Philip Jacobs

In a letter to the editor, April 8, J Beattie makes various statements about what I would do to save money at council if I had the chance. He is 100 percent correct as regards the proposed Matatā Sewerage Scheme but wide of the mark on all of the other things mentioned.

I thank J Beattie for the letter because it gives me an opportunity to explain why I oppose the $36 million Matatā Sewerage Scheme, why I believe that the majority of Matatā residents will never use it and why the broader community does not want to pay for it.

First, consider the operating costs. Tonkin and Taylor have indicated running costs of $750,000 per annum for the scheme, to which must be added $1.62 million – the cost of capital ($36 million at 4.5 percent) and depreciation of $500,000 per year over 40 years for a plant cost of say $25m.

That gives a total annual operating cost of $3.3m including GST. Divide that by the 400 homes provided for in the $36m scheme and the operating cost works out at $8250 per household per year (including GST – so let’s add that to Matatā rates).

It costs about $700 once every three years to empty a septic tank.

Why would 400 Matatā homeowners willingly pay council $24,750 over three years for a reticulated sewerage service?

But wait, you say, the Matatā residents will not have to pay the full operating cost of the scheme because our do-good council will add the Matatā scheme into its broader equalised sewerage scheme.

If that happens wastewater users in Whakatāne, Ohope and across the district will pay to subsidise Matatā’s Sewerage Scheme.

Let’s examine that.

In 2034, council’s wastewater charge will be $2105 plus GST ($2420 including GST in 2025 dollars) according to council’s Water Service Delivery Plan. Once again, why would 400 Matatā homeowners willingly pay council $7260 over three years for a reticulated sewerage service – still 10 times more than a once in three years septic tank cleaning.

And why would district-wide wastewater users willingly pay an extra $250 in their rates bill to subsidise an equalised gold-plated Matatā Sewerage Scheme?

And then there is the extraordinary (and unfinalised) costs of the proposed Matatā Sewerage Scheme.

$36 million for 400 houses is more than $90,000 per household, $180,000 per household if only half of the Matatā community connects to the system, or $360,000 per household if you consider only the 100 houses in the zone thought to be contributing to leakage of human waste into the lagoon.

In my opinion, it is time for the council to call a meeting with Matatā residents, explain the obvious financial implications of their proposed sewerage scheme and seek confirmation that the great majority of Matatā residents are willing to pay at least council’s proposed future equalised wastewater charges that amounts to more than 10 times the cost of tri-annual septic tank cleaning.

If the great majority of Matatā residents agree to that, the council should then ask wastewater ratepayers across the district if they are also prepared to pay $250 per year to subsidise the Matatā Sewerage scheme.

And finally, I would point out a statement from council’s Tonkin and Taylor consultants.

“WDC do not currently provide wastewater services to Matatā – there is a case to say this is not required as per LWDW investment sufficiency tests.”