Report to WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Committee for decision

Transcription

1 Title: Section: Prepared by: Wastewater Management Options for Long Term Plan Consultation Major Projects Wolfgang Kanz (Senior Project Manager: Wastewater Management Options) Meeting Date: 23 November 2017 Legal Financial Significance = Medium Report to WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Committee for decision SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to seek a recommendation from the Committee on which wastewater management option or options should be included in the Council Long Term Plan (LTP) consultation phase. Decisions regarding the future management of Gisborne s wastewater will have a potentially significant cost for the community and the community will have been provided with an opportunity to consider the options (as required in the consent). Consultation is required to understand which feasible option is supported by the community, and how much the community is willing to pay for wastewater treatment. Council has provided the community with five options to consider in the Long Term Plan (LTP) pre-consultation process, which ends on 22 November. The five options approved by Council for LTP pre-consultation on 17 August 2017 are provided in Table 1 of this paper. Interim results are presented in this paper, with updated survey results to be presented to the Committee on 23 November. The Committee is requested to make a recommendation based on the previous options review process and the outcomes of the pre-consultation and a workshop will be held during the meeting to facilitate this process. The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of Medium significance in accordance with the Council s Significance and Engagement Policy. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Wastewater Management Committee: 1. Notes the contents of this report. 2. Recommends that Council: Authorised by: a) Includes the Wastewater Management Committee preferred wastewater management option in the 2018 Long Term Plan consultation. David Wilson Director Lifelines Keywords: Wastewater, Options, LTP, consultation Page 1 of 7

2 BACKGROUND 1. A brief historical context has been provided in Appendix 1 for the benefit of community members that were not previously engaged in the process and require contextual information. 2. During the formal LTP consultation process in 2018, the preferred wastewater management option(s) will be considered in conjunction with other Council infrastructure projects. 3. Whilst economic costs and affordability have been considered throughout the options refinement process, and options refinement has focused on finding the most affordable options that still deliver on consent requirements, the Council approach has been to avoid pre-determining the community s willingness to pay for wastewater. 4. This paper does not discuss the merits of each option, as this was done in previous papers to the Committee and Council. 5. The costs in Table 1 in Appendix 1 are the additional costs for the upgrade options, calculated on a per-connection to the wastewater system basis. The cost will therefore be funded by ratepayers through the rates or indirectly by tenants through rental costs, unless alternative non-ratepayer funding is secured for the upgrade. It does not include current wastewater treatment costs. 6. Capital and operational costs (including new assets and renewals, debt repayment and inflation) were calculated out over 50 years. The average of this gives the cost per connection to the wastewater system. To calculate per rating unit cost, the number of total connections to the treatment plant (domestic and commercial) were used, namely 15,278. The loan repayment term was 20 years. Interest rates (5.5%) and loan repayments are on the same basis as previous LTP projections. The inflation rate is in line with previous project analysis (2.5%). DISCUSSION 7. Preliminary outcomes of the LTP pre-consultation phase on the wastewater management options have been summarised and presented in Appendix Approximately 80% of respondents chose Options 3, 4 or 5, with very little difference in preference between these three options. Interim results on option preference are illustrated in Figure The data has been assessed at a high level and interim conclusions are provided below: Preliminary results, prior to a postal survey of the entire Gisborne urban area, indicate a good level of initial response with some 277 responses being received. These responses showed a clear and significant preference for a high level of wastewater treatment (Options 3, 4 and 5) although there is no clear preference between these three options. The identified reasons for selecting these options reflects the significant cultural and community value of the Bay. A range of demographic information was also collected. This is still being analysed against census information to determine how representative the sample of respondents is against the Gisborne population. Initial analysis indicates that higher incomes earners are overrepresented in the survey results when compared to the general Gisborne population. Page 2 of 7

3 Overall, however, based on the interim results that have been received, it is concluded that there is a high level of support for a significantly improved wastewater treatment in Gisborne. Figure 1 Options selected by survey respondents 10. It is important to recognise that these are preliminary results. Final survey results will be presented to the Committee on 23 November when the LTP pre-consultation process has been completed. This will enable the Committee to make their recommendation based on the most current information. DECISION REQUIRED 11. In terms of timeframes in the current consent, practical implementation timeframes for any wastewater management option that is adopted, and the LTP timeframes, Council should make a decision on its preferred option in December If an alternative wastewater management option is not chosen, then Council will have to revert to the consent default (Option 2), unless a variation to the consent is sought. In practical terms this comprises installing clarification (removing solids) and UV disinfection by If an alternative wastewater management option is chosen, the critical date is 31 December 2018, by which time the necessary applications (e.g. consents) will need to have been lodged with the intention of commencing construction no later than 31 December In consideration of the previous options refinement work and the outcomes of the LTP preconsultation process, the Committee is requested to provide their preferred wastewater management option or options. This will inform Council s decision-making at the Council meeting on 7 December 2017, when Council will decide on which option (or options) will be taken forward into the formal LTP consultation phase in Page 3 of 7

4 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Criteria This Report The Process Overall The effects on all or a large part of the Gisborne district Medium High The effects on individuals or specific communities Medium High The level or history of public interest in the matter or issue High High Inconsistency with Council s current strategy and policy Low Low Impacts on Council s delivery of its Financial Strategy and Long Term Plan. Medium High 14. This report is part of a process to arrive at a decision that will/may be of medium level in accordance with the Council s Significance and Engagement Policy. 15. Decisions regarding the future management of Gisborne s wastewater will have a potentially significant cost for the community and there is a high level of interest from the community as to how wastewater is managed. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 16. Any decisions and recommendations must comply with financial, regulatory and community aspects of the Local Government Act (LGA). As the options all involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, Council and its committees need to take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga. 17. Project finance information has been made available regularly to Council and the general public through the Chief Executive s report. 18. Since the December 2016 Council meeting, at which the further options refinement process was approved, the project has been in a technical phase, without any formal community engagement. Nevertheless, iwi representatives and Council have been engaged through this phase, with media releases from Council and the project team. 19. The community is currently being engaged through the LTP pre-consultation phase, leading onto the formal LTP consultation phase. 20. A multi-channel communications approach has been adopted, which covers print, online and face-to-face methods. This was driven by the need to reach all demographic sectors of the community, with a particular aim of engaging with those who may be disengaged from consultation processes. CONSIDERATIONS Financial/Budget 21. The cost figures provided in this paper are high level estimates which will be informed by further investigations that are currently underway. 22. The implications on the Long Term Plan budgets will be presented and consulted on within the Long Term Plan review process. Legal 23. The Wastewater Management Options Project is delivered in a manner that ensures the consent holder (Council) remains compliant with resource consent requirements. Page 4 of 7

5 POLICY AND PLANNING IMPLICATIONS 24. This project is included in the Long Term Plan titled The Wastewater Wetlands Project, and is consistent with strategic policies and plans. RISKS 25. The completion of this stage of the project is important so that the Council will: Remain compliant with the 2015 resource consent timeframes. Comply with consultation requirements. Demonstrate best endeavours for removal of all domestic wastewater from the marine outfall by Address the social and cultural outcomes envisaged by communities. 26. The above translates into significant political and legal risk. NEXT STEPS 27. The next step will be completed at the 7 December Council meeting, at which Council will decide on their preferred option(s) to take forward into the LTP process. APPENDICES Appendix 1 Historical context of the wastewater management options Appendix 2 Gisborne Wastewater Management Options Consultation Support, Report on Engagement, Interim Report, November 2017 Page 5 of 7

6 Appendix 1 Historical context of the wastewater management options 1. The construction of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in 2010 was the first step in improving water quality. The 2009 and 2015 resource consent variations provided time for Council to investigate further treatment options to include alternative use and disposal options with the possibility of abandoning the marine outfall pipe altogether. 2. Since 2010 Council has undertaken a significant amount of work to consider viable options to further improve the quality of wastewater discharges, look at where the wastewater could be discharged and consider any alternative use and disposal options. 3. Community based advisory groups, the Wastewater Technical Advisory Group (WTAG) and Wastewater Management Committee (WMC), were set up to help develop or assess viable options for Council and ultimately our community to consider. These groups brought a balance which considered not only the cost but also environmental, cultural and social considerations. On 1 December 2016, Council decided to convene a Wastewater Options Review Group (WORG), which was tasked with further refining wastewater management options for community consultation. 4. The WORG group considered 17 possible options, and recommended one option to the Wastewater Management Committee (WMC). This preferred option included the use of a wetland and more conventional treatment mechanisms, with the aim of reducing, and if possible, stopping the disposal of household wastewater out into the bay. 5. The WMC approved the option preferred by the WORG, and added two more wetland options for consultation. In August 2017 Council approved two additional Council staff options (Options 1 and 2 in Table 1) plus the three WMC options (Options 3, 4 and 5 in Table 1) to be taken into the pre-consultation LTP phase. A number of practically feasible wastewater management options, with a range of costs, were therefore taken into the LTP pre-consultation phase (with relative benefits and risks described per option). 6. A number of engagement methods and processes were utilised and are ongoing at this stage of the consultation process, namely participation in the What s The Future Tairāwhiti (WTF) engagement activities, social media, electronic newsletters, tweets, an online survey, a postal survey, community and stakeholder drop-in sessions, and face-to-face iwi engagement. 7. In order for Council to then remain compliant with the existing resource consent, particularly clause 4(f), Council is now required to make a decision on which option(s) to take into the formal LTP consultation phase in If the permit holder fails to confirm the feasibility of an alternative system by 31 December 2016 or fails to lodge the necessary applications/and or notices by 31 December 2018 in accordance with clauses 4(c) and (d) above, the permit holder shall install waste water disinfection within 24 months of those relevant milestone dates. Page 6 of 7

7 Table 1 - Wastewater management options proposed for LTP pre-consultation Option Average yearly cost per household Comments 1 Consent default with variation on loading rate onto existing Biological Trickling Filter (BTF). The existing Bio Trickling Filter (BTF) plus clarification and solids handling, additional redundancy measures, and UV treatment. Implementation of any infrastructure for alternative use and disposal (AUD) only once a suitable AUD option(s) is found. Commitment to implement a wetland and/or other infrastructure necessary for sustaining a suitable AUD option(s). Any suitable AUD option would need to be technically feasible and affordable and land would need to be available for any AUD option that includes a wetland(s). Any suitable AUD option(s) would have to be consulted on prior to implementation. 2 Default consent option. The existing BTF plus second BTF, clarification and solids handling, additional redundancy measures and UV treatment. Implementation of any infrastructure for AUD only once a suitable AUD option(s) is found. Commitment to implement a wetland and / or other infrastructure necessary for sustaining a suitable AUD option(s). Any suitable AUD option would need to be technically feasible and affordable and land would need to be available for any AUD option that includes a wetland(s). Any suitable AUD option(s) would have to be consulted on prior to implementation. 3 Use the existing BTF, add a clarification stage with solids handling, install additional redundancy measures, UV treatment and a 12 ha polishing wetland with continued investigation into AUD options and ultimately no more discharge of treated wastewater to sea. The new consent, or consent variation, would be for 10 years only, allowing for demonstration of the Council s commitment to the AUD process. Construction of infrastructure for clarification and solids handling and UV treatment by 2020 and a wetland within 10 years from Implementation of a wetland plus conveyance system prior to a suitable AUD option(s) being confirmed. There would be a pipeline to and from the wetland site in the short term, with a continued discharge to sea whilst AUD is further investigated, with the aim of ultimately stopping all treated domestic wastewater discharges to sea (in which case the return pipe to the marine outfall becomes a redundancy/resilience feature). 4 Option 3 plus woodchip denitrification filters $342 5 Option 4 plus second Biological Trickling Filter $383 $250 All of the options include a commitment by Council to collaboratively: Develop an AUD strategy. Staff recommend that an advisory group is $291 $324 convened, which is specifically set up and constituted to continue investigating AUD options and work with the Council and community, with the aim of ultimately removing treated human sewage from the marine outfall. Council will fund further AUD investigations at a value of $50,000 per year for a minimum period of 10 years. Continue to seek feasible AUD options, which are cost-effective and affordable. Page 7 of 7