Wainui/Okitu residents fire up over reticulation debate
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
By Marianne Gillingham

A vociferous turnout of irate Wainui ratepayers last night rejected about a third of the council’s $68 million annual plan, challenging the need to reticulate their community and the council’s right to impose a 289 percent rate hike on them.

Wainui Beach School hall was filled with what looked to be more than half the population of Wainui and Okitu.

Only two people spoke in favour of the reticulation proposal. One of them was Moana Road resident Warwick Hickling, who said that if Wainui ratepayers had not opposed it in the first place, they might have got away with the $10,000 per household first cited -- instead of the $26,000 quoted now.

The other was Sandy Bull, who was in favour of it on environmental grounds.

But the vast majority was against the project on the grounds of affordability, slamming the council over a lack of consultation, lack of alternatives, lack of evidence against the status quo and nebulous costings.

They cited a council document that concluded that data used to justify the proposal was insufficient, not robust and that nitrate levels in the soil -- indicating pollution -- were negligible.

Leading the charge was Wairere Road resident Mike Pharaoh, who challenged council costings.

The figures did not include GST -- which most residents could not recover -- nor maintenance costs or interest. They included a 30 percent margin for error, which was a significant amount on top of $26 million.

The figures were also based on a population growth figure not supported by current trends and exceeded Statistics NZ forecasts by 7 percent, with slow uptake of existing lots and market demand declining.

This meant existing ratepayers could also be carrying the $9.1 million earmarked for developers’ contributions.

Most Wainui residents were asset-rich and cash- poor, so the $100 to $160 a week they would be paying in extra rates would be taken out of the regional economy.

Mayor Meng Foon said that if reticulation went ahead, people could get costs postponed until they sold the house or died, and pay it from their equity, or they could have the capital costs consigned to their property and pay interest only.

They could also apply for rates remissions under the council’s rating hardship policy.

But if they defaulted on paying, they would be putting their property on the line.

Claims by Mr Foon that the council had consulted with the community were widely dismissed.

On one occasion this had taken the form of discussion with a small group of invited residents, on other occasions meetings were for the council to provide information, not consultation, he was told.

The council had not taken one iota of notice of the community’s opinion, said one resident.

Residents felt they would be taking a double whammy as a result of the city’s wastewater treatment plant project, which Mr Foon conceded was now looking like $40 million, instead of the $26 million originally stated.

One resident said he had heard the final figure was likely to be closer to $90 million.

“You have probably got a pretty good idea but, whether you want to tell us or not, the ratepayers in town would probably like to know. Your figures are all way out.”

He asked the council to “stop beating around the bush” and start telling ratepayers the “real deal”.

Another ratepayer told Mr Foon he had no confidence in the council now.

Mr Foon agreed that costs had yet to be clarified. Budgeting was not easy, he said. The real cost would not be known until the projects went out to tender.

He would be able to reveal the real cost of the wastewater project on April 24, when the council was due to get a report from Beca on costs.

He conceded that ratepayers would then have only a few more days to comment, with submissions on the annual plan closing on May 9.

Mike Pharaoh asked him how people were expected to make any decisions without knowing the parameters.

Since 2006 the figures had gone up by 735 percent.

It was starting to look like a development proposal that could not be sustained.

The council had done no economic or social impact assessment, nor had it conducted a poll.

Gary Stevenson said some residents had done a poll in which over 400 ratepayers were contacted.

Of those, only 7.8 percent wanted reticulation.

Mr Hickling said people were attacking the wrong people -- they should be attacking the drones in the Beehive.

Residents asked if they had any power to influence the council’s decision.

Chief executive Lindsay McKenzie said the council had to give the community the information, options and chance to comment, but the council was legally entitled to hold a view and was not bound by any poll in making its decisions.

Mr Foon said it also depended on how articulate ratepayers were. Councillors could be lobbied -- they had feelings too and were not just interested in financial aspects.

Moana Road resident Wayne Spence suggested councillors put their emotions aside and take a look at some of the hard evidence and facts.

Return to >> NEWS