Warning cost of Urenui, Onaero wastewater project could ‘triple’
The price of delivering the Urenui and Onaero wastewater project could double or even triple by the time it is built, costing every ratepayer in the district hundreds of extra dollars a year.
That’s one of the stark warnings given to councillors at yesterday’s strategic projects committee meeting, which focused on a “deep dive” report into the project first mooted two decades ago with an estimated price tag of $4 million, which has now ballooned to an estimated $41m.
As well as the potential of huge cost overruns in fixing the problems at the two seaside villages, New Plymouth District Council Three Waters manager Mark Hall warned that failing to meet the statutory requirements under the Local Government Act could have costly consequences for ratepayers.
This included the council having to buy out bach owners at Urenui because lease agreements, which were renewed every 10 years, could be breached. Hall said having to buy out owners could cost “tens of millions” of dollars, given he had seen some properties for sale for up to $800,000.
A council report said the reticulated sewage and wastewater treatment plant would service 228 properties in the two villages as well as 121 baches in Urenui, 17 in Onaero, and two campgrounds.
The project, which would involve wastewater being collected from individual properties and piped to a treatment plant, where it would be treated before being discharged through irrigation, had always been regarded as “high priority”.
In 2009, the project was pushed out by three years by council as concept design work was undertaken, with the budget estimated to be $14m.
However, by 2012 it was taken out of the council’s Long-term Plan due to cost increases.
It took a further nine years before it was back on the council table due to “negative environmental impacts” which the “community identified as a high priority”, given the dangerously high levels of human faecal contamination found in popular swimming and fishing spots in the area.
Under further questioning, Hall admitted it was impossible to provide an accurate cost of the project until it had gone through the full consenting process, designs were done, contractors had been engaged and a treatment station was built.
“There are some key unknowns there that make it very difficult to come up with a cost with any certainty,” he said.
However, other projects with a similar class rating had the potential to increase by 100%, he warned.
Questioning Hall, mayor Neil Holdom said he feared that council was “walking down a corridor” where no other options for the project were being considered.
“The cost potentially could double or triple on this project because we simply don’t know, and at the same time we are not considering other options. At what cost per property do we consider other alternatives?”
One alternative, raised by deputy mayor David Bublitz, was the potential of trucking out the effluent.
However, he was told it would take 15 trucks working 12 hours a day every day of the year, which would cost roughly $11.6m annually through capital and operational expenses, to service Urenui and Onaero.
The committee also heard that it would cost every ratepayer in the district an estimated $130 to $150 extra annually to pay for the scheme if it ended up costing $41m, although this would rise if the price of the project blew out.
One potential way of reducing the overall cost would be through the possibility of using any fast-track consenting process that the Government is expected to legislate shortly.
Holden was keen to focus on that possibility, successfully moving a motion to allow management to explore the possibility.
The motion also included an ability for management to explore other options to address the environmental problems the project aimed to address at a lower cost while continuing to progress the proposed solution. “We should always hold in the back of our mind that we have got other options to look at because if this project blows out by a factor of 100%, it’s $300 a property (for ratepayers).”