8 June 2015
It is time for an update.
A lot of work has been going on behind the scenes in preparing the defence against the Council's claim/s for outstanding rates and penalties.
In the interests of cutting down on costs we have negotiated successfully for a single test case to be heard, representing the identical defences for a significant number of ratepayers. This case will be in the names of Bruce and Heather Rogan and is set down to be heard in the District Court on 30 June.
If the defence is successful the claim will be denied and it is likely all similar claims will be dropped. Should the defence fail however it is likely that the decision will apply to all other like case and ratepayers will have to pay up. This will of course not preclude other ratepayers from conducting their own defence should they decide to do so.
At this stage we remain confident that our proof of wrongdoings by Council is more than sufficient to have the case thrown out, but we are dependent on the judge accepting the arguments we present.
As expected there has been a lot of legal discussion taking place, and as a result the amount of fees having to be met has been substantial. The Association is very grateful for the continued financial support from members and supporters which has so far allowed us to proceed with the search for justice. Regrettably our cost commitments are not yet over as we continue to prepare for the Court of Appeal hearing due to be heard on 25/26 August.
Members are encouraged to continue helping with funding these outrageously expensive legal processes, for without adequate funds our pursuit of justice will fall short..
It is time for an update.
A lot of work has been going on behind the scenes in preparing the defence against the Council's claim/s for outstanding rates and penalties.
In the interests of cutting down on costs we have negotiated successfully for a single test case to be heard, representing the identical defences for a significant number of ratepayers. This case will be in the names of Bruce and Heather Rogan and is set down to be heard in the District Court on 30 June.
If the defence is successful the claim will be denied and it is likely all similar claims will be dropped. Should the defence fail however it is likely that the decision will apply to all other like case and ratepayers will have to pay up. This will of course not preclude other ratepayers from conducting their own defence should they decide to do so.
At this stage we remain confident that our proof of wrongdoings by Council is more than sufficient to have the case thrown out, but we are dependent on the judge accepting the arguments we present.
As expected there has been a lot of legal discussion taking place, and as a result the amount of fees having to be met has been substantial. The Association is very grateful for the continued financial support from members and supporters which has so far allowed us to proceed with the search for justice. Regrettably our cost commitments are not yet over as we continue to prepare for the Court of Appeal hearing due to be heard on 25/26 August.
Members are encouraged to continue helping with funding these outrageously expensive legal processes, for without adequate funds our pursuit of justice will fall short..
From the MRRA Executive - April 2015
It is timely to provide an update on the litigation between the MRRA and the council, and between the council and individual ratepayers. The High Court heard an application by us (the MRRA) for judicial review of rating decisions of Kaipara District Council in February 2014. Judgment came down at the end of July, and we appealed some aspects of the judgment. A very fundamental feature of the judgment that was not appealed is the declaration that KDC acted illegally when it borrowed money to finance its Mangawhai sewage scheme. The appeal gets heard on 25 August 2015.
Commencing around November last year the Kaipara District Council issued statements of claim against many ratepayers, some of whom were distressed enough by the arrival of the bailiff at their door that they just paid up. In parallel, the council approached the mortgagees of people who had existing mortgages on their properties and demanded that they be paid by the mortgagee (banks). The ANZ and the BNZ were very quick to act against their customers, because these two banks are owed huge amounts of money by KDC. Some of the cases for recovering alleged arrears of rates have been handed to a law firm, Brookfields. The remaining cases have been dealt with by the council itself, led by one Alison Puchaux.
It was clear that every case was essentially identical, except for the amount being claimed. On behalf of our members who were being sued, we approached the court and asked it to consolidate all the similar proceedings into one, or to select one to run as a test case and hold (stay) all the others until the outcome of the test case was known. KDC, through their lawyers, objected to this course of action. At a hearing in the district court Whangarei that cost us over $5,000 the court allowed consolidation of five cases into one, and agreed to stay others that relied on the same defence. The court declined (on the grounds that it claimed it did not have jurisdiction!) to move all the cases filed all over the place to the Whangarei Court. A timetable for subsequent events was set at this conference, which KDC ignored. This all took place in December last year.
We advised the court that KDC had not responded to our statement of defence in the required timeframe. The result of that was the appointment of a new judge in the matter, and a new conference which took place on 19 February 2015, before Justice de Ridder. The previous orders, that had cost us all that money, were set aside and new orders were issued. Justice de Ridder saw the absurdity of what was going on, made an order that one case (the Rogans) would get heard, all the others would be stayed, and every case relying on the same or similar defence would be brought to Whangarei. The council continued to file proceedings all over the place, and has now even started filing them in Dargaville. Based on the assumption that everyone would follow the new timetable a hearing date was set down for 30 June 2015. Once again, KDC simply ignored the timetable, and we have returned to the court and asked it to insist that they comply. The court ordered that “discovery” be completed by 5 March (discovery is the handing over of documents requested by the defence). This date, agreed to in the 19 February hearing, came and went, and by 19 March, the date by which we were supposed to have filed our “inspection” no documents were supplied, nor was there even any letter or email or phone call to say why they weren’t coming. We went to KDC’s lawyers and they said that they had no intention of supplying the requested documents because they were not (in their opinion) relevant to the case.
Now, you be the judge: The council is saying that it wants a sum of money from the Rogans. It provides what it says is evidence of that claim by producing the document that it says is a rates invoice (even though there is nothing on the document itself to say that, quite the contrary), and it says that all of that money is owed to KDC (the “loss” suffered by KDC). However, a significant portion of the alleged amount claimed is actually stated as being owed to the NRC, so the KDC is not losing the amount it says it is losing at all. We had asked (among other things) for the documents that proved that NRC had delegated the collection of rates and the recovery of arrears to KDC. Unless it had done so, KDC had (and has) no authority to commence proceedings on behalf of NRC. KDC simply refused point blank to comply with the request, and just let the deadline for compliance come and go without so much as a by-your-leave. In one sense we could have been said to be trying to help KDC improve the credibility of their case, because unless they can show they have authority for recovering the arrears on behalf of NRC, they are claiming a larger amount than they would be entitled to and their case could fail.
KDC (and other councils) seem to think that the courts will always find in their favour because to do otherwise would upset the local government applecart (the status quo). The District Court in Auckland recently threw out an application to sell up the home of Penny Bright on the grounds that the document council was relying on contained information that should not have been on it. This should be giving KDC some cause for hesitation, but it appears they are unruffled. However, as long as people just pay the amount of money a council asks for and ask no questions, the issue as to whether what the council is doing is lawful never arises. This is because councils operate on the principle that anything they do is lawful unless a court declares otherwise, and a court will not do that unless someone can find the huge amount of money and the legal skills needed to bring a case to the High Court. When we did that, the government jumped in and killed off our case, while it was in train. They are doing exactly the same thing in Christchurch right now- letting incompetent and corrupt councils off the hook.
In the case of KDC there is a group of ratepayers who have not simply paid up, because we have evidence that what this council has done is not compliant with the law. The council has exercised its right to seek a court order to get the money. In doing so, the council now has to demonstrate that it has complied with the law in setting and assessing all the rates and penalties that it is seeking to collect. It did not have to come to this. In the middle of last year (2014) hundreds of people who had been withholding rates gave the council a cheque and offered to settle. If Council had accepted they would never have had to prove they were complying with the law. They have spent at least a million dollars (of your money) in their quest to get the full pound of flesh. If we can show to the court’s satisfaction that KDC have omitted to do even one important thing they are required by law, they not only won’t get the money they are demanding, but they will not get back the costs incurred, and they may have to meet the costs of all the defendants as well. This is the kind of behaviour that comes from unelected officials who are unaccountable to anyone but bankers, and who have access to unlimited amounts of other people’s money to spend as they please.
Separately, our hearing in the Court of Appeal is scheduled for 25 August 2015. KDC’s most recent actions will cause the date of the District Court hearing to slip. It is now at least possible that the Appeal Court hearing will take place before the District court sits. If the Appeal Court finds in our favour the KDC’s district court actions will probably fall over, and KDC will have blazed away more than a million dollars and it will no doubt turn on its ratepayers to make up the shortfall.. And it will try to make out that that was our fault, for using the courts when we could so easily have been reasonable and given up. All the stayed cases will be decided based on the outcome of the Rogan one, although each of those defendants will potentially be free to file a different defence and go to trial if they so choose.
Two outcomes at the court of appeal are broadly possible. We succeed, or we fail. If we succeed, the council will be told that it cannot set and assess rates to pay for debts illegally incurred. Our contention is that Parliament could not possibly have intended to confer on councils the power to borrow money completely illegally and then expect ratepayers to repay it. If the court confirms the Heath ruling on that point, then every property owner in New Zealand would be exposed to terrible risk, because councils could do anything they liked no matter the cost, and regardless of legality, and ratepayers would be stuck with the bill. So, if we succeed at the court of appeal we are pretty much assured of success at the District Court, because part of the money KDC are trying to get is related to loans that were declared illegal by the High Court. (And the ghastly Validation Act omitted to make those illegal loans retrospectively legal). KDC could ask the Supreme Court to reconsider, but John Robertson has said loudly and clearly that people should not appeal court decisions, Yeah Right! The Supreme Court might hear the matter, and it might not - it is their choice. If we fail at the court of appeal, we too have the option of asking the Supreme Court to review the case. And the same applies- the court could decline to hear us. However, we have grounds for believing that if KDC lose at the Court of Appeal they might hesitate before going any further, whereas if we lost on appeal there would be everything to gain and nothing more to lose by asking the Supreme Court to take it up.
If you found this report interesting and understandable, please feel free to distribute it far and wide. If you have any questions about it, please ask them. If you think it needs more clarification please just ask. This saga is of concern to everyone who pays rates to local government in New Zealand. It is not a Mangawhai issue, or a Kaipara one, it is a concern of fundamental significance to everyone. The way things have been left by the High Court, the Mafia can take over your local government organisation (in Kaipara they arguably already have!), they can borrow ten million or a hundred million dollars to have a flutter on the money market without telling you about it, and when they lose every penny they can turn on the ratepayers to fix the loss. Anyone who trusts politicians (or government appointed tyrants) enough to live with that probably deserves whatever happens to them.
It is timely to provide an update on the litigation between the MRRA and the council, and between the council and individual ratepayers. The High Court heard an application by us (the MRRA) for judicial review of rating decisions of Kaipara District Council in February 2014. Judgment came down at the end of July, and we appealed some aspects of the judgment. A very fundamental feature of the judgment that was not appealed is the declaration that KDC acted illegally when it borrowed money to finance its Mangawhai sewage scheme. The appeal gets heard on 25 August 2015.
Commencing around November last year the Kaipara District Council issued statements of claim against many ratepayers, some of whom were distressed enough by the arrival of the bailiff at their door that they just paid up. In parallel, the council approached the mortgagees of people who had existing mortgages on their properties and demanded that they be paid by the mortgagee (banks). The ANZ and the BNZ were very quick to act against their customers, because these two banks are owed huge amounts of money by KDC. Some of the cases for recovering alleged arrears of rates have been handed to a law firm, Brookfields. The remaining cases have been dealt with by the council itself, led by one Alison Puchaux.
It was clear that every case was essentially identical, except for the amount being claimed. On behalf of our members who were being sued, we approached the court and asked it to consolidate all the similar proceedings into one, or to select one to run as a test case and hold (stay) all the others until the outcome of the test case was known. KDC, through their lawyers, objected to this course of action. At a hearing in the district court Whangarei that cost us over $5,000 the court allowed consolidation of five cases into one, and agreed to stay others that relied on the same defence. The court declined (on the grounds that it claimed it did not have jurisdiction!) to move all the cases filed all over the place to the Whangarei Court. A timetable for subsequent events was set at this conference, which KDC ignored. This all took place in December last year.
We advised the court that KDC had not responded to our statement of defence in the required timeframe. The result of that was the appointment of a new judge in the matter, and a new conference which took place on 19 February 2015, before Justice de Ridder. The previous orders, that had cost us all that money, were set aside and new orders were issued. Justice de Ridder saw the absurdity of what was going on, made an order that one case (the Rogans) would get heard, all the others would be stayed, and every case relying on the same or similar defence would be brought to Whangarei. The council continued to file proceedings all over the place, and has now even started filing them in Dargaville. Based on the assumption that everyone would follow the new timetable a hearing date was set down for 30 June 2015. Once again, KDC simply ignored the timetable, and we have returned to the court and asked it to insist that they comply. The court ordered that “discovery” be completed by 5 March (discovery is the handing over of documents requested by the defence). This date, agreed to in the 19 February hearing, came and went, and by 19 March, the date by which we were supposed to have filed our “inspection” no documents were supplied, nor was there even any letter or email or phone call to say why they weren’t coming. We went to KDC’s lawyers and they said that they had no intention of supplying the requested documents because they were not (in their opinion) relevant to the case.
Now, you be the judge: The council is saying that it wants a sum of money from the Rogans. It provides what it says is evidence of that claim by producing the document that it says is a rates invoice (even though there is nothing on the document itself to say that, quite the contrary), and it says that all of that money is owed to KDC (the “loss” suffered by KDC). However, a significant portion of the alleged amount claimed is actually stated as being owed to the NRC, so the KDC is not losing the amount it says it is losing at all. We had asked (among other things) for the documents that proved that NRC had delegated the collection of rates and the recovery of arrears to KDC. Unless it had done so, KDC had (and has) no authority to commence proceedings on behalf of NRC. KDC simply refused point blank to comply with the request, and just let the deadline for compliance come and go without so much as a by-your-leave. In one sense we could have been said to be trying to help KDC improve the credibility of their case, because unless they can show they have authority for recovering the arrears on behalf of NRC, they are claiming a larger amount than they would be entitled to and their case could fail.
KDC (and other councils) seem to think that the courts will always find in their favour because to do otherwise would upset the local government applecart (the status quo). The District Court in Auckland recently threw out an application to sell up the home of Penny Bright on the grounds that the document council was relying on contained information that should not have been on it. This should be giving KDC some cause for hesitation, but it appears they are unruffled. However, as long as people just pay the amount of money a council asks for and ask no questions, the issue as to whether what the council is doing is lawful never arises. This is because councils operate on the principle that anything they do is lawful unless a court declares otherwise, and a court will not do that unless someone can find the huge amount of money and the legal skills needed to bring a case to the High Court. When we did that, the government jumped in and killed off our case, while it was in train. They are doing exactly the same thing in Christchurch right now- letting incompetent and corrupt councils off the hook.
In the case of KDC there is a group of ratepayers who have not simply paid up, because we have evidence that what this council has done is not compliant with the law. The council has exercised its right to seek a court order to get the money. In doing so, the council now has to demonstrate that it has complied with the law in setting and assessing all the rates and penalties that it is seeking to collect. It did not have to come to this. In the middle of last year (2014) hundreds of people who had been withholding rates gave the council a cheque and offered to settle. If Council had accepted they would never have had to prove they were complying with the law. They have spent at least a million dollars (of your money) in their quest to get the full pound of flesh. If we can show to the court’s satisfaction that KDC have omitted to do even one important thing they are required by law, they not only won’t get the money they are demanding, but they will not get back the costs incurred, and they may have to meet the costs of all the defendants as well. This is the kind of behaviour that comes from unelected officials who are unaccountable to anyone but bankers, and who have access to unlimited amounts of other people’s money to spend as they please.
Separately, our hearing in the Court of Appeal is scheduled for 25 August 2015. KDC’s most recent actions will cause the date of the District Court hearing to slip. It is now at least possible that the Appeal Court hearing will take place before the District court sits. If the Appeal Court finds in our favour the KDC’s district court actions will probably fall over, and KDC will have blazed away more than a million dollars and it will no doubt turn on its ratepayers to make up the shortfall.. And it will try to make out that that was our fault, for using the courts when we could so easily have been reasonable and given up. All the stayed cases will be decided based on the outcome of the Rogan one, although each of those defendants will potentially be free to file a different defence and go to trial if they so choose.
Two outcomes at the court of appeal are broadly possible. We succeed, or we fail. If we succeed, the council will be told that it cannot set and assess rates to pay for debts illegally incurred. Our contention is that Parliament could not possibly have intended to confer on councils the power to borrow money completely illegally and then expect ratepayers to repay it. If the court confirms the Heath ruling on that point, then every property owner in New Zealand would be exposed to terrible risk, because councils could do anything they liked no matter the cost, and regardless of legality, and ratepayers would be stuck with the bill. So, if we succeed at the court of appeal we are pretty much assured of success at the District Court, because part of the money KDC are trying to get is related to loans that were declared illegal by the High Court. (And the ghastly Validation Act omitted to make those illegal loans retrospectively legal). KDC could ask the Supreme Court to reconsider, but John Robertson has said loudly and clearly that people should not appeal court decisions, Yeah Right! The Supreme Court might hear the matter, and it might not - it is their choice. If we fail at the court of appeal, we too have the option of asking the Supreme Court to review the case. And the same applies- the court could decline to hear us. However, we have grounds for believing that if KDC lose at the Court of Appeal they might hesitate before going any further, whereas if we lost on appeal there would be everything to gain and nothing more to lose by asking the Supreme Court to take it up.
If you found this report interesting and understandable, please feel free to distribute it far and wide. If you have any questions about it, please ask them. If you think it needs more clarification please just ask. This saga is of concern to everyone who pays rates to local government in New Zealand. It is not a Mangawhai issue, or a Kaipara one, it is a concern of fundamental significance to everyone. The way things have been left by the High Court, the Mafia can take over your local government organisation (in Kaipara they arguably already have!), they can borrow ten million or a hundred million dollars to have a flutter on the money market without telling you about it, and when they lose every penny they can turn on the ratepayers to fix the loss. Anyone who trusts politicians (or government appointed tyrants) enough to live with that probably deserves whatever happens to them.
22nd of April 2015
Quote from Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents' Association Inc.
In preparing a defence against the proceedings commenced by Kaipara District Council, we identified a number of documents that we needed to look at before we could be sure whether we had a valid defence against these claims.
The council’s view is that we should not even try to defend the action but just give in and pay up.
They simply ignored the request for documents and let the due date for delivery of them come and go.
About half of the documents were created by Northland Regional Council and we approached NRC and asked them for the documents. They could not have been more helpful.
We now have every NRC document we requested. Please bear in mind that the NRC have no part in all of this, with the exception that KDC are taking the position that they (KDC) can recover arrears of rates owing to NRC.
We were seeking some proof that NRC had ever granted KDC permission to pursue rates arrears on their behalf. There not only appears to be no such proof, but it also seems clear that there is no provision in the law for one local body to pursue arrears of rates on behalf of another.
KDC are telling the court that Ratepayer X owes them (say) $10,000 made up of unpaid rates and penalties on the unpaid rates. KDC are telling the court that they are out of pocket (have suffered a loss) to the tune of $10,000. But they are lying to the court, because they are not out of pocket to that extent. They are only out of pocket to the extent of (say) $8,000 and the NRC is out of pocket for the balance ($2,000). KDC should only be attempting to recover the $8,000. They have no authority to recover the rest, and they do not even know if the NRC wants to recover the amount owing to them (It is a safe assumption they would, of course). However, as the law stands, KDC have to issue proceedings for their bit and NRC for theirs. But when has “how the law stands” ever been a consideration for KDC?
There will be a further conference with the judge on May 7, and we are moving towards a formal hearing of the test case (Rogans vs KDC) on 30 June. Naturally, in the interests of fairness and justice we believe the KDC should withdraw these proceedings and settle the differences with its ratepayers by sensible bilateral negotiation. But KDC is a “My way or the Highway” organisation where negotiation and reasonableness are forbidden concepts.
The contrast between dealing with KDC and dealing with NRC is absolutely gobsmackingly obvious. KDC do everything they can to frustrate, confuse, annoy, embarrass, humiliate and inconvenience anyone they come in contact with, whereas NRC (and for that matter FNDC too) listen politely to any request or inquiry, and, if it is in their power to do so, they respond. This may have something to do with the fact that the people running Whangarei, FNDC and NRC are actually answerable to the voters, whereas the Kaipara Commissioners are answerable only to the mirror.
Quote from Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents' Association Inc.
In preparing a defence against the proceedings commenced by Kaipara District Council, we identified a number of documents that we needed to look at before we could be sure whether we had a valid defence against these claims.
The council’s view is that we should not even try to defend the action but just give in and pay up.
They simply ignored the request for documents and let the due date for delivery of them come and go.
About half of the documents were created by Northland Regional Council and we approached NRC and asked them for the documents. They could not have been more helpful.
We now have every NRC document we requested. Please bear in mind that the NRC have no part in all of this, with the exception that KDC are taking the position that they (KDC) can recover arrears of rates owing to NRC.
We were seeking some proof that NRC had ever granted KDC permission to pursue rates arrears on their behalf. There not only appears to be no such proof, but it also seems clear that there is no provision in the law for one local body to pursue arrears of rates on behalf of another.
KDC are telling the court that Ratepayer X owes them (say) $10,000 made up of unpaid rates and penalties on the unpaid rates. KDC are telling the court that they are out of pocket (have suffered a loss) to the tune of $10,000. But they are lying to the court, because they are not out of pocket to that extent. They are only out of pocket to the extent of (say) $8,000 and the NRC is out of pocket for the balance ($2,000). KDC should only be attempting to recover the $8,000. They have no authority to recover the rest, and they do not even know if the NRC wants to recover the amount owing to them (It is a safe assumption they would, of course). However, as the law stands, KDC have to issue proceedings for their bit and NRC for theirs. But when has “how the law stands” ever been a consideration for KDC?
There will be a further conference with the judge on May 7, and we are moving towards a formal hearing of the test case (Rogans vs KDC) on 30 June. Naturally, in the interests of fairness and justice we believe the KDC should withdraw these proceedings and settle the differences with its ratepayers by sensible bilateral negotiation. But KDC is a “My way or the Highway” organisation where negotiation and reasonableness are forbidden concepts.
The contrast between dealing with KDC and dealing with NRC is absolutely gobsmackingly obvious. KDC do everything they can to frustrate, confuse, annoy, embarrass, humiliate and inconvenience anyone they come in contact with, whereas NRC (and for that matter FNDC too) listen politely to any request or inquiry, and, if it is in their power to do so, they respond. This may have something to do with the fact that the people running Whangarei, FNDC and NRC are actually answerable to the voters, whereas the Kaipara Commissioners are answerable only to the mirror.
24 April 2015
Today is a sad day for democracy (or what passes for it): Associate Minister Louise Upston has announced the extension of the Commissioners' term for another year from October 2015 so as to bring it in line with the normal routine of local body elections next year. At a time when we are commemorating the battle at Gallipoli and celebrating the lives of those who fought and died for the spirit of democracy the timing of this announcement is particularly hurtful, suggesting that Kaipara doesn't qualify for democratic representation.
When will we get a minister who tries to understand what thinking ratepayers are fighting for?
Today is a sad day for democracy (or what passes for it): Associate Minister Louise Upston has announced the extension of the Commissioners' term for another year from October 2015 so as to bring it in line with the normal routine of local body elections next year. At a time when we are commemorating the battle at Gallipoli and celebrating the lives of those who fought and died for the spirit of democracy the timing of this announcement is particularly hurtful, suggesting that Kaipara doesn't qualify for democratic representation.
When will we get a minister who tries to understand what thinking ratepayers are fighting for?
25 May 2015
There has been much concern about the Council's apparent intention to extend the sewerage scheme (now known as MCWWS) to cater for more connections. Recent 'consultation' sessions were held over the Easter break and precious little time (less than a week) was allowed for public submissions to be made. Following complaints the time was extended a little longer.
One written submission was made by a Dargaville ratepayer and this is quoted below together with responses from Council (in italics) to the various questions.
Sent: Wednesday, 8 April 2015 10:57 a.m.
To: Advisory Panel
Subject: Mangawhai Community Wastewater Scheme (MCWWS) Extension Project Open Day.
I am a resident of Dargaville, so I have no physical attachment to the so called 'Ecocare' scheme at Mangawhai.
I am writing however on the basis that as a Kaipara resident any proposal to extend the wastewater scheme at Mangawhai will directly affect me as a ratepayer, because it seems likely that a substantial portion of the cost will be landed on me.
In itself this is a major departure from the normal situation whereby those deriving benefit from an infrastructural project are required to meet the cost. I am aware that the funding system was broken on completion of the initial project in that a significant portion of cost has been lumped onto the wider district. It seems that in the event of extension of the scheme that situation will worsen considerably.
In looking at your feedback form I get the impression that a decision to extend the scheme has already been made, and your questions relate only to what form it will take and how it should be funded.
I submit that before any further action is taken there are several questions that need to be answered:
1 Why is extension considered necessary?
The original proposal was to build a wastewater system that stopped wastewater entering the harbour from any property from within the Drainage District. This was achieved by replacing those non- effective on- site septic systems with an effective community reticulated system.
The current reticulation has only around 1800 connections, the original system was built to cater for twice this number. The goal is to look for economically sensible options for extending the current reticulation system so that additional households can be connected.
New connections are already being made within the existing reticulated network. This year we are extending the line along Estuary Drive and last year we connected the Sunlea subdivision along Molesworth Drive.
The current draft Long Term Plan is not anticipating the outcome of the Advisory Panel process. The status quo policy positions remain in place for Long Term Plan 2015/2025. The outcome of the review may result in an amendment to this Long Term Plan 2015/2025. In the meantime, pending the outcome of the review, funding of $2.7 million for extension of the network has been provided for in the later years of the Plan.
2 What alternatives are possible?
The Advisory Panels terms of reference are attached. One of these was to provide local knowledge and advice on any community concerns relating to the future development of the MCWWS. The Panel members are looking at the alternative options that have been presented by the community and their recommendations on any alternative on-site systems will be included in their report to Council.
3 What would be the comparative costs?
Again I direct you to the Panel’s terms of reference. They are looking at options relating to ownership and funding of the different components of the Scheme. Their report will contain their recommendations.
On-site systems that are currently used in Mangawhai on properties outside the existing network are in the vicinity of $12,000 - $15,000 plus maintenance costs. This compares with an initial contribution to the capital costs of the MCWWS (for some properties this was as low as $2,700) and the annual operating costs (for this financial year the connected rate is $1,055). A figure for a capital contribution going forward, if the decision is made to extend, is yet to be decided. Any proposed figures would be outlined in a formal consultation document.
4 Why is the existing system so short of what was (over)paid for?
The Scheme is not short of what was paid for in the 2006 Statement of Proposal. The original figure of $36 million was to pay for a treatment plant and reticulation to service 1200 odd properties. The cost increased because of the extension of the reticulation network (including Jack Boyd Drive), the addition of the Brown’s Road Farm and the addition of one module to the treatment plant.
Council (at the time) were aware of these costs. It was the lack of consultation on these costs that was the issue. Council has acknowledged this mistake. As it is the treatment plant is capable of handling more connections.
5 Why isn't the wider district being awakened to the prospect of yet more debt being foisted on them?
It is premature for Council to make any decisions on future costs and options. There may not be any further debt. Once Council has received the Advisory Panel’s recommendations Council will consider the next step. If there is to be a change a Statement of Proposal will be released which will undergo a thorough public consultation process.
6 What happens to the existing $26.2m debt now that it cannot be extinguished by future development contributions?
The management of the existing debt is sustainable from targeted rates and new subdivisions.
I would have thought that a prime objective of the panel would be to answer these questions before embarking on a PR campaign to sneak past the Kaipara community in such a rush that feedback is only allowed within a ridiculously short time frame (less than a week).
It must be recognised that the planning and installation of the whole scheme (together with Modification 1) was unlawful (as so declared by the High Court) and there is little chance that the public will be bulldozed into accepting the word of a non-statutory panel along the lines that 'all will be well'.
I consider that this whole matter must be one that is discussed openly with the whole district under the proper consultation requirements of the LG Act.
You have asked 'What does the public want?' Well I for one want to see all the basic questions answered before any decision at all is made to perpetuate the mis-spending that has been a feature of Kaipara's governors for many years.
There has been much concern about the Council's apparent intention to extend the sewerage scheme (now known as MCWWS) to cater for more connections. Recent 'consultation' sessions were held over the Easter break and precious little time (less than a week) was allowed for public submissions to be made. Following complaints the time was extended a little longer.
One written submission was made by a Dargaville ratepayer and this is quoted below together with responses from Council (in italics) to the various questions.
Sent: Wednesday, 8 April 2015 10:57 a.m.
To: Advisory Panel
Subject: Mangawhai Community Wastewater Scheme (MCWWS) Extension Project Open Day.
I am a resident of Dargaville, so I have no physical attachment to the so called 'Ecocare' scheme at Mangawhai.
I am writing however on the basis that as a Kaipara resident any proposal to extend the wastewater scheme at Mangawhai will directly affect me as a ratepayer, because it seems likely that a substantial portion of the cost will be landed on me.
In itself this is a major departure from the normal situation whereby those deriving benefit from an infrastructural project are required to meet the cost. I am aware that the funding system was broken on completion of the initial project in that a significant portion of cost has been lumped onto the wider district. It seems that in the event of extension of the scheme that situation will worsen considerably.
In looking at your feedback form I get the impression that a decision to extend the scheme has already been made, and your questions relate only to what form it will take and how it should be funded.
I submit that before any further action is taken there are several questions that need to be answered:
1 Why is extension considered necessary?
The original proposal was to build a wastewater system that stopped wastewater entering the harbour from any property from within the Drainage District. This was achieved by replacing those non- effective on- site septic systems with an effective community reticulated system.
The current reticulation has only around 1800 connections, the original system was built to cater for twice this number. The goal is to look for economically sensible options for extending the current reticulation system so that additional households can be connected.
New connections are already being made within the existing reticulated network. This year we are extending the line along Estuary Drive and last year we connected the Sunlea subdivision along Molesworth Drive.
The current draft Long Term Plan is not anticipating the outcome of the Advisory Panel process. The status quo policy positions remain in place for Long Term Plan 2015/2025. The outcome of the review may result in an amendment to this Long Term Plan 2015/2025. In the meantime, pending the outcome of the review, funding of $2.7 million for extension of the network has been provided for in the later years of the Plan.
2 What alternatives are possible?
The Advisory Panels terms of reference are attached. One of these was to provide local knowledge and advice on any community concerns relating to the future development of the MCWWS. The Panel members are looking at the alternative options that have been presented by the community and their recommendations on any alternative on-site systems will be included in their report to Council.
3 What would be the comparative costs?
Again I direct you to the Panel’s terms of reference. They are looking at options relating to ownership and funding of the different components of the Scheme. Their report will contain their recommendations.
On-site systems that are currently used in Mangawhai on properties outside the existing network are in the vicinity of $12,000 - $15,000 plus maintenance costs. This compares with an initial contribution to the capital costs of the MCWWS (for some properties this was as low as $2,700) and the annual operating costs (for this financial year the connected rate is $1,055). A figure for a capital contribution going forward, if the decision is made to extend, is yet to be decided. Any proposed figures would be outlined in a formal consultation document.
4 Why is the existing system so short of what was (over)paid for?
The Scheme is not short of what was paid for in the 2006 Statement of Proposal. The original figure of $36 million was to pay for a treatment plant and reticulation to service 1200 odd properties. The cost increased because of the extension of the reticulation network (including Jack Boyd Drive), the addition of the Brown’s Road Farm and the addition of one module to the treatment plant.
Council (at the time) were aware of these costs. It was the lack of consultation on these costs that was the issue. Council has acknowledged this mistake. As it is the treatment plant is capable of handling more connections.
5 Why isn't the wider district being awakened to the prospect of yet more debt being foisted on them?
It is premature for Council to make any decisions on future costs and options. There may not be any further debt. Once Council has received the Advisory Panel’s recommendations Council will consider the next step. If there is to be a change a Statement of Proposal will be released which will undergo a thorough public consultation process.
6 What happens to the existing $26.2m debt now that it cannot be extinguished by future development contributions?
The management of the existing debt is sustainable from targeted rates and new subdivisions.
I would have thought that a prime objective of the panel would be to answer these questions before embarking on a PR campaign to sneak past the Kaipara community in such a rush that feedback is only allowed within a ridiculously short time frame (less than a week).
It must be recognised that the planning and installation of the whole scheme (together with Modification 1) was unlawful (as so declared by the High Court) and there is little chance that the public will be bulldozed into accepting the word of a non-statutory panel along the lines that 'all will be well'.
I consider that this whole matter must be one that is discussed openly with the whole district under the proper consultation requirements of the LG Act.
You have asked 'What does the public want?' Well I for one want to see all the basic questions answered before any decision at all is made to perpetuate the mis-spending that has been a feature of Kaipara's governors for many years.