For Penneshaw’s residents and real-estate owners, the following QoN exchange between Cr Walkom and Council’s CEO brings to light planned sewerage issues that should be of the highest interest to them. Their informational content complements well Shirley Knight’s answers to Charlie Canning’s questions. — Webmaster
Cr Walkom – Questions on Notice 8 August 2012
Answers by Andrew C Boardman, Kangaroo Island Council CEO
C. Proposed CWMS System Penneshaw:
1. What are the specifically identified need and urgency issues for the town to have a centralised treatment system?
Answer C1:
Council identified the need through the Strategic Management Plan 2010-14, Objective ‘4.8 – Council views wastewater as a resource to be utilised to best advantage, rather than as a waste product to be disposed of’. This Objective has many Actions and Key Performance Indicators, with Action ‘4.8.5’ being – ‘Undertake the construction of the Penneshaw CWMS subject to final financing consideration’. If Council is to meet its Strategic Management Plan 2010-14, Objectives, and given the process from Council approval to full completed construction is likely to be 2-3 years, then a sense of urgency needs to be adopted. Alternatively Council would need to reconsider it Strategic Management Plan Objectives 2010-14.
2. According to the last census, population growth in Penneshaw is about 1% pa. What are the identified health and operational issues prevailing at present that dictate Council must install a high cost centralised system to selected parts of the town?
Answer C2:
The cost of the system is shared between the users of the system and recovered over the life of the system. As Council has not resolved all final aspects in relation to cost, design or specification for the Penneshaw CWMS, including gaining the publics view, accuracy in terms of ‘high’ cost measured against potential benefits at this time will always be subjective.
There are may benefits for installing a CWMS including but not limited to
• Potential to increase growth from development.
• Development opportunities from the ability to create smaller allotment sizes.
• Increased revenue opportunities for Council from increased development and
smaller allotments size
• A desludging program for each individual resident will not be required every 4
years.
• Reduction in risk in terms of leaking septic tanks or potential public health issues. It is fact that commercial and residential developments in some areas of Penneshaw is not able to proceed without a centralised treatment / waste water disposal network being established due to block size or location precluding on site disposal of wastewater. Alternatives in these areas are extremely limited and no suitable alternates have been presented to Council in recent years. Whilst Council have held off a formal survey of operating effectiveness it is suggested that should this process be carried out then there will likely be a number of properties with systems that do not meet existing requirements and certainly would not be able to meet the current requirements for effective treatment and disposal should these areas be redeveloped or their “wet” areas refurbished and / or expanded. An inspection like this could leave these affected residents unable to use their properties and with no identifiable compliant alternate possible due to location, land area etc would mean that they would be significantly disadvantaged.
3. As modern individual treatment systems are significantly more water efficient in the total water cycle terms than the high evaporation dam system as proposed, and with significant developments in residential and commercial point of need treatment readily available, has Council clearly established that a very high cost centralised treatment system is essential?
Answer C3:
Council has not resolved final aspects in relation to cost, design or specification for the Penneshaw CWMS, including gaining the publics view. This process is ongoing at present with further reports to be presented to Council for decision.
At this time subsidy is only available for those systems that are approved for use by SA Health. We are aware of, and have been talking to, providers of different systems that may offer alternate designs that would decrease capital costs and we will approach these businesses in the tender stage with an invitation to submit a non-complying tender. The CWMS Management Group have indicated their willingness to consider lower cost, new technology alternatives for funding provided that they have the relevant approvals for use in South Australia.
It is acknowledged that point of need technology has developed significantly in recent years – partly as a response to increasing compliance issues and partly as people are more water- aware now than they were. In capital terms these system may offer an advantage in the first instance but may not offer the initial apparent advantage in terms of whole of life costs – capital + annual maintenance, inspection and replacements when compared to the installation of long-life collection network and processing infrastructure. If Council were to go down the route of allowing individual management systems then there would be a management process and cost associated with ensuring that individual property owners service and maintain their infrastructure to the correct standard and in accordance with manufacturer’s requirements. We are aware that there are issues with maintenance of some of the bio-cycle systems installed on the Island and at this point in time Council have not instigated a need for proof of service / annual operating inspection or the like to ensure that systems remain compliant. With an increase in the use of these types of systems Council may need to re-evaluate its requirements in this area.
Given the number of properties used as holiday accommodation it is going to be important that any point of need systems are able to cope with the large seasonal variations in use and Council and property owners would need to be assured that the systems can do this.
4. There are circa 50 enhanced on-site treatment systems currently installed in Penneshaw at present. If this number were exempt from connection to the currently proposed scheme, how does this affect the viability of the proposed centralised scheme?
Answer C4:
As Council has not resolved final aspects in relation to cost, design or specification for the Penneshaw CWMS, including gaining the publics view, accuracy in terms of ‘exemptions‘ and ‘viability’ will always be subjective. It is noted at this time no decision has been made by Council of inclusions or exclusions for any reason. Council staff is currently in the process of working with the Consultants, Walbridge & Gilbert and LGA (Local Government Association) to an attempt to provide Council with some accuracy in terms of a proposed scheme, although until this information is presented and further consideration is made by Council, the question is unable to be answered.
Exemption is a decision of Council and is not taken into account when calculating the likely subsidy available for the scheme. Any properties declared exempt from joining will affect the service charge calculations and lift the service charges for those who are connected. Council has not set a precedent in this respect at the other recently commissioned scheme at American River where a 5 year moratorium on connection was established for those property owners who had these systems.
5. Council was advised on a number of occasions (not least by the LGA assessment committee) that Penneshaw probably would not be eligible for LGA subsidy funding unless the whole town area was connected to a scheme. The current proposal omits some significant areas of the town – 108 connections in total.
a. How have the included areas and excluded areas been determined? What were the specific parameters used?
b. With a noticeable number of blocks <1200m2 being excluded and a number of blocks >1200m2 being included what is the specific yardstick that has been used to determine inclusions and exclusions?
c. Will the omitted areas be eligible for LGA funding under the present scheme in the near future? If so, what is the likely timetable?
Answer C5:
a) There was discussion at a Council workshop around inclusions and exclusion of land holding(s) in various areas in and around the Penneshaw Township. This was attributed to possible cost implications of providing the system to a limited land holding(s) or that the land holding(s) was of a suitable size that could accommodate and manage a septic system now and into the future, i.e. land holdings greater than 1200m2. It is noted at this time no decision has been made by Council of inclusions or exclusions for any reason other than cost effective connection versus the block land area / location permitting on-site disposal.
b) It is noted that there are not a significant number of blocks <1200m2 being excluded from the current preferred scheme (approximately 5.6% of total scheme connections and none less than 800m2 in area). Also blocks over 1200m2 have only been accommodated by the design where they sit either on / adjacent to a logical collection network run (equates to approximately 12% of total connection) or where they sit within / adjacent to a cluster of smaller blocks.
c) It should also be noted that the current Development Plan land use in the two main excluded areas is zoned Rural Living – this zoning does not envisage sub-division to less than 5,000m2 as appropriate in these areas and therefore there would be no reason to extend the scheme into either area. The lots that are less than 1,200m2 in these areas are results of sub-division before the current Development Plan was adopted.
6. Council was advised by the consultant at the recent workshop on the proposal that properties along Bates Way and Freycinet Way did not need to be included in the scheme. What was the reason for including these?
Answer C6:
The statement that the Consultant advised that Bates Way and Freycinet Way did not need to be included in the scheme is misleading and not our recollection of the discussion and at this stage both areas are within the preferred design.
There was discussion at a Council workshop around inclusions and exclusion of land holding(s) in various areas in and around the Penneshaw Township. This was attributed to possible cost implications of providing the system to a limited land holding(s) or that the land holding(s) was of a suitable size that could accommodate and manage a septic system now and into the future, i.e. land holdings greater than 1200m2. Bates Way does present some challenges in terms of connection infrastructure cost and these are being assessed at this time. There was no conversation around the potential to exclude Freycinet Way; however there was discussion as to whether allowance should be made within the collection network mains capacity for potential future connection of the proposed sub-division lying above that area.
This area is zoned residential and as such could be divided to blocks of 1200m2 or more without access to the scheme or a higher density should the Developer choose to fund the necessary network upgrades.
It is noted at this time no decision has been made by Council of inclusions or exclusions for any reason.
7. The ombudsman recently notes that “Mr Boardman provides a timeline for these steps and advises that public consultation will begin in late July or early August.” Is this information to the ombudsman correct?
Answer C7:
At the time the information was available to the Ombudsman, there was an assumption that we would have received the information from the LGA in early July which would have allowed Council to consider the costs of the preferred design in full and, assuming that this was acceptable, then move to confirm the design to go out for public consultation.
The timelines are dependent on the Consultant Engineer, Walbridge & Gilbert and LGA CWMS Management Group carrying out their required processes and as such are outside of Council’s control.
D. AmericanRiver CWMS System:
In terms of Council’s funding and operational costs to date and those projected is this scheme self sufficient? ie not subsidised or cross funded by Kingscote/Parndana ratepayers. If not, on current trends will it be self sufficient by year 10 from commissioning?
Answer D:
Currently, the American River CWMS is not self-sufficient, due to the repayment of the capital cost of construction. This capital cost will be totally repaid in Year 10, namely being the 16th of May, 2021. Whilst costs are recorded to the individual developments, a whole of Council approach is taken to calculating the CWMS Annual user charge.
After this date, the self-sufficiency or otherwise of the CWMS Scheme will depend upon the maintenance assumptions made on the equipment at American River for the post-10 year period of the 50-year life of the Scheme.