Wellington council's planned sludge minimisation plant faces increased costs
Photo:
Supplied / Wellington City Council
Wellington City Council's sludge minimisation plant, which is expected to be completed by next year, is facing increased costs.
On Friday morning several councillors confirmed to RNZ they had been made aware of a budget blow-out during a public-excluded session last week.
On Friday afternoon Wellington City Council said elected members had been given a preliminary briefing about the challenges faced with building the new Te Whare Wai Para Nuku sludge minimisation facility currently under construction at Moa Point, with several factors driving increased costs to complete the project.
The project is expected to be built to a $428 million budget.
Initially up to $400m was raised for its construction, with a levy introduced to ratepayers in August last year to fund the the facility without affecting council funding for other important infrastructure and community projects.
The levy will be collected for a period of 33 years commencing 1 July 2024.
A council spokesperson said while staff were still investigating the situation, several key themes that were driving increased costs to complete the project had emerged.
"These include a later practical completion date than anticipated, changes in design, identification of historical costs which weren't originally included, and re-assessment of risks with the pathway and process for commissioning the plant," the spokesperson said.
A more detailed report on cost and funding implications will be outlined to elected members in a briefing on Thursday 14 August.
The matter will also be considered at the council's long-term plan finance and performance committee on Wednesday 20 August.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
New Tesla owners get refund after Bosplus salesman Bojia Liu misleads them about self-driving capability
By Jeremy Wilkinson, Open Justice reporter of Tesla Model 3. Photo: AFP / Xinhua News Agency A couple has won a refund after their new Tesla failed to "drive like a robot" as the salesman promised it would when he sold it to them. Jiahui Wang and Yuxuan Li purchased the 2020 Tesla Model 3 for $44,000 earlier this year from Bosplus Ltd in Auckland on the assurance that it had Full Self Driving (FSD) capability. This feature, contrary to its name, does not allow the car to drive itself but identifies stop signs and traffic lights and automatically slows the vehicle. Regardless, Wang and Li's Tesla didn't have this program installed, despite the salesman, Bojia Liu, assuring them it did. Liu assured them that during a trip he did from Auckland to Tauranga in a similar car, it could "drive like a robot" and he barely had needed to touch the steering wheel at all. "In other words, by spending an extra $6000, you get an additional 100km of range, 100 more horsepower, all-wheel drive, and the Full Self-Driving feature," he told them by text message when they asked why the model they were looking at was more expensive than other Tesla vehicles. When Wang and Li discovered that the car they'd purchased didn't have this function, and couldn't be charged at many charging stations in New Zealand, they took Bosplus to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal to get a full refund. At a hearing held earlier this year Bosplus, represented by Liu, admitted he'd copied the information about FSD capability from Tesla's official website onto the advertisement for the vehicle and wasn't aware it didn't have it. Instead, the Tesla had autopilot, which matches speed to surrounding traffic and assists with lane steering, and advanced autopilot, which helps with parallel parking, lane changes and navigating interchanges. Tesla confirmed with the couple that their model could not be fitted with FSD. Tesla also confirmed that the car was a Japanese import and had a different charging port, which could be changed but would result in slower charging of its battery. Tribunal adjudicator Crystal Euden said in a recently released ruling that Bosplus had been misleading in selling the vehicle. "Bosplus clearly represented that the vehicle had FSD capabilities, specifically Tesla's Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control functions," she said. "Although a third party may be able to configure the vehicle to enable those features, they are not currently available on the vehicle." Euden said she was confident the buyers wouldn't have purchased the vehicle if they'd known it didn't have the advertised features. "Liu specifically told the purchasers that the vehicle was more expensive because it had these features, but that was not the case," she said. Euden ordered that Bosplus refund the couple entirely. - This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Basketball: Breakers sign Rob Baker II to complete 2026 roster
Rob Baker II of the Atlanta Hawks dribbles the ball during a 2024 NBA Summer League game. Photo: Candice Ward The New Zealand Breakers have completed their roster for the NBL26 season by signing 2.08m tall American forward Rob Baker II as the team's final import player. Baker's professional career has seen him play in various leagues, including the Slovak Basketball League, Japan's B League, and in the NBA G League. This year he played with the German EuroLeague Club ALBA Berlin and made the Indiana Pacers roster for the 2025 NBA Summer League, where he scored 26 points with 10 rebounds in a game against the New Orleans Pelicans. Breakers president of basketball operations Dillon Boucher said Baker was a versatile forward who at 6ft 10in would bring a strong presence to the team. "His experience and talent will be a huge asset to our squad. His recent performances have shown he is a dynamic player, and we believe he will be an excellent fit for our team culture," Boucher said. Club Chairman Marc Mitchell said Baker was a dynamic, versatile forward who could make a big impact on both ends of the court. "His strong presence as a solid rebounder and shot-blocker is the final piece of the puzzle that Dillon and Coach Kop [Petteri Koponen] were looking for in completing our roster," Mitchell said. "He was a standout player at Harvard University, from which he graduated with a degree in economics. We are very impressed with what he brings to the club on and off the court." The signing of Baker finalises the team's three import slots for NBL26, joining Parker Jackson-Cartwright and Izaiah Brockington. Baker will join the team after competing for Team USA in the 2025 FIBA Men's AmeriCup in Nicaragua in late August. The Breakers' pre-season campaign is set to begin in September, with the regular season tipping off at Spark Arena on 19 September. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
What happens if my partner dies without a will?
RNZ money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Got questions? RNZ is launching a new podcast, No Stupid Questions with Susan Edmunds, next month. We'd love to hear more of your questions about money and the economy. You can send through written questions, like these ones, but - even better - you can drop us a voice memo to our email questions@ What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies without a will? I have been living with my partner since the late 1980s. Our house, main bank accounts and one car are in both names. Our latest car - bought last year from joint bank accounts - could only be registered in his name, due to changes in NZTA rules. I have a separate bank account in my name, which has a small amount of inherited money. He also has a separate bank account with some money from his family and a few shares in his name, which were acquired through his work. Many years ago, I was told that if either of us died, then any assets in joint names would go to the surviving partner. We have not made wills, have no children, my parents have both died and his father has died, but recently, I saw that if someone has a spouse or partner, and parents, but no children, the spouse received the personal effects, $155,000 and two-thirds of what is left. The deceased person's parents get the remaining third. That means, if I die first, all I have goes to him, which is what I want, but if my partner dies before me, does his remaining parent inherit a third of our house (meaning I will need to sell it, as I do not have funds to buy her out in my 60s), plus a third of our two cars, a third of our joint bank account money, and a third of his KiwiSaver, private superannuation, bank accounts, insurance payouts and shares in his name? His mother is in residential care with dementia and already has enough funds to cover her care for decades. I am worried I may become homeless. What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies? As a starting point, it might be re-assuring to note that assets that you hold in a joint name would pass to you, so if you own your house jointly, it would be yours, if your partner died. I went to Public Trust principal trustee Michelle Pope for more detail to answer the rest of your question. She said, when someone died, their estate would be distributed according to the Administration Act. "In the writer's case, if they die first without a will, their entire estate would pass to their partner, as they have no children or surviving parents," she said. "Assets held in joint names, listed by the writer as the house, main bank accounts and a car, will automatically pass to the surviving partner. However, it's important to confirm whether the property is legally owned jointly or in equal/unequal shares. "If it's jointly owned, it will pass by survivorship. If not, the deceased's share will need to be administered as part of their estate, which can add complexity. "If the writer's partner dies first without a will and has a surviving parent, Section 77(3) of the Administration Act 1969 applies. In this scenario, the writer would receive all personal chattels (including the car solely owned by the partner), a prescribed amount of $155,000 plus interest and two-thirds of the remaining estate. "The surviving parent would receive the remaining one-third of the estate. For clarity, the assets owned solely by the partner would appear to be a bank account, some shares, KiwiSaver, private superannuation and insurance. "Given the house is owned jointly, the writer can expect that the house will pass to them by what's called 'survivorship' in legal language and will not form part of their partner's estate. "It goes without saying that I'd encourage the writer and their partner to create wills. A will that clearly outlines their wishes can help remove any uncertainty when a person dies and can make the estate administration process a lot easier for loved ones." Having separated earlier this year, I chose to move out of the family home where my ex still resides. She is paying the mortgage, refuses to pay the house insurance or rates etc. the roof is leaking and she refuses to agree to making repairs, the ceiling is now ruined and mouldy. Though she has indicated she wishes to buy me out, she has not shared any form of offer or plan. She now refuses to engage in any form of correspondence at all. My questions - how do I go about necessary repairs to the house and how do I get her to move out, so that the house can be sold? Online research seems to point to tenancy/landlord situations which don't apply in this case. Is it actually just time for a lawyer to sort this out? Yes, I think the best - and really only - way to deal with this is to go to a lawyer as soon as possible. Can you please answer some questions about the way supermarkets operate. If I deliberately deceive customers, it's called deception. If I deliberately load, unload prices to make you think you are getting a better deal when you are not, this is manipulation to enhance your profit. Surely both of the above are profiteering and fraudulent. Supermarkets - and all retailers - have rules they have to comply with, when it comes to discounting, and it is illegal for businesses to mislead shoppers about prices. You can complain to the Commerce Commission, if you think someone has got it wrong. There is a lot of focus on supermarket pricing at the moment and Consumer NZ has been vocal about the current regime not being effective enough. It is calling for tougher penalties and infringement notice powers. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
