My concerns with what has happened, and what is continuing to happen in Auckland, following Council amalgamation and the establishment of Watercare as a very stand-alone business, continue to disturb me. My major strategic planning concern is the splitting of Three Water management - Watercare only concerns itself with water and wastewater services - Auckland Council handles stormwater. More on this below.
Right now, Watercare's first monthly bills are going out, and residential ratepayers are scratching their heads, writing cheques, or wondering what it all means. I am aware that many landlords who previously passed water bills on to tenants, are wondering what to do with the new bills - pass them on effectively increasing rent charges, or somehow split them? An interesting conundrum. Passes wastewater costs from landlord to tenant.
I generally agree with the principle of charging by volume for wastewater, so that users become more aware of the true costs of water and wastewater. This allows Watercare to recover its operating costs.
I've only recently caught up with Watercare's newly adopted Infrastructure Growth Charges. You can read about these here and here. You can see that the connection fee for new development anywhere in much of metropolitan Auckland is $7935/housing unit (for water and wastewater connection). Interestingly, it's $27,830/housing unit for wastewater only at Kawakawa Bay. I did the resource consent hearing for that facility - which is a vacuum system. I support the true costs of infrastructure being paid for by those who use existing capacity built to serve the needs of new development. But a couple of questions immediately present themselves:
1) Is it reasonable, fair, or appropriate to have the same connection charge across the whole of Auckland? I am aware - for example - that varying connection charges can be used to stimulate or encourage growth in inner city parts of the region - where the marginal costs to meet the needs of new demand are much smaller than at the edges of the region. This relates to affordability.
2) Given the high investment of North Shore residents for at least a decade on improving its sewer networks, reticulation, wastewater plant, and outfall - ie that many growth related costs have already been paid for - what provision is being made to ensure that growth levies collected from North Shore are invested on the North Shore? This may seem parochial - and it probably is - but regional differences are important, and need to be taken into consideration.
3) What will the development levies be for stormwater, transport and other items of infrastructure - hard as well as soft - that Council funds through rates?
Moving on, this graphic is from Watercare's latest water demand management strategy document. You can see it here. There is much of value in this document, and it is pleasing to see that Watercare is finally engaging with Demand Management - and the associated economic benefits. This graphic reports Watercare's assessment of the relative costs/cubic metre of new bulk water supply options.
It is interesting to contrast it with a similar piece of work carried out in Australia for the Dept of Prime Minister and Cabinet. What is interesting - and appropriate I believe - is the explicit inclusion in the Australian analysis of new supply options is what can be expected from demand management, and also from stormwater reuse - which is quite apart from high capacity rainwater tanks. These options are not present in Watercare's analysis - reflecting a worryingly traditional approach, and one where stormwater is out of the water supply picture.
Auckland is moving into a critical phase of implementation of super city reforms. It is important these changes are transparent, well understood, and that their effects on development are what is intended. Unintended consequences are not needed in Auckland right now.
3 comments:
Interesting and largely agree with the observation. The only point I do NOT agree with is the suggestion that stormwater should be managed by Watercare.
If one lookes at stormwater management issues (flooding, stream deterioration, contamination of receiving waters) and how to resolve these, in Auckland (!) these are largely related to (changes in) landuse. Ver little relationship with water supply or wastewater. So, being cloder (in the same organisation) as land use planning, parks, etc provides a much better opportunity to address and prevent these issues.
Given the fact that wastewater and water supply were seperated off stormwater had to choose between Auckland Council and Watercare. Because of the above reasons (and others), staying in Auckland Council provides the best environment to improve stormwater management outcomes.
Whether it was a good idea to separate wastewater and water supply off is another matter and I think I suport Yoel here.
Options such as 3-waters management such as stormwater re-use can be resolved through an arrangement between Auckland Councl and watercare (ideally covered under the Heads of Agreement)
Joel, I have recently completed a development in Warkworth which was started a few months ago (Mar/Apr) At the time, I called Watercare and was blown away at the IGC costs they were to charge - $7,000 or thereabouts. I continued with the project anyway, and completed it late July. I lodged an application for water to be hooked up late July and today received a quote via email of $14,800. Just over $14,000 of which is IGC fees. I was completely and utterly blown away. There is no way under gods green earth that I am paying this fee. I have emailed them back and requested why this fee has now doubled. In the interim, I see as at 1st July the fee's have doubled. WTF?! I will fight this to the end, as there is no way I am paying $14k after having (reluctantly) accepting a verbally quoted $7k over the phone a few months ago. What I want to know, is other than local council (hardly any point here), Fair Go or writing to the govt outlining my disgust, where else can I go? What other avenues have others tried to fight these charges? It is daylight robbery, there is no other explanation for it. The developers paid their contribution fee when they developed the subdivision around 1997. Now a growth charge? I'm am SOOOO angry at this and that they can get away with it. Help?!
James. This comment requires an email chat I suspect. But in the meantime....
The Watercare IGC is $7935/housing unit equivalent. I think this figure includes gst - so would be $6,900 ex gst. If your development at Warkworth includes two housing units, then that would explain the $14,000 you were charged in IGC's - at least from Watercare's point of view.
You mention a contribution fee that was paid by the subdivider in 1997 - that would have been for RMA things like bush or reserve compensation. Growth levies or development levies only became payable after the new Local Government Act was enacted in 2002, and after the relevant Council had properly established a development levy regime.
What you have been surprised by in 2012 is the fine print of the first Long Term Plan of the new Auckland Council. I suspect very few people looked at that fineprint when the Long Term Plan was put out for consultation. Presumably the lots in your development did not already have connections to centralised water and wastewater services....
Post a Comment