Council faces barrage over soaring price
Tuesday, 29 April, 2008
By John Jones

Ratepayers will revolt if the District Council goes ahead with the wastewater upgrade at the present cost, the council was warned yesterday.

The competence of the council's engineering staff was questioned at the first annual plan public consultation meeting since the true costs of the scheme were revealed last week.

Mayor Meng Foon and senior staff faced a barrage of questions about the scheme from about 25 people over the $95 million (including GST) cost blowout.

Former city councillor and mayoral candidate Allan Brown drew applause when he said he was worried sick about the situation.

"I am baffled about what the council engineers do, apart from co-ordinate the works of contractors," he said.

"There has to be a high level of incompetence."

He also had problems with the consultation process. The whole thing was a fraud, he said.

It should be about getting the collective wisdom of the community but had become a charade. The community's input was lost on the council on its management of big- ticket items.

"It worries me sick."

Jack Purcell said he had been a member of the wastewater committee and the engineers were only interested in their pet projects.

If the council thought there had been a concern about the rates last time, they would face a revolt if this went ahead. It was not just people on fixed incomes -- young families would struggle.

Mr Purcell said he personally would not pay an exorbitant rate.

Chief executive Lindsay McKenzie said getting an accurate price estimate for big projects was a problem throughout the country.

There was a misunderstanding in the fact that the $26 million referred to previously was only for the treatment plant. It was in 2006 figures.

There had been a lot of other cost increases. By the time the project was completed in 2014, construction costs would have increased 50 percent.

The figures quoted by Beca engineers last week took all these factors into account.

The council had told staff to review the whole scheme and when it had a final cost it would look at alternative sources of funding.

The council had produced a scheme that was consistent with the resource consent it had obtained. If it did not comply, it would be in trouble with the Environment Court.

After several of the audience said the council should ignore that, Mr McKenzie said it would be treading a fine line.

There was a $250,000 fine. It could not ignore the Minister of Conservation, who would have the final say.

Mr Purcell said if the council stood up against the court, the people would be right behind them.

Later in the meeting, Mr Brown said figures of potential rate increases being displayed by the Mayor were meaningless because they were out of date.

"I don't know why we are wasting our time on this," he said.

Mr McKenzie said the council had prepared a statement of proposal using the best estimates at the time. It was making the new estimate as widely known as possible.

The council had told the staff the figure was unacceptable.

A separate consultation process would be needed to decide the funding mechanism.

Several speakers questioned the need for ultra-violet treatment of the city water supply. When told it was a Health Department requirement, there were calls to ignore the bureaucrats -- no one had died from drinking tank water.

Mr McKenzie said chlorination would deal with micro-organisms but not giardia and cryptosporidium.

Replying to other speakers, Mr Foon said the council was going to ensure the outfall pipe was cleaned.

The cost of the Wainui reticulation was being reviewed and no final decision had been made.

Mr Foon said the council did listen to submissions.

"We are here for the community. We are trying to do what is best for the next 1000 years.''

Return to >> NEWS