Private institutions do not
provide household recycling
services.
Another person or
• Internal analysis and
• The level of choice available to
agency to manage
investigation have led to the
householders may reduce.
solid waste services
idea that a Council-provided • It is likely that Council would
service of some kind (as
require specialist advice and
Council contract with
opposed to a private sector
support in the short-term to
another person or
provided service) would
carry out an effective
agency)
achieve better waste
procurement process.
management and
• Council might have to extend its
minimisation outcomes,
operational capability by
while also resulting in
recruiting additional solid waste
lower overall cost for
fte’s to run such an operation
householders.
which may add additional costs.
• Data would be readily
available to make quick
informed decisions around
future waste initiatives.
• Council will be able to
control the levels of service
through monitoring,
controlling, and reporting.
Page 8
Report on Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
8 September 2021
In-house management • Council will be able to
• Prevents shared procurement
of solid waste services
control the levels of service
process (and any potential cost-
through monitoring,
savings that might have arisen).
(by Council)
controlling, and reporting.
• Extensive recruitment and
• The main advantage of an in-
ongoing staff management
house service delivery is that
required and increased staffing
the service can be more
risk. It would not necessarily be
responsive to changes, as
incentivised to find efficiencies
decisions can be made
or innovate or easily learn from
within Council and
other areas. Increased risks sit
implemented without
solely with Council (such as
requiring any contract
commodity price variation and
negotiations or retendering.
health and safety
management).
• A high capital cost combined
with a higher operational cost
might prove too expensive.
Delivery of Solid waste • The advantages of a CCO are • May prevent any shared
services
like that of an in-house
procurement process (and any
service; in that the service
potential cost-savings that
Council CCO
can be more responsive to
might have arisen).
changes, as decisions can be • Extensive initial recruitment
made within Council or
required including appointment
within the CCO (without the
of directors, and significant
need to go to Council) and
start-up costs establishing the
implemented with reduced
organisation.
need for contract
• Ongoing management and
negotiations or retendering.
governance required for
• Other potential advantages
monitoring and to ensure
include a level of insulation
accountability and quality
for Council from financial
service provision. Possible
variables (such as
tensions between
commodity prices). CCOs
the objectives of delivering a
operate at arms’ length from
quality service, while also
the political
maintaining commercial
arena, and so are less
viability (this also applies
vulnerable to political
to a contractor relationship).
decisions that may not
• Reduced ability to manage risk.
take operational
• It would take time to set this up
considerations fully into
as a Council Controlled
account.
organisation does not exist at
this stage.
Delivery of solid waste • As per above
• As per above, however there
services
would be increased
complications due to the
Multi-party CCO
multi-party nature which may
Report on Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
Page 9
8 September 2021
require two Council’s to agree
to decisions.
Delivery of solid waste • It may be very feasible for two local authorities to manage the
services
delivery of services across a joint area, with an appropriate fee
being levied on the Tararua District. However, this option is not
Another local authority
currently considered beneficial given that there are no local
authorities nearby that could extend waste services to include the
Tararua District. Such an arrangement could limit the ability for
Council to ensure the services provided are fit for purpose for the
district.
Analysis of the Strengths, Weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the proposed
recommendations.
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
Weaknesses
• Council controls solid waste stream and
• Possibility of increased CRM’s
can target education
• More time spent on education
• Council controls col ection frequency
• More funds spent on
• Collection and disposal risks remain with
education
private contractors
• Limited staff resources in-
• Ease of service for ageing community
house to manage activity
members
• Reluctance to change by
• Council can increase or decrease service
community
levels to meet community demand
• Cost effective for ratepayers
• Higher community satisfaction
• WMMP outcomes could be realised
Opportunities
Threats
• Remove monopoly driven service from
• Unpredictability of solid waste
private sector to provide a cheaper service
regulations
for the community
• More waste tonnages flowing
• Opportunity to col ect data for Business
through our transfer stations
Intelligence to drive key decisions
• Opportunity to work closer with smal er
contractors and empower their businesses
Page 10
Report on Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
8 September 2021
Attachments
1.
Final Report - Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
Report on Section 17A Review of Solid Waste Services
Page 11
8 September 2021
Document Outline
