Webmaster: some of these CEO’s answers to Cr Liu are good examples of administrative fudging. In a nutshell, there are no problems whatsoever with our plans, move.
One can note the disparity between these “answers” and the CEO’s 2013.05.08 report to Council about the state of onsite wastewater systems in Penneshaw: Item 10.6 Penneshaw CWMS Update of May 2013 meeting agenda http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20130508%20Council%20Agenda.pdf (which was also reported in The Islander 16/5/2013 http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/1505844/penneshaw-scheme-gets-3m-subsidy/?cs=1525 ).
If a reader wants more concrete information about Council’s sewerage plans, it is advised to have a look at these 6 pages, which include maps and financial figures.
*************
Cr Liu:
Below are answers to my 13 ‘questions on notice’ relating to issues raised with me by concerned community members arising from LGA’s subsidy advice on Penneshaw CWMS contained in Item 10.6 of May meeting agenda (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20130508%20Council%20Agenda.pdf) and the article published in The Islander on 16/5/2013 http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/1505844/penneshaw-scheme-gets-3m-subsidy/?cs=1525 ), provided by the CEO at the June ordinary meeting of Council.
Questions on Notice
June Meeting of Council (12/6/2013)
LGA Advice on Subsidy for Penneshaw CWMS & Resolution 10.6 of May Council Meeting
Question 1:
Given Council is aware of serious health and environmental issues with some existing wastewater disposal systems on properties outside the delineated ‘worst case’ CBD & Levels area and the decision not to review the problems (Resolution 10.6.1 of May Council meeting minutes), how will Council address the potential concern with raw and untreated effluent escaping from these properties onto the adjoining land as described in the CEO’s report (Item 10.6 of May meeting agenda)?
Answer
Council has not been in receipt of any formal complaints from members of the Community or Agencies with regards to failing wastewater disposal systems in Penneshaw either in, or outside of the delineated area. Should Council receive such complaints then we will respond as we should do by sending our Environmental Health Officer to investigate the complaint fully. Failed / failing systems identified during this investigation will be required to be returned to full working order within an identified time period to minimise any risk to public and environmental health. This is Council’s responsibility and one that we will not abdicate.
This Council is aware of many suggestions that there are failing systems in parts of Penneshaw but as yet none of these have manifested themselves to the point where Council Officers have either identified issues or been alerted to issues. Water testing was conducted in the Frenchman’s Rock area in 2011/12 as a result of Officers noticing an unusual oil-like ‘sheen’ on runoff at the beach level. No contamination was detected.
Should any Councillor or member of the public know of a serious potential health / environmental issue that may be connected for failing / failed wastewater infrastructure at a given property or in a general area then we would encourage them to report this via the normal notifications process in order that Council Officers may investigate promptly.
Question 2:
Further to ‘question 1’ above, could the CEO explain the rationale to the property owners within the defined ‘Scheme’ area, in particular those who have spent considerable resources to ensure compliance of their wastewater disposal systems in the upper ‘Levels’ (namely Flinders Tce, Karrata Tce & The Lane), as to why they are required to connect to the Scheme, while those properties with non-compliant systems outside the ‘Scheme’ area can continue to pollute the town?
Answer
As per the above – the Councillor appears to be suggesting that there are non-compliant systems in the town that are actively polluting the town – at this stage Council is not aware of any system that is less than compliant. Again should Councillors or the Community be aware of systems that are failing then they should be reported through the Council notification system in order that a full investigation can be instigated.
It will be a Council decision whether or not a scheme is implemented after a process of public consultation and prudential review. The scheme subsidy is calculated on revenue assumptions that all properties within the scheme connection network are connected to the network and are paying the service charge. In other Schemes across the Island, Council have determined that the service charge is levied whether houses are connected or otherwise and all properties are encouraged to connect. All future costs for maintenance of wastewater treatment infrastructure external to the exit point from the building then default to Council.
It will remain a Council decision with this Scheme whether to insist on 100% connection of all properties within the scheme, whether dispensations are offered for a period of time for those people with recently installed systems or any other consideration that they may chose to determine.
Question 3:
When will the property owners in the ‘upper Levels’ area (Flinders Tce, Karrata Tce & The Lane) who do not want to be included in the Scheme, be able to make formal submissions to oppose the proposal?
Answer
When the final designs are confirmed (which is in progress) then this Council may determine the final design, total costs, total subsidy and likely capital cost of connection contribution are completed and confirmed to the point where they will place the entire project in a period of public consultation. This will occur before the project is delivered to prudential review and then final investment decision. Any Community member is entitled to offer their views on the scheme and this would be the appropriate period of time to do so, using the facts made public to base their comment upon. This public comment will then be considered by Council when reaching their final determination after prudential review.
Question 4:
How many properties outside the ‘Scheme’ area have been identified to have issues with their wastewater disposal systems, which may be served with orders on owners to get their systems compliant and in some circumstances, a real possibility that residents may be displaced from their homes as reported in Item 10.6 of May meeting agenda?
Answer
None at this time.
Question 5:
How many properties in the upper ‘Levels’ (Flinders Tce, Karrata Tce & The Lane) have been found to have non-compliant wastewater disposal systems and are facing with a similar situation as those outside the ‘Scheme’ area if their properties are not included in the Scheme?
Answer
None at this time.
Question 6:
Has any formal advice been given to those property owners identified in ‘Question 4 & 5’ above of the situation? If so, how many of these non-compliant wastewater systems have since been rectified to meet the health and environmental requirements and how many of them have yet to be resolved?
Answer
None have been identified as non-compliant at this time in either area.
Question 7:
If answer to ‘Question 6’ above is NO, under what provisions of the Public Health Act and/or any other statutory legislation does Council have power to decide by a formal ‘resolution’ to not perform its duty to enforce compliance of wastewater disposal systems on properties in the areas outside the defined ‘worst case’ area of CBD & Levels’?
Answer
This Council has NOT made a determination that it not perform its duty to enforce compliance of wastewater disposal systems. Council is not obliged to conduct formal inspections of wastewater treatment and disposal systems in either a regular or irregular basis. Systems are inspected when installed and then assumed to be kept in a compliant condition by property owners. Should any system be seen or reported to Officers of
Council as failing / failed creating an issue either on / off the property then Officers will inspect and investigate the issues and agree with property owners how the situation must be rectified. If property owners fail to do this in a reasonable time period then Council may issue a notice requiring the work to be done; if defaulted upon then send in contractors and append the charge to the property. This is only ever done as a last resort. This Council has resolved not to perform a special, out of the ordinary inspection of every property in the area outside of the delineated scheme. It does not mean that properties with identified / suspected issues will not be inspected at some point in the future.
Question 8:
When will property owners within the defined ‘worst case’ CBD & Levels area be formally notified of Council’s decision to include their properties in the Scheme and the property owners outside this area be advised the reasons for omitting their areas.
Answer
See Answer 3.
Question 9:
Should the land for the likely alternative ‘wastewater treatment plant & storage dam’ site(s) at the end of The Lane or Cheopis Street (The Islander 16/5/2013 http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/1505844/penneshaw-scheme-gets-3m-subsidy/?cs=1525) be available for the Scheme, will the property owners affected by the proposal be given the opportunity to comment before Council makes its decision on the location?
Answer
It is anticipated that one or other of the three potential locations for the treated wastewater lagoon and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) will be eliminated on grounds of cost and / or inability to provide for expansion. To this end Council may consider that only one of the options meets long terms needs. As per the Council resolution in May, the landowner/s affected by the potential site for the WWTP will be consulted with to confirm whether land acquisition is possible or not. Based on their response then the preferred scheme will be brought to Council for approval for public consultation. All members of the Community will then be able to comment on the proposed location of the WWTP, lagoon and other infrastructure associated with the entire scheme.
Question 10:
What is the area of land currently being negotiated by the CEO with landowners as the likely sites for the proposed WWPT and 5 ML storage lagoon (The Islander 16/5/2013) and the approximate size of the dam, in terms of water area and visible external wall height which is to be built?
Answer
This is still under discussion at this time. Once complete the facts will be presented to Council for their deliberation.
Question 11:
How close to the residential properties are these two alternative sites (at the end of The Lane or Cheopis Street) for the proposed WWPT & 5 ML storage dam and have those negative impacts on the surrounding properties from the proposal been resolved before these sites were chosen?
Answer
This is still under discussion at this time. Once complete the facts will be presented to Council for their deliberation.
Question 12:
In the event of land (Question 9) not being available, will Council fall back to the current approved WWPT and storage dam site on the hillside behind The Lane, despite concerns expressed by the community? If so, will a full ‘dam break’ analysis and mapping of flow routes from the spillway be undertaken (preferably by an independent consultant) for community inspection, before a formal decision is made?
Answer
This is still under discussion at this time. Once complete the facts will be presented to Council for their deliberation.
Question 13:
Why couldn’t the effluent wastewater from septic and Biocycle tanks be collected from properties for treatment and reuse rather than raw sewer, the same as the Kingscote system and what would be the savings on the capital and operating costs if it is a Common Effluent Drainage (CED) Scheme?
Answer
A complete study of the options for Penneshaw was conducted very early on in the Scheme’s consideration (November 2007) which demonstrated negligible whole of life costs differentials for CAPEX and OPEX costs for Council between full sewer or STEDS Schemes. It did highlight the significant on property benefits due to not having septic tanks located on every allotment; the flexibility of the system to cater for differing effluent characteristics (i.e. once a STEDS is installed a full sewer cannot be connected to it should that be required for a particular development in the future) and sludge management is centralised meaning that Council will not require a sludge pump out scheme be undertaken every 4 years. This “Options Report” is available on the Council Website.
**************
Cr Ken Liu
Elected Councillor, Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE SA 5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823 Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com