Rangataua sewerage charges explained

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 11, Issue 504, 21 September 1993, Page 4

Rangataua sewerage charges explained

Ruapehu District mayor Garrick Workman answers questions on the Rangataua sewerage scheme and its charges: In recent months a number of concems have been raised and a certain amount of criticism directed at Council through the 'Letters to the Editor' column of the Bulletin. i

Under norma! circumstances I would have responded to the critics long ago and explained the reasons for certain decisions being made or actions taken by the Council. Rather than offer excuses I will simply apologise for the delay in responding and begin in a series of articles on issues that are of concern to people - the first of these being the Rangataua Sewerage Charge for the 1993/94 financial year. There are three major reasons for the $99 increase in this sewerage charge over last year's figure of $85 per rateable assessment. • When the sewerage charge for Rangataua was fixed in 1992 the account held a credit balance of $10,700. A portion of that balance was returned to the ratepayers by applying it against the opera- ; tional costs for the 1992/93 year, thereby reducing the sewerage charge per assessment. In , other words the sewerage charge was reduced by using up part of that credit balance. • A discharge consent (water right) to discharge i the treated effluent into the Mangaehuehu stream has expired. An application for an extension was made on the basis of the present system but because of the level of objection from the Department o f Conservation and the Fish and Game Council, only an interim consent was granted for one year. The passing of the Resource Management Act has put increasing emphasis on the discharge of wastes into waterways. This practice is becoming increasingly unacceptable. As well as Rangataua, the Council has oxidation ponds at National Park, Ohakune, Raetihi and a sand filtration unit at Pipiriki. All of these plants discharge into waterways and the Council cannot automatically presume consents will be granted in future. It is important the Council takes a pro-active approach to the issue and investigates and establishes a programme of works for each of these sewerage systems. By

spending time now, carrying out monitoring and investigating the options available to us, we will be able to plan the most economical solution in each case. These factors have resulted in an additional amount of $13,000 being budgeted in the maintenance account for a strategic plan study for the Rangataua Treatment Plant. Coupled with cost over-runs in the Rangataua^Sewerage maintenance account during the 1991/92 and 1992/93 years the closing balance of the account as at the 30 June this year stands at $15,200 in debit. That debit balance is being carried by the general account although $1500 of that amount has been recovered by the sewerage charge for Rangataua during the 1993/94 year. The balance of $13,700 will be recovered over subsequent years from the sewerage account. • A number of rateable assessments in Rangataua have been amalgamated in recent times and as a result there are a lesser number of properties to share the annual cost of maintaining a scheme such as this. Further to that, being part of a small community means that when a large cost of this type comes along there are less people to carry the rating burden, whereas in a largely populated area, the effect on the overall population is substantially less. Although Rangataua residents may not agree with the increase I hope they now understand why it was necessary this year. The operational difficulties that plagued the plant in the past have been rectified as I understand it and from now on the large fluctuations in maintenance charges should cease. If the matter requires further information please do not hesitate to contact me about this issue. In the following weeks I intend explaining the reasons for the increase in cemetery charges - my stand on the Affco issue and developments regarding the downtown Health Centre in Raetihi.