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