TO CONSIDER a report of the Director of Environmental Services (Thanet) on behalf of East Kent Waste Management Group
Minutes:
The report was introduced by Roger Walton, Head of Property, Leisure and Waste Management (Dover). The Committee was informed that the report before them built on the previous agreement made in November 2009 to adopt the Notional Optimum Model (NOM) for waste disposal and collection. In the interim period, a competitive dialogue procurement process had been continuing on the joint tender between Shepway, Dover and Kent to allow prospective tenders the opportunity to inform the client authorities on the most effective waste collection methodology. This had led to a recommendation that an Alternative NOM be adopted, which included separate weekly collection of food and separate containerised collection of dry recyclables. He said the new model allowed those who presently charge for green waste on a subscription basis to continue to do so.
The impact of the changes to the cost model were described. It was explained that the savings accrued by Kent County Council from disposal would be retained by them and used, in part, to provide enabling payments to the districts to support them with the waste collection service. He explained that there were two components to the payment to districts; one part offset the loss of recycling income presently enjoyed by districts and a second compensatory payment was included to ensure that overall the new collection service would, based on estimated costs, be cost neutral to the districts whilst delivering improved recycling rates.
He said for various procurement reasons it had not been possible to prepare a single contract for East Kent at this stage but the opportunity to do so in 2020 had been retained. The possibility of co-located depots had been rejected by prospective tenderers, due to the lack of cost benefit. It was explained that the business case had moved away from a desegregation of shared benefits so that the disposal authority now retained the income from recyclate disposal, which carried the risk of fluctuation according to market conditions. This had led to a proposal from the County council that the enabling payments to districts should be capped at the rates set out in section 2.7 of the report. Anticipated gross disposal savings arising from the alternate NOM were estimated to be £2.96 million and the adjusted total net savings, taking into account all enabling payments and containerisation costs were estimated to be £1.008 million.
The funding arrangement for the sharing of consultancy costs for technical and legal advice was explained. The timetable set out in Appendix 3 of the report for the Shepway, Dover, Kent element of the contract was amended to reflect the most recent advice. The award of contract would take place in September 2010 and contract commencement was expected in November 2010.
A Member asked if all of the recommendations needed to be referred to the constituent authorities Executive/Cabinet. In response the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (Canterbury) explained that recommendations one to five were for EKJAC to determine and that recommendations six and seven would be a matter for each partner and may differ slightly in each authority according to individual circumstances.
RESOLVED –
1. That EKJAC agrees the proposal to use the Alternate NOM as the base model to be priced by tenderers in the procurement for the waste collection, disposal and cleansing services for Dover, Shepway and KCC.
2. That the Alternate NOM is used in the future for the development of services in Canterbury and Thanet.
3. That the required additional future funding to complete the current procurement process is met initially by KCC, with the part contributions to these costs by the districts being deducted from their Enabling Payments once these commence
4. That delegated authority is given to the Chief Executive of Dover District Council in consultation with the Chief Executives of Kent, Shepway, Canterbury and Thanet councils to determine the formula to share the outstanding and future project development costs of completing the first phase of procurement in the East Kent Joint Waste project, but if he considers there is difficulty in reaching a consensus he may refer it to this Committee for decision.
5. That KCC will provide capital funding for additional containerisation up to the figures set out in the table under paragraph 2.6 for each district. KCC will deal with any revenue fluctuations that arise from the borrowing of these funds.
To recommend to the partner authorities that they seek authority to agree:
6. That net disposal savings generated by the new service arrangements set out in Appendix 1 are retained by KCC, and that they limit the sums payable to the districts to the enabling payments for each authority set out in the table under paragraph 2.7 plus the alternate view payments to Canterbury and Thanet set out in paragraph 2.10.
7. That provided the overall waste diversion increases in East Kent then KCC will share 50% of the savings with the East Kent districts. The allocation between the districts will be based on a simple formula pro-rata to their populations.
8. That the amendments set out in the supplementary agenda relating to paragraphs 2.8, 2.11 and 6.3 of the report be confirmed.
There being no other business the meeting closed at 11.00 am
Supporting documents: