Document provided by Shirley Knight and Kangaroo Island councillor Ken Liu, see also:
“Penneshaw sewage dam location: why did the CEO omit an important document? — QoN Cr Liu 2013.08.14”
*********
CWMS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 17 JUNE 2013
Page 8 & 9
Item: CW170613/3.1
Attachment: 101316, 101317,101318
REPORTS BY OFFICERS
TO: CWMS Management Committee
FROM: (Contact – Program Manager)
RE: NEW SCHEME PROGRESS REPORT, PLANNED
EXPENDITURE & INDICATIVE DRAWDOWN FUNDS
RECOMMENDATION
That the CWMS Management Committee
- notes the attachments;
- reaffirms its advice to Kangaroo Island Council that it is only prepared to support the “minimum” scheme for Penneshaw for the previously-defined 137 properties generally centred on the CBD and nearby adjacent zones, unless compelling evidence is provided by Council to support inclusion of other areas of existing properties in town; and
- would not object to Council adopting an alternative, sound option provided that
Council pays the difference
DISCUSSION
The most cost-effective site for collection, treatment and re-use/disposal for a “”minimal
CBD” scheme has been identified at the golf course. Neither Regulatory body (EPA or
Department of Health) has advised any prohibitive objection to siting the Wastewater Treatment Plant or Winter Storage Dam at the site.
Council wants to allow for expansion, and prefers an alternative site on the hill above town
(Cheopis Street site) which was noted at the latest CMC meeting as one which concerned some ratepayers regarding its structural stability under seismic loading.
Council has also notified the potential for community objection to the Golf-course option.
The estimated cost differential to the subsidy fund of the Cheopis Street site is $550,000 (ie, approximately $3.55m instead of $3.0m subsidy)
My latest written advice (this week) to Council follows:
After very detailed re‐examination of estimates, including further checking with W&G, I am now confident that the following figures give an accurate assessment of the difference in price between the CMC‐endorsed least‐cost “Golf‐course” option, and the Cheopis St option which Council favours (for Public Consultation).
Note that both regulatory authorities have stated no objection to locating the treatment plant and storage pond on the proposed Golf Course site.
Please note that the estimates are indicative, and remain subject to alteration as circumstances, detailed design, price movements and other influential parameters change over time. They may also be influenced by the Prudential Reviewer in due course.
CMC‐endorsed Golf Course option:
Capital cost all‐inclusive Base Cost (W&G amended) $3.576m
Land and Fairway Revamp (A Boardman) $0.165m
TOTAL $3.741m
Cheopis Street Option:
Base Cost as above $3.576m
Additional civil works (W&G) $0.315m
Land incidental (Council) $0.356m
NPV extra pumping $0.044m
TOTAL $4.291m
DIFFERENCE $0.550m
This compares the no‐expansion Golf Course option with the minimal case for Cheopis Street. Council is looking to the Subsidy Fund to make up the full difference of $550,000 to allow for future possible expansion.
I will approach Committee on your behalf on Monday next to confirm (or otherwise) Committee’s position of funding the Golf‐course option only.
I have also informed the CEO that Committee would not object to Council adopting an alternative, sound option provided that Council pays the difference.