Thames Valley Public
Meeting
November 2012
What we will cover
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
October meeting
Options
Working Group/progress
Rates Implications
Option Development
Option Selection
Way Forward
October Meeting
Briefly:
• Challenges being faced – four issues
• Options for the future of the supply
• Formation of the Water Working Group
Options
• Supply all from the Puriri River
• Self-sufficiency for residential and hand the supply back
to the farming community
• Supplement the supply with groundwater
• Maintain existing operation
• Supply from Hauraki District
Working Group
• Nominations were received for the members of the group
from the community.
• The nominations were taken to the Thames Community
Board to select the group.
• The group was formed and has met twice since the
October public meeting.
Working Group
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The members of the Working Group are:
Peter French – Deputy Mayor
Mark Bridgman – Community Board member
Lester Yates – Community Board member
Craig Reidy
Brian Revell
Mike Price
Warner Hunter
Lynne Kingsbury
Paul Bax
Simon Marriott
Barry Akehurst
Working Group Progress
• The working group has discussed a number of the issues
and some options for the supply long term.
• The group has been to the Matatoki intake and filter
station, to better understand the infrastructure.
• The working group has begun, where possible, to
eliminate some of the options that are not considered
viable.
Removed Options
• The supplementing the supply with groundwater – This
option has been eliminated due to the high cost and the
poor water quality and quantity. The cost of this option
was $7M
• Supplying from Kerepehi – This option is no longer
deemed viable due to the limited capacity that would be
available from the Kerepehi plant. This option if
undertaken would have required the Thames Valley
residents to fund an additional upgrade of the Kerepehi
plant.
Current Options
The options that the Working Group feel need to be
investigated further are:
• Supply all from the Puriri River $12.6M
• Self sufficiency for residential and hand the supply back
to the farming community $4.8M plus tank costs
• Maintain and optimise the existing operation $5.3M
How do we decide?
• To enable the Elected members, the communities, the
Working Group and staff to make an informed decision
on the way forward we need to know what effect the total
project cost will have on rates.
• We can give an approximate indication of what the effect
will be on rates, however to get more accurate costs a
number of tasks still need to be undertaken.
• In 2011/12 $355,000 water rates was collected from the
communities.
Funding
• An approximate indication of total rates requirements can
be given for each option
• There is currently work underway to investigate the
options available for funding the project
Approximate Rate Requirements
• Puriri River – $12.6M CAPEX – 2.9 x 2011/12 rates
• Maintain Existing - $5.3M CAPEX – 2.2 x 2011/12 rates
• Self-sufficiency – this is a bit more complex!
Approximate Rate Requirements
- Self-sufficiency
• Renewals $3.8M + reticulation connection $417K + tanks
$2.2M
• To make the self-sufficiency option work, every house will
need to go onto a tank – $600 per house, per year for ten
years.
• The farming community (everyone over 4ha) will then be
responsible for the supply and will need to share the
approximate cost of $710,000 per year for operations, pipe
renewals, loan charges and gathering rates. This is 2 x the
2011/12 rates. The operators of the scheme would ultimately
decide how renewals are undertaken.
• Is there an appetite for the farming community to be
responsible for the system and have all houses supplied only
from roof water?
Option Development
To develop further the project costs and better understand
the implications on rates the following tasks are underway:
• Hydraulic model build and calibration (for the pipes)
• Looking at the development of rates mechanisms &
policy development
• Greater detail assessment of current options
Option Selection
• By March we need to have an option pinned down to
inform the Regional Council where we are going
• We need an option that ticks all the required boxes and is
affordable for the communities
• By the December community meeting we need to be
down to two possible options to work up into one
recommended option to go from the Working Group to
the Thames Community Board and Council early in 2013.
How do we get there?
• Staff are continuing to work on more accurate figures for
the options – The outcome of this will be discussed at the
next Working Group meeting. We will also keep in touch
with residents over this.
• The investigation of rates mechanisms & any required
policy changes
• Once the required tasks have been completed the
Working Group and staff will be in a better position to
make some recommendations on a preferred option.
Preferred Option
• The preferred option will be compiled into a report to go
the Thames Community Board for comment and to
Council for decision
• Council will have the final say on the direction of the
project and what will be relayed to the Regional Council
in March
What happens after March?
• Advance the way forward with the Regional Council for
the chosen direction
• Progress the option within Council and if required amend
the Ten Year Plan
• Lodge any required resource consents with the Regional
Council and progress though the consent process with
the communities
• Begin the required infrastructure renewals and upgrades