|
The
Council commenced hearing verbal submissions.
Cr
Roadley joined the meeting at 12:56pm in person
John Bostock on behalf of Bostock
New Zealand (submitter 23)
· Basically opposed to matters
in the consultation because there are bigger issues to think about. Climate change
is real with bigger and more intense events to come – Cyclone Gabrielle
was just a warning shot.
· Above Roy’s Hill the
stopbanks were a ‘gumboot length’ below disaster level - from
overtopping of the stopbank. The stopbank repairs carried out are not good
enough.
· A report from Royal
HaskoningDHV was tabled – this has found weaknesses in stopbanks with
potentially disastrous consequences.
· In the age of climate change,
the single most important task for HBRC is to hire people with expertise to
design and deliver a flood mitigation systems.
· Council should sell
assets and use rates for this single issue – council will be held
responsible. Time for leadership from Hinewai and the team.
The
Chair advised Mr Bostock that this submission is not within scope of the
Revenue and Financing Policy review and to consider submitting it to the
Council’s independent review of the flood schemes and/or the LTP
consultation which will happening in the next couple of months.
Jesse Richardson on behalf of Common
Ground New Zealand (submitter 342 )
· Jesse works with councils
across the country looking to create more equitable rates.
· Rating on land is viewed
as being more equitable in terms of income across various districts. People
who are richer tend to have higher land value. HBRC information demonstrates
that residential rates will, on average, increase.
· For example, the Hastings
suburb of Camberley has low land values due to socio-economic factors and Camberley
rates will increase under the capital value scenario.
· Additionally rating on
capital value, when considered as one of many cumulative factors, may
contribute to reduced development. Using land value would be better for the
housing supply situation.
· However, simplifying
rates system is good and that aspect is supported.
Cr
Hokianga joined the meeting at 1:17pm online
Bruce Bisset (submitter 370)
· Leaving aside the land
and capital value matter- inequities were produced by the proposed
changes concerning land management, sustainability, pest control etc.
· Urban residents would being
paying for rural land sustainability and that doesn’t make sense
· The proposed changes seem
to be a finance driven initiative - moving away from targeted rates probably
made sense for financial control reasons and is also likely to be supported
by the farming sector
· Monitoring of consents is
the elephant in the room, with less than 50% being adequately monitored at
present. A big upcoming cost.
· For a pensioner living in
the middle of Hastings, the HDC Council pays for major services enjoyed in
the city rather than services being provided by HBRC.
· Farmers, particularly a dairy
farmer, vineyard operators and forestry owners have an impact on their own
land and those downstream from them. The farmers should be the ones to pay
for that. But instead 65% of these costs now paid by urban residents and this
is moving to 100%. Good for farmers but a 30% rates increase for Camberley or
Flaxmere residents is punitive and unfair.
· A farm is a business
whereas a residential home is not. It goes against general principles for the
public to subsidise big business.
· It is fair for urban
ratepayers to contribute something because there are universal benefits, but
it is important not to confuse a duty of care with the ability to pay.
Boyd Gross (submitter 500)
· Oppose change to capital
value due to issues highlighted by the LINZ Review including that 35% of property
revaluations don’t meet standards.
· I work as a valuer but am
not submitting in my professional capacity.
· The LINZ Review was a
response to valuer’s general concern and this is attached to my submission.
In section 33, the Review highlights that intangible factors like consents,
rights to grow etc. are not captured in property valuations.
· Revaluations are becoming
more complex. A homogenous asset type and stagnant market would simplify
revaluations.
· As interest in transparency
grows, the number of challenges to assessments will increase and the cost to
local authorities will increase as a result.
· Narrowing the focus to be
just the value of the land itself is better. Land value is more equitable,
captures potential use and provides long term stability.
· Land value is the most
stable component of asset value. For example, a roller coaster of value had
been experienced in the horticultural sector over the past few years but land
values have been stable.
· I cannot see how using capital
value is fairer and strongly disagree that a higher capital value indicates a
higher ability to pay rates.
· Land values have only
gone one way for the past 20 years. Sometimes there are flat periods, but
always over time the land value steadily increases.
· Capital value could
result in obsolete above ground structures with little or even a negative
value being assigned a value that would then be used for rating purposes.
There may well be no actual value in these assets yet land owners will be paying
higher rates because of the flawed valuation system now in use.
· Even if there was an
improved methodology, I would still favour land value because of its fairness
and stability.
Paul Bailey (submission 435)
· Good arguments had been
articulated on the subject of land value versus capital value and council
would have a bit to think about.
· Focus on two matters: Fresh
water science charges, and sustainable land management and
biodiversity/biosecurity. Proposed changes could cause perverse outcomes and
could be rectified if changes were made.
· Fresh water science
charges paid by Water Holdings CHB Ltd. would be reduced because they
don’t own land and property.
· The proposal for sustainable
land management/ biodiversity is the other issue. I support the predator free
goal and am happy to contribute. No issue supporting agriculturalists and
horticulturalists but I am making this submission about the impacts on
forestry. Forestry has a serious credibility issue with its licence to
operate after what happened in Wairoa and Tairawhiti. A rates reduction for forestry
is not going to go down well with of a lot of people. Tweak the policy - Wairoa
District Council applied a targeted forestry rate and won a court case in
that regard, so it can be done.
Anna Lock (submission 530)
· Noted that the council
was in a strong position to make a decision having received 500 or so submissions
- the switch to capital value is not supported by submitters.
· There is no reason to switch,
it’s a waste of time; so many more important things to consider right
now.
· The consultation document
highlighted the negative impact on affordable housing – one of the
biggest things we need in HB. The compounding effect of rating and other land
costs will have an impact that may not have been intended.
· Disappointed with the community
consultation methods and process; applaud the Wairoa councillor who held a public
meeting about the consultation. Missing the days when HBRC used to have many
such public meetings.
· If I hadn’t stirred
things up in the media then people still might not have realised what was
going on. This consultation is a precursor to the LTP - it was wrong to say
this review isn’t an increase to the ‘size of the pie’,
when HBRC is going out to ask for more rates soon anyway through the LTP
process.
Scott Lawson- HB Vegetable
Growers Association (submission 509)
· I represent part of the
community that is involved in growing good food (vegetable growers and the
horticultural sector more broadly). My submission has been put together with
input from many growers. Wider input was not possible as the consultation
happened at the busiest time of the year for growers - the December and
January period.
· The growing industry is in
no state to handle the proposed increased share of rates – there would
be more growers having a say if there had been more consultation done.
· Disappointed in the consultation
process as there were a number of avenues that could have been pursued but
were not. HBRC set up a Horticultural Advisory Group after the cyclone yet this
group was not advised about the consultation.
· Landowners canvassed by
HB Vegetable Growers Assn. are opposed to the proposed change from land value
to capital value.
· Economic development aspect
is also opposed – if this goes ahead it needs to be done very well. We
need to see runs on the board.
· In terms of the flood
protection schemes – poor consultation had been carried out; no idea
how the money was spent. After the December 1980 floods, growers and council
collaborated financially and through providing labour and soil together to
rebuild stopbanks. We need to learn from the past and work better with
communities.
· Land value doesn’t
change much and is a more stable/better way to be rated
· Drainage and pumping
schemes are complex.
· Support the regional
transport rate as this is core business but not sure why it is managed by
HBRC, but it is undeniably needed.
· Why are fresh water
science charges so complicated? Water users pay the most rates already and
this looks there will be more on top again. Need more understanding of how
this money is spent.
· There’s a benefit
to horticulture but more consultation is required.
Jim Galloway on behalf of Federated
Farmers of New Zealand (submission 494)
· Federated Farmers are mainly
in support of the review, capital value aligns more with services, it is a more
common practice and has been found to be more equitable.
· Economic development rate
- don’t see how farms get more benefit compared to say a Napier hotel -
there’s been a big drop in the contribution from such businesses. Where
do farmers get a benefit? Not opposed to paying something for this service but
maybe the ratios could be adjusted.
· Non-urban water quality is
an issue. Rural people might wonder why they are paying again through 60% in
general rates.
· Lifestyle block rating examples
– there were not many given.
· River and stream maintenance-
why is this in the general rate rather than separate?
· Other schemes keep their own
rating. If you show the separate categories then people can understand
where rates are going.
· Maximising the use of UAG
is supported. LTP – urge council to keep rate rises to a minimum. We need
council services to be carried out – be prudent.
· Rates remissions and postponement
is generally supported – however a policy on vines and trees is needed.
The
meeting adjourned at 2.20pm and reconvened at 2.45pm
Nigel Bickle on behalf of all HB
Territorial Authorities (submission 549)
· It is recognised that it is
often a long time between reviews of such policies and that it is a complex
process. This is a thorough and considered piece of work.
· Changing from land value
to capital value is a legitimate way to finance council activities. There are
less implications than other funding choices, however, there is an unintended
impact on infrastructure. The submission is on behalf of the territorial
authorities in HB highlighting that there would be significant
increases for utilities, in particular, three waters infrastructure.
· Urban populations of
Napier and Hastings are the main beneficiaries of public transport. Is
spreading transport costs beyond urban areas fair?
· Recognise that it had
been a long time since there had been a review of the policy but is now the
right time to do this? While it doesn’t change the rating base it is a
part of a cumulative effect on different sectors and households.
· Council should consider the
timing of the implementation of the review - it could be done as an amendment
to the LTP later on, or it could wait until 2027.
· An amendment to the LTP could
be progressed in a year’s time. Ratepayers are facing significant
increases no matter who they are, and it is important to understand the bigger
picture before making a significant policy call.
William Hale (submission 433 )
· Complimented Council on wetland
improvements - these have created a benefit in terms of flood protection and
have worked really well in Takapau.
· Would like to ask for
some silt to reinstate some farm land Takapau.
· Indigenous planting is best
for waterways.
· People involved in industries
in Takapau will benefit from the switch to capital value; others are
struggling to pay for housing and as a consequence Takapau village is
increasingly looking like a caravan park.
· Equity between someone
whose property is for their living purposes versus someone whose property
provides a service is not being achieved.
· Forestry damage had
created an environmental hazard. Certainly there is a place for forestry, but
why should a 600 hectare forest in Wairoa get a rates reduction while a
Havelock North retiree faces an increase?
· Capital value is already used
as a rating method by HB territorial authorities. If the capital value
increase come in then we will be stung again, having already lost income due
to covid and cyclone
Elma Raw (submission 530)
· I am a pensioner
concerned about moving to capital value.
· I do not understand how
it works given the fluctuations that can happen in the market. Different rates
have been paid at different times for properties in the same block of flats
that I live in – don’t understand this.
· Living costs are
increasing and the cyclone was beyond the scope of everyone to cope with. It
is a huge cost and not something we can bare alone.
· Meeting rising costs on a
limited fixed income is very difficult. Rates have gone up last year and look
to be going up again. Pensioners are afraid, with some of my friends
considering dropping insurance while lots of others have already done so.
· I have experienced a
cyclone in Australia - it took three years to recover from. Appreciate that
council has a huge job ahead.
· Council should provide a
clearer explanation to older people about the proposed changes.
· Is there any policy for
water tanks for new subdivisions? A friend has put in a 2000L tank and filled
this in three days. Access to water is important for community resilience for
events such as earthquakes.
Next Steps
Councillors asked that information
on the following matters is provided in the papers to be considered for the
deliberation meeting:
· Quite a few submissions
assume that moving from say a $300k LV to $1million CV will lead to rates
tripling – please explain
· Overlay bus routes on map
on page 13 in the consultation document
· Rates impacts for a
sample lifestyle block property
· Model change to
sustainable land management – proposing to shift to 100% general rate,
see figure 2 in consultation document. Please provide modelling keeping the status
quo (75%: 25% split) and a 90%:10% split.
· Options for addressing
impact on utilities rolls raised by Territorial Authorities
· Consequences if the adoption/implementation
of the Revenue and Financing Policy were to be delayed.
· Examination of net effect
on horticultural sector including s36 charges and rates
· Equity issues. How can
putting up my share of rates with no extra services being provided yet
lowering my neighbour’s rates down the road be fair? Asking those in
town to pay more to subsidise rural properties for the most part. How can
this be justified?
· The consultant used for
the review (Philip Jones) is to be asked for a response to Boyd Gross’s
submission on the LINZ review matters
|
