The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Tipping fees at the Tonique Williams-Darling Highway landfill failed to cover even one-sixth of the facility’s $6.491 million operating costs during the 2010-2011 fiscal year, it has been revealed.

The Auditor-General’s report for 2010-2011, tabled in the House of Assembly on Wednesday, noted that just $1.002 million in tipping fees were collected at the landfill for that period - a sum equivalent to just 15.4 per cent of its projected operating costs.

Fees are based on the weight/tonnage of the weight brought for disposal, with 300 pounds or less incurring no charge. Loads between 300 to 999 pounds are charged $5; those between 1,000 and 1,999 pounds are charged $10 per load; and 2,000 pounds or more $10 per tonne,

Noting that there had been “no revision of fees” since they were introduced in 2004, the Auditor General’s Office said: “We recommend that a review of the fee structure be undertaken in an effort to increase the revenue potential in light of the increased costs associated with maintaining the landfill.”

However, the report added that the landfill’s financial situation could improve if the Department of Environmental Health Services (DEHS) was to collect on delinquent accounts.

The Auditor-General said an analysis of tipping fees paid by ‘credit customers’ between August 2010 to April 2011 showed that just 39 per cent of the sum due was paid.

Out of the total $1.408 million owed, just $548,613 was received, and the Auditor-General called on the DEHS to “aggressively pursue customers in an effort to collect outstanding revenue”.

The report also raised questions over whether the DEHS was charging the correct fees at the landfill, given the Auditor-General’s investigation into numerous repair and maintenance contracts for its ‘weigh bridge’.

This determines how heavy waste loads are, and hence the payment due from those disposing of it.

“While conducting a site visit on May 29, 2012, we observed that the ‘out’ section of the weighbridge was inoperable,” the report found.

“We were advised that the ‘out’ section has not worked for approximately two years, and the ‘in’ section has functioned sporadically for the same period. We therefore could not determine whether the Government received adequate value for the money spent.”

In response, the DEHS director said the weighbridge contract was reduced from its initial $10,000, and that the facility required constant maintenance.

Elsewhere, the Auditor-General’s report blasted the Road Traffic Department for “a breakdown of key controls during the revenue collection process” for motor vehicles and driver licences.

Warning that revenue was not being “accurately and properly collected”, the report noted that its Marsh Harbour office could not account for all receipt books and validation stickers.

“Urgent action is required on the part of the department to undertake measures in an effort to strengthen the weaknesses identified during the audit,” the Auditor-General concluded. “Further delay will result in continued loss of revenue.”

The report said the Abaco office could not properly account for 214 general receipt books, while 300 motor vehicle validation inspections were not recorded in the register.

All told, some 1,854 inspection stickers - 1,099 for motor vehicles, 755 for drivers’s licences - could not be accounted for, while 12 vehicle and three licence stickers were used twice.

The Auditor-General noted that no register of inspected vehicles was maintained, and that “the fee assessed” did not correspond to the issue/expiration dates on 101 driver licences. No application forms existed for 73 new driver licences/ learner permits.

And, when it came to motor vehicle licences, the Auditor-General said it “could not confirm the accuracy of revenue assessed” for 686 motor vehicles.

Some 439 counterfoils did not state the make and model of vehicle that was licensed; another 125 did not have documents to support the assessed fees; and “the make and model of 45 counterfoils totalling $9,348 were not listed in the weight booklet”.