Click here to go straight to the feedback form and have your say!
Southern Water Done Well graphic banner

Option 2: Stand-alone Council Controlled Organisation (CCO)

There are some similarities with a jointly owned CCO. However, going it alone means we would lose out on critical benefits such as economies of scale, strategic procurement, workforce resilience, and standardised asset management.

This new organisation would have its own CEO, board, and management team. This would mean higher set-up and operational costs for the Council as costs would not be shared with other councils. Consequently, consumers would face higher water charges than our preferred option - a jointly owned CCO.

Finding skilled board members could be challenging due to high competition and a limited talent pool. This could lead to higher board fees, difficulty filling positions, or appointing less qualified members compared to a jointly owned CCO.

How would it work?

Click each topic to expand
Flow chart of sole CCO structure.

  • The Upside

    • We would wholly own the CCO, keeping us closely connected and allowing the organisation to focus solely on the Clutha District.
    • The CCO would set its budgets and control all risks of delivering three waters services.
    • Would be able to access higher levels of debt funding from the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA).

    • The CCO would be financially independent from the council, allowing it to more easily meet the future requirements to produce separate financial statements and water services strategies.
    • It would be solely accountable to its customers/communities for the setting of water charges.
    • There would be the certainty of long-term funding, which creates an opportunity to develop long-term, consistent pipelines of projects, creating some efficiencies.

    • Core capability and higher wage jobs remain in the District compared to a jointly owned CCO.
    • Independence and a singular focus on the delivery of three
      waters services means that the CCO can be better aligned to meet the requirements of economic regulation and deliver the right infrastructure at the right time.

  • The Downside

    • Consumers would pay more for water services than under the other two options. May not be affordable long term.
    • There would be less financial and workforce resilience, as it will be smaller than existing councils and have a smaller revenue base.

    • Capacity and capability challenges - smaller organisations have less opportunity to attract skilled, technical staff to specialist roles, so this model doesn’t increase our resilience and capacity to monitor compliance, respond to emergencies, manage risks, and adapt to future challenges like climate change.
    • Additional costs and complexities of establishing a CCO are created, but a stand-alone CCO does not have the scale of benefits that a joint CCO creates.
Click here to go straight to the feedback form and have your say!

For a full overview of each option please refer to our Consultation Document.

Extracts from the consultation document are also available here:

How do the options compare?

Levels of Service & Money Matters

How do the options compare?

Click here to see a visual guide comparing the three options.

Read more about the other options

Follow the links to find out more, then have your say.

← Option 1 - A jointly owned Council Controlled Organisation
(our preferred option)

→ Option 3 - An in-house business unit
(similar to what we do now, but with significant changes to meet legislative requirements)