Paparua will not share sewerage cost

Press, 2 September 1986, Page 9

Paparua will not share sewerage cost

The knell was virtually sounded over Taitapu’s long-sought sewerage scheme last evening when the Paparua County Council declined a recommendation to share the cost of the project. The Rural Districts Council had proposed that all four of the county’s district councils share in the cost of the scheme in order to lessen the cost for Taitapu ratepayers, who would still have paid about $7OO each a year. The other three districts — Hornby, Halswell and Sockburn — felt it would cost the county too much but indicated they were willing to listen to a different proposal. The issue has been debated for many years but has come to a head with the news that Government subsidies for sewerage schemes will end next

year. Although Taitapu has only 82 households, a sewerage scheme is felt to be needed because of the health risk with the pre-

sent septic tank system. The township is prone to sewage-leakage and its associated health problems because of flooding. A senior Health Department inspector has described Taitapu as a township in a saucer and the department has expressed its concern to the council. The chairman of the Rural Districts Council, Cr Jim Baker, told the council he was “very disappointed.”

He said he appreciated the burden the project would have put on county ratepayers but felt the other three councils should have taken into account the fact that the Rural Districts were prepared' to back the scheme to a degree. “When the Rural Districts Council decided to fund this scheme, it was a mighty effort,” he said. “I feel this is a Paparua project and should be looked at as such.”

The other councils, however, felt Rural Districts should have been

prepared -to pay a larger portion of the cost itself and that the proposal had been inadequately prepared. Cr Eddie Britnell, chairman of the Sockburn Dis-

trict Community Council, said the proposal had been put in a way which it could only refuse. There had been no mention of how inflation

might affect the $903,000

project (a third of which would have been covered by Government subsidy), nor any facts about how

much development could be expected if sewerage reticulation was improved. Sockbum had also noted that only a quorum had been present at the Rural Districts Council meeting which had made the recommendation, and

noted the high cost to Sockburn ratepayers.

“We thought Rural Districts should have taken the second bite — the residents should have taken the first bite and the others have a nibble

round the edges, in much the same wav as Templeton.”

Cr Rupert Pearce, of the Rural Districts Council, said he believed it was a county responsibility but noted that 80 per cent of the cost was interest on loans, even at 18 per cent.

Residents had not been surveyed first about whether they were prepared to pay either the $7OO with the cost-sharing scheme or the estimate of $1590 a year per household, which was not backed by the council.

The last word was left to Cr Jim Kyle, of the Templeton ward, who questioned how real or imagined was the risk of sewage leakage in Taitapu.

“The point I am trying to make is that according to the Meteorogical Office, this has been the wettest winter in a decade. At the cost we are looking at, unless a fairy godmother arrives fairly soon this council cannot afford it.” If the residents of Taitapu wish to save their subsidy, their only recourse may be the Board of Health which has the power to instruct the council to install the scheme.