Trea Tree Gully Council asked to review charges for its Community Wastewater Management System
A northeastern council has been urged by a government watchdog to review the fees it charges for almost 4700 ratepayers connected to septic tanks.
- Council to charge more for wastewater management system
- How to make the most out of your Advertiser subscription
Tea Tree Gully Council has been asked to review its charges for a community wastewater management system (CWMS) it operates across Adelaide’s northeastern suburbs.
The Essential Services Commission of South Australia (ESCOSA) has written to the council after reviewing its fee structure for almost 4700 properties connected to septic tanks.
The review found the council had failed to spend enough on maintaining the ageing system, built in the 1960s as Adelaide expanded.
Its deteriorating performance, with increasing leaks and blockages, was “poor due to under investment over time”, it said.
ECOSA said the lack of investment “has reduced service quality and reliability, and potentially increased the risk to public health and safety”.
Its review was conducted after the State Government announced it would spend at least $65 million connecting properties to SA Water’s mains sewerage network.
The council voted last month to increase the annual service charge by 9 per cent, taking it to more than $700 for the average household — compared to $595 two years ago.
One reason cited by council staff for the latest increase was the need to spend an estimated $30 million over the three decades maintaining and upgrading the system.
Environment and Water Minister David Speirs has questioned this investment, saying it is no longer required because the CWMS is being transitioned to SA Water.
Mr Speirs has said the council instead was expected to make a “significant contribution” from ratepayers’ money to help fix the system.
“The Marshall Liberal Government has made a $65 million commitment to work with SA Water and the Tea Tree Gully Council to fix this problem once and for all, saving around $400 a year and improving services for more than 12,000 people,” he said.
“The independent report by ESCOSA confirms what everyone already knows – the local council has terribly mismanaged the CWMS for decades.”
In his letter to the council, ECOSA chief executive Adam Wilson said the council was following a “pricing path premised upon the council retaining ownership of the CWMS, rather than it being transferred to SA Water”.
“The transfer might suggest that a differing pricing path, explicitly related to the transition period, is more applicable and should be investigated,” he said.
“That is, rather than being set on an ongoing basis, prices should instead be set to reflect the efficient costs of maintaining the network on a functioning basis for the period until transfer to SA Water takes effect.”
The council, however, has disputed that its recent increase included the cost of future spending to maintain the system.
A spokesman said council representatives had met with ECOSA to explain its fee structure.
“We confirmed with ESCOSA that no future upgrades were included in the pricing model,” he said.
“The pricing proposed by council is in line with ESCOSA guidelines and costings are based on a ‘to maintain only’ basis, with no upgrade costings to date.”
The spokesman said while the council acknowledged its CWMS annual charges of around $700 were “relatively high”, they were “still significantly lower than similar-sized networks run by other councils, including Adelaide Hills and Onkaparinga”.
“These have annual charges of $884 and $976 respectively,” he said.
“Rather than playing the blame game, we would prefer to move ahead with the project”.
The spokesman said the council wanted to know exactly how much the government was expecting ratepayers to contribute to fix the system.
“We need to know what is meant by the term “significant contribution,” recognising that if this proposal with SA Water proceeds, council will be writing off a significant asset,” he said. “Council staff will also be required to work closely with SA Water over many years during the transition.”
The spokesman said the government also needed to clarify what funding options were available “so that the transition phase does not unfairly burden CWMS property owners or overall ratepayers”.
“It’s clear to us that the State Government needs to look at matching the State Opposition’s promise to fully fund the changeover to the SA Water sewerage network at no cost to ratepayers, as has been stated publicly,” he said.
Opposition Leader Peter Malinauskas announced in June that Labor would spend $92 million fixing the system if it won the next state election in 2022.