Claim about reticulation costs at Singleton misinformed

22/5/96

Government estimates of the cost to home owners for the reticulation of water to their properties at Singleton, Golden Bay and Madora were reliable, Water Resources Minister Roger Nicholls said today.

A suggestion made at last Sunday's meeting of ratepayers at Singleton that the estimates were out by more than $1,000 a block could not be substantiated, but the error served to highlight the basic fairness of what was being proposed.

Unfortunately, the ratepayer who made the calculations simply did not have all the information available to him.

His estimates of the number of rateable properties to be included in the scheme were inaccurate.

The correct figures, with the ratepayer's estimates in brackets, were Golden Bay 983 (1029), Singleton 770 (1000) and Madora Bay 520 (534).

Water Corporation officers said that the additional lots counted by the ratepayer appeared to include lots which were part of neighbouring residential developments which had already been connected by the developer and/or rural and special rural lots which would not be connected under this project.

It should also be noted that the cost estimates published in the advertisements placed by the Office of Water Regulation included a moderate interest component that would apply if the capital contribution was paid over a 10-year period.

Mr Nicholls said that while it was clear that the Government estimates were reliable, it should be remembered that they were not the absolute final figures.

If the decision was made to proceed with the scheme, each person would be informed of the final cost and what their liabilities would be under a variety of options for payment ranging from cash to 10-year repayments.

The error made at Sunday's meeting by the apparent inclusion of lots from the neighbouring residential developments served to highlight the basic fairness of what was being proposed to residents of Madora Bay, Singleton and Golden Bay.

Residents in the neighbouring developments had already paid the capital cost of having water delivered to their properties. It had not been provided for them at taxpayers' expense.

Mr Nicholls said that the false idea that the Government paid the capital cost of reticulating water to people's properties was being perpetuated in a protest form letter which had been sent to the Office of Water Regulation in some numbers and from all three areas.

This two-sentence letter contained the statement: 'If it is deemed a health hazard, then it should be paid for by the Government, as all City dwellings have been.'

The Government does not pay the cost of reticulating water to new blocks in the city. The cost was paid by the developer and was passed on to the purchaser.

It was unfortunate that false information was being used to arouse a feeling of injustice among residents of the three areas.

Media contact: Hugh Ryan 221 5377