Communication breakdown at NP
A submission was received at last Ruapehu District Council meeting from the National Park Progressive Association expressing concem at the Council's failure to keep the National Park Progressive Association and the ratepayers of National Park informed or to con-
sult them regarding the cost over-runs incurred by the water and sewerage project. The National PaTk Progressive Association submission made a particularly strong objection to being saddled with the cost of arbitration which, according to the submission, was the
result of a major blunder by the Council in the way it approached the arbitration. The submission goes on to say that "the National Park Progressive Association actively oppose the Ruapehu District Council's proposal to raise a loan (reported likely to be
$500,000 or $750,000) for the purpose of covering the arbitration award and costs, at least until satisfactory assurances are receiyed that the everitual cost of this loan will not have to be borne by the ratepayers • of National Park." "The original projected cost of the
scheme, as approved by National Park ratepayers, was $1.14 million but the cost now faced is $2.14 million including ! arbitration costs and that figure is continuing to increase because of high interest charges ... at present the cost overrun is 88% above the original estimated cost of the scheme." "The ratepayers of National Park have never in any way caused or
lcontributed to these over-runs, not authorised them, nor even been aware of them until well after the Council allowed them to occur." "The people of the township were assured by Council in a letter dated December 1988 that the Council 'has plans to promote and develop National Park township" and the installation of water and Turnpage4
National Park sewerage concern
Frompage 3 sewerage schemes was 'the first step towards this' but, over three years later this promotion has failed to eventuate." Indeed the Council, although fully aware of the desperate situation of National Park has further undermined its economic viability by taking work contracts away from local people who could have done the work better and more cheaply." In his report to Council about a meeting he had been invited to attend by the National Park Progressive Association on Easter Saturday 18 April, Mayor Garrick Workman confirmed that while National Park ratepayers were quite prepared to meet the expenses of the water and sewerage scheme itself, they objected strongly to contributing towards the costs of the subsequent arbitration. However, he said that National Park was not the only place experiencing difficulty with rates and all other ratepayers in the District were already supporting them with a $15 levy per rate-payer. This is to be increased to $20 in the coming financial year. Cr. Turley said that "it was not fair that National Park should be saddled with the cost of arbitration." Cr Murphy agreed that the costs should be shared by all ratepayers because "lessons have been learnt as a result of this experience which should benefit all ratepayers in the District if arbitration can be avoided in future." Cr Peach said the costs should lie where they
fall... "National Park ratepayers wouldn't be happy if they were asked to support arbitration in other areas of the District." Cr Kirton said that the' Council must be seen to be fair and equitable ... "National Park does have a future and that is why the $15 levy is paid by all ratepayers in the District to support National Park." Cr Lawson said that the proposed increase in water and sewerage charges from $135 to
$155 were not excessive. Cr Bennett said that he was not happy that all the extra costs should be borne by National Park ratepayers. Mayor Workman reminded councillors that the last thing Council wanted was to have National Park ratepayers walking off their properties if they felt their rates were excessive. Council approved an application for a loan of $500,000 to cover the
cost of arbitration and resolved that National Park ratepayers should meet these costs with the help of the wider community who will increase their support by a rise in the levy on all ratepayers in the District from $15 to $20. The $15 per ratepayers levy was brought in about $109,000 to help National Park ratepayers and the proposed $20
levy will bring in an extra $26,000 making a total of $145,000 in the coming year. Councillors heard that the contractor who is in dispute with Council about the National Park water and sewerage scheme has asked that the arbitration monies be paid into and held by the High Court depending on the outcome of the appeal.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/RUBUL19920527.2.10
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 9, Issue 438, 27 May 1992, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
771Communication breakdown at NP Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 9, Issue 438, 27 May 1992, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Ruapehu Media Ltd is the copyright owner for the Ruapehu Bulletin. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Ruapehu Media Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.