Waste Management Key Recommendations Waste Management Financial Summary

Waste Management

Key Recommendations Waste Management Financial Summary (for financial year 15 -16) Area of Expenditure Annual Budget Actual Spend Over/(Under) Spend Direct staff costs 9, 875, 700 9, 872, 268 (3, 432) 509, 000 461, 680 (47, 320) 4, 064, 400 3, 816, 857 (247, 543) Plant & Equipment costs 179, 100 179, 175 75 Materials 363, 600 328, 920 (34, 680) 63, 900 58, 117 (5, 783) 216, 900 217, 790 890 Contractors 9, 729, 700 9, 764, 249 34, 549 Landfill Tax 2, 977, 300 3, 487, 890 510, 590 43, 200 35, 175 (8, 025) 125, 229 166, 612 41, 383 Total Expenditure 28, 148, 029 28, 388, 733 240, 704 Income 3, 155, 600 3, 526, 197 (370, 597) Net Expenditure 24, 992, 429 24, 862, 536 (129, 893) Property costs Transport costs Protective clothing Consultants/licences Disposal costs Admin costs

Key Recommendations Waste Transfer and Disposal • Transfer Stations – we need to make it a Redesign Priority to fill in the gaps in provision – allows significant bargaining power with private sector operators • Residual Waste Pre-treatment in Inverness is a known requirement post 2019 (when extended contracts run out). We need to make it a Redesign Priority to update the Business Case and find a site – this allows significant bargaining power and the ability to take things back in-house in the medium term.

Key Recommendations Waste Transfer and Disposal • There will be no disposal of biodegradable waste in landfill post 2020. We have capacity in Seater until 2020 – how can this capacity be best utilised in the period 2019 -2021. Post 2021 – will still be able to landfill all other types of waste – this is a market opportunity for the Council • Long term solution, whether Ef. W or other technology – Business Case needs to be done now, and included as a key commitment within the new Council Programme. This should be a Redesign Priority • The bulking up and disposal of recyclate should form part our medium and long term solution –potential for arms-length or in house management of this as opposed to the current private sector arrangements. • We need to look at Fife as a case study – they deliver waste management services through an arms length company – final report will look at advantages and disadvantages of this approach

Key Recommendations Collection of Waste • We need to procure route optimisation software to challenge our existing collection routes and frequencies from a cost and environmental impact perspective. This should be a Redesign Priority. • We need to review the Routes which currently utilise Overtime payments as standard. We need to recognise that there areas where it may simply be uneconomic to carry out separate collections (cf. Argyll and Bute). • We need to support the implementation of trials on changing the frequency of collections – particularly focussed on Inner Moray Firth area, where the main population centres are – this will be tied in to discussions with Zero Waste Scotland Recycling Charter (As per CS Committee decisions on 18 September). However, a Redesign Priority should be to implement a trial ASAP. Citizens Panel – 50% disagree or strongly disagree with less frequent collections.

Key Recommendations Collection of Waste • We need to review the structure of crews and make better use of technology (“in-cab” technology) – saves double keying/reduction of bureaucracy • Consider changing collection methods in some remote/hard to reach areas by investing in new fleet vehicles that can accommodate different waste types – rather than fortnightly collection to collect recycling and residual – do it once! • We need to implement charges for new and replacement bins. We need to ensure that new developments are designed in such a way as to assist our collection routes and priorities – the use of communal bins needs to be investigated both in existing developments and new developments (£ 33 k).

Key Recommendations Collection of Recyclate • We need to review the operation and use of Recycling Centres – looking particularly at education, awareness and scrutiny by site staff of what people are getting rid off. • We need to lead by example by recognising there is room for improvement in recycling in Schools and Other Council premises (£ 90 k). • Rural Recycling – if doorstep collection is amended there is scope to look at other forms of centralised provision in rural areas. • Glass Recycling – we are currently spending more to collect glass in some locations than it costs to dispose of it. We need to address this as a priority – there will still be facilities at supermarkets, schools, shops etc – people will still have a choice – this could generate an immediate saving. Citizens Panel – 32% strongly agree and 48% agree that we should remove the bottle banks which are not well used.

Key Recommendations Collection of Recyclate • We should look to partners in the Highlands to investigate opportunities for reprocessing of recyclate more locally – how do we use our won waste – e. g. work with UHI and HIE to determine opportunities for glass reprocessing?

Key Recommendations Commercial Waste • We need to refocus existing staff to ensure commercial opportunities are maximised and contracts are managed on a regular basis. Depending on other redesign decisions, it may be appropriate to create a specific commercial waste team. This should be a redesign priority. • We need to further analyse net costs of weekly collections – and consider reduction/withdrawal where these are not cost effective. We need to manage the reputational risk, but also recognise that the Council is often the only provider in particular areas. • We should consider putting in place delegated charging powers, allowing a more dynamic approach to changes in the market (£ 260 k). • We should put in place process improvements to our current contracts process, including fees for any changes made during the contracts period (budget proposal).

Key Recommendations Green Waste • We should introduce a fee for the collection of green waste – this will follow the model that has been introduced in Angus Council and several English authorities (£ 500 k). This is preferable to stopping the service altogether which Borders Council have done, or not providing it at all (such as Aberdeenshire Council) • Put in place back office systems to support the system – and market the service – it is very good value at 50 p per week! • Citizens Panel – 47% would pay the annual charge

Key Recommendations Food Waste • We need to consider the value of our food waste collection – only used by 40% of householders. Should we consider changing frequency to fortnightly or consider not providing the service at all (although the latter has been considered previously and discounted on legal advice).

Key Recommendations Bulky Uplift • Should we stop the service? • If stopping the service altogether is not an option, then we need to increase the charges to more closely match the costs of providing the service (£ 60 k). • We should investigate whether a list of approved private sector bulky uplift companies can be used to divert the burden of bulky uplifts from the Council. May be issues over liability but worthy of further discussion. • Bulky Uplift – 55% support increasing the standard charge, 45% support ceasing the service altogether.