Refuse stations tighten revenue stream

The days of ‘‘she’ll be right’’ will soon dissapear from the Te Aroha Refuse transfer station.

Health and safety issues and cash handling were identified as problem areas at the refuse site run for the Matamata-Piako District Council, after a review closely scrutinised its revenue collection proceedures.

A review carried out by consultants BDO of the revenue collection process at the Te Aroha Refuse Transfer Station highlighted the concerns to the council’s Audit and Risk Committee in February.

The council’s three transfer stations in Matamata, Morrinsville and Te Aroha, managed by Smart Environmental Services has an estimated revenue of $425,000.

With transfer stations being the only activity where revenue is collected for council by a third party, the council had made an approach to Smart Services, to retain the revenue collected and adjust the contract price accordingly. The offer was rejected.

Consultant Andrew Sloman presented the findings of the review advising there were no documented procedures or guidelines for Refuse Transfer Station staff to follow for site operations generally and, particularly, the charging and collection of revenue. In addition, there is limited staff induction and training which has resulted in different practices at different sites.

Currently not all vehicles that enter the sites are recorded as staff are only capturing those making payments for refuse transfer and a small portion of payments are made in cash which pose a risk of not being recorded into the system.

Recommendations in the report would see council consider the option of charging on entry for customers, who are going to pay a fixed charge and will not be using the weigh bridge.

This will avoid any confusion or potential to undercharge, which is a problem presented by the current payment on exit approach.

Also the position of CCTV at each site should be reviewed to ensure video evidence of vehicles entering and exiting the sites along with weighbridge records.

Although not in the scope of the review, consultants noted instances where accidents involving customers not recorded or dealt with. The incidents only came to light when the customer went to complain, but the procedure has been rectified.