As reported last week, the tender process was cancelled after the two applicants merged midway through the selection process. Council then switched to Plan B and reverted to negotiating a contract extension with the current contractor.
Council officers were so confident with their negotiations that they proposed a 4-year plus 3-year option to Cleanaway.
Officers faced 40 minutes of sustained questioning
Before the vote at Council, the staff who oversaw the contract negotiations responded in depth to sustained questioning from councillors about the selection process and the assurance of future performance.
Their responses were thorough and consistent with their recommendation to award an extension. They reported that the transition to Cleanaway has been smooth and has incorporated a range of additional skills and resources into the contract.
They said that the negotiations had secured more stringent performance-based standards that are designed to avoid the previous failures.
Officers said the new contract included the safe placement of bins as a requirement under the existing contract and the proposed extension.
‘The negotiated extension includes an additional leading hand position that the contractor will employ to ensure quality control and assurance on such items as bin placement, bin spillage and miscollections. As part of the suite of performance measures that Council tracks, complaints, reports on spillage, misbins, insurance, et cetera.’
But the extra effort comes at a cost, with a 14% increase from the current contract to the proposed extension.
Councillors convinced despite misgivings
Despite misgivings about the process (especially the mid-process merger of the two applicants), the Councillors expressed confidence in the officers’ recommendation and voted accordingly.
Moving the motion, Cr Halliday said, ‘I can see the depth of thinking that has gone into this to ensure that we avoid the pitfalls that befell the last contract. And hopefully, we will see through this a seamless transition to the new contract.
‘I fully support this contract awarding process. And again, I commend the council officers for the work that they’ve done on this and the community who’ve come along for the journey,’ he said.
Seconding the motion, a taciturn Cr Hardy said, ‘I think enough said.’
Mayor Crawford said the council had to change the way waste is managed.
‘Statewide, every council has to adjust how they do waste. It’s mandated and legislated around four services and a reduction in landfill by an increasing landfill levy that is designed to change our behaviour.
‘Let’s be clear, it’s not always going to be comfortable or easy, but we have to adjust.
‘I do want to thank the officers. I think that there are many checks and balances, which is important, but there’s also the flexibility in this contract for the change that’s coming.’
Cr Thomann said he believed that what happened three years ago is not going to happen this time.
‘I’m pleased that we’re going with these people and if they keep doing the job that they’re doing, I think the community and everyone will be pleased.’
Former Mayor Cr Cunsolo (who was the Mayor in 2023) said it was really hard when we changed the contractor last time.
‘I really appreciate that the officers took it head-on and righted the ship and it has been much, much better. … I don’t hear any complaints right now.’
Cr Jay said roads, rates, and rubbish are the things that are important to our community.
‘We learned that through the last waste contract. We learned a lot of lessons through that. Rubbish waste is a core service for our community.
‘It is unfortunate where you only get two tenders and then they eat each other up in the middle. But we are confident that we will actually get an uplift in service from this decision.’
Cr Makin said the reality is we have a recommendation before us.
‘Any alternative to that recommendation is likely to increase uncertainty, increase risk and increase costs.
‘This is the recommendation that is right for where we are.’
Cr Mears said he was impressed with the quality of the answers to the questions. It indicates clearly that the council officers are well across this brief.
Cost of FOGO foibles revealed
Questioning at council revealed that the current annual cost of FOGO contamination was estimated at $800K. This happens when non-organic waste is found in Green bins, which prompts the contents to be sent to costly landfill. Typically this is caused by general waste going in the wrong bin or organic waste in non-recyclable plastic bags.
The price signal is that proper disposal of food and organic waste is cheaper than diversion to landfill.
This is a cautionary revelation. If we go to fortnightly waste collection combined with weekly FOGO, people may be tempted to put general waste in their FOGO bin, resulting in an even higher contamination cost.
Now that’s a stinker.
Projected waste charges for households
This table was included in the Council Agenda papers 15 October 2025
