Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
Search
« EW Reaction (2) | Main | Hauraki Settlement »
Thursday
Mar312011

Wastewater (2)

As signalled in today's post on Closed Workshops (3), these are the precise terms of the report that is required to be produced by the Chief Executive in relation to the wastewater issue, the presentation of which has been delayed on several occasions in order "to allow councilors to be briefed" - in 'closed door workshops'.

I include the actual wording of this motion in order that readers have the opportunity to compare the resulting report which should be available to the public along with the meeting agenda for the 11 April Meeting on 8 April. I intend to post the report in full that evening - it will no doubt be provided in the form of an appendix, and as these are often excluded from the agenda when posted on the TCDC website, I will specifically ask that the report be posted. Unfortunately, and for a number of reasons, this does not always happen. 

Notice of Motion - Review of Revenue and Financing Policy for Wastewater

10.   Asks the Chief Executive to develop financial models and an associated policy analysis that will assist future decision-malking on the way in which wastewater charges for residential wastewater users might be funded. This analysis is to be based on the splitting of the groups of users into individual scheme catchments and a district catchment based on the apportionment of total wastewater costs based on:

a)  Operating costs on a scheme by scheme basis and capital costs on a district basis;

b)  A 50:50 apportionment of capital and operating costs between a district catchment and individual scheme catchments;

c)  Cost of capital recovered by scheme and operating costs on a district catchment basis;

d)  The three options identified in a), b), and c) above, but excluding depreciation and interest;

e)  Revising the availability charge from 50% to 75%;

and submits it to Council for consideration.

I make no comment on the content of this Motion dated 30 June 2010, other than to say that it followed months of stone-walling, recrimination, and finally the 'walk-out' in May that resulted from the attempt by the previous Mayor to kill it off, and by staff to insist that it incorporate a provision for trade-waste, thereby effectively sidelining it. The end result was a compromise at best, but the report now deserves honest and open debate - not wink and nod stuff beyond public scrutiny. 

 

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

I thought it was about waste water treatment. I've been very curious about that topic so that I made it the topic in my thesis even I'm a computer science student. LOL

July 17, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterplumbing supplies

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>