How shall we split the bill?

Unless someone is feeling particularly flush, this question can be quite awkward.  But I didn’t have any wine.  I only had one course.

Well, imagine how difficult it is when the bill is in the millions, and it isn’t your money you are spending.  That is the situation being faced by Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) and Hutt City Council (HCC) at the moment about how to pay for the Waiwhetu Stream clean up.

Removing the contamination at the same time as improving the flood management made financial sense, no point digging up the stream twice, so they both came to the party together.  They had agreed at the outset that HCC would pay for removing the contamination, while GWRC would be paying for the flood improvement works.  So that should have made things easier when it came to paying.  However unexpected costs have occured, and now Hutt City representatives, Mayor David Ogden, Crs. Roger Styles and Ross Jamison are questioning how things have been defined.

Cr Styles only contribution to the Waiwhetu stream seems to be to nit-pick about money.  I have been involved with Waiwhetu Stream Working Group for 10 years, yet I have not seen Cr Styles at a single community meeting or restoration project, despite the stream being predominantly in the ward he is supposed to represent.  Cr Styles cited the “Waiu St cleanfill debacle” (Hutt News 8 June GWRC need to Step Up), and said since it was channel excavation, and not part of the contamination work, GWRC should pay for it.  Yet the extra cost was because the material was contaminated, so needed to be taken to the more expensive Silverstream landfill.  Surely that is a contamination cost.  In the original agreement it also clearly said “Any cost overruns shall be the responsibility of Hutt City Council”.  Funny how Cr Styles then accuses GWRC of sleight of hand. 

Mayor Ogden has publically been talking about a $7 million cost overrun, which is technically correct.  What he omits is that Hutt City will now receive over $5 million in landfill costs.  Actual costs are a bit unclear as the public has been excluded from some of the meetings.  What is clear is that the city has agreed to pay an extra $1.2 million and the regional council an extra $1 million.  As Hutt News has said, the real shortfall will now only be around $300,000.

The majority of the cost overrun was because the extent of the contamination was underestimated, and density of the material was higher than expected, so landfill charges were higher.  It is unclear whether HCC have funded any testing themselves.  The estimation of extent and density seems to have been based on probe surveys commissioned by GW in 2006. 

Hutt City ratepayers will be paying for it either way, either through their city rates or the regional contribution.  HCC seems to be taking a hard-line on not contributing more, and have removed funding from the annual plan.  The current city councillors have after all promised that city rates will be kept low, not that they won’t pass costs to the regional council.

Since GWRC hold the contract, they will likely be left with the bill when everyone else has left the restaurant.  We risk being left with a sour taste because of squabbling over the bill, instead of celebrating the success of this project.  It is an amazing feat that after so long we have cleaned up what was the most contaminated stream in New Zealand.  That a project of this size has been completed successfully is something that is worth celebrating.  So let’s accept that it does come at a cost, pay our share and move on.

For more information

http://www.huttcity.govt.nz/upload/Calendars/3295%5CAppendix%201%20to%20Report%20Project%20Managers%20Report.pdf

http://www.huttcity.govt.nz/upload/Calendars/5301%5CWaiwhetu%20Clean%20up%20costs%20Update%20Feb%202010%20amended%20paper.pdf

http://www.newswire.co.nz/2010/02/waiwhetu-stream/

http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/council-reports/Report_PDFs/2010_76_2_Attachment.pdf