Road cost reined in

By Tania Martin
AN Emerald woman has won a minor victory over the Cardinia Shire after the council agreed to repay extra cash charged on a road-sealing scheme.
Carol Nodin took the council to the Victorian Ombudsman early this year after being overcharged.
“I had paid the bill, but it was the principle of the matter,” she said.
“They shouldn’t be able to get away with doing things like this.”
Ms Nodin was one of many objectors to the Westlands Road Scheme in 2006 which was later approved by VCAT in 2007.
However, she said part of the ruling had been that the council capped the cost of the scheme to residents at $12,000.
Ms Nodin paid her money but was shocked when she received a further bill for $675 in last December.
“I wrote to council ,as I thought the cost was capped,” she said.
“But they told me the extra charged was the finalised costing now the project had finished.”
But after paying the bill, Ms Nodin decided to not let the matter rest.
Instead she took it to the Victorian Ombudsman.
Following a review of the case, Ms Nodin recently (22 April) received a letter saying she would be getting her money back. In a letter from the Ombudsman, Ms Nodin was told that the told that the $12,000 for the scheme had only been an estimate.
Ms Nodin said more than 15 people would have been affected by the extra charge.
Council spokesman Paul Dunlop said the road scheme was approved following a number of concerns about road safety, poor drainage and dust issues.
Mr Dunlop said that in developing the special charge scheme for the Westlands Road group, a cap of $12,000 was applied to the estimated contributions for approximately 10 properties within the scheme.
“As with all special charge schemes the contributions are based on the estimated cost of the works.”
Mr Dunlop said that once actual final costs of the works are known the estimated amount is then adjusted either up or down.
He said that in this case, the actual final cost of the scheme was five per cent higher than the estimate and additional amounts were sought.
Mr Dunlop said in light of Ms Nodin’s concerns and after discussions with the Ombudsman’s office, the council had agreed to not seek an additional amount from those properties where a cap was applied.
“These residents did have the opinion that ‘the cap was the cap’ and the council has now agreed to apply this cap,” he said.