What we decided

Simplifying public transport rating

Our public transport services provide access to education, employment, recreation, healthcare and more. For some, they are a matter of choice, for others they can be the only real option.

After agreeing to pick up the rating for public transport region-wide through our last long term plan, we wanted to ensure the way we collect rates for public transport services is as fair, simple and efficient as possible.

We proposed a model that acknowledged different levels of access to a range of community and public transport services throughout the region and would change the way we collect the public transport funding that comes from rates.

The councilʼs preferred option (Option 1) was that within each area-based rating category, every property would pay the same. But we also tested support for applying a capital value-based model in Hamilton (Option 2) as this was consistent with the way that this rate is currently charged.

In total, 118 submissions were received on this topic, with 59 per cent in favour of Option 1, 33 per cent in favour of Option 2, and 8 per cent indicating no clear preference.

Although the councilʼs preferred option going into the consultation received the most support, the weight of the arguments in favour of Option 2 ultimately swayed its decision during the deliberations process. A number of submissions flagged that Option 1 would result in 74 per cent of properties paying more. In particular, Hamilton City Council was strongly in support of option 2.

Wharekawa Coast (Kaiaua) rating

We proposed a new river and catchment programme for the Wharekawa Coast to improve the communityʼs resilience to extreme weather events.

The programme was estimated to cost $150,000 per annum over 10 years and we were proposing to fund most of this (70 per cent) through a new targeted rate with 30 per cent to be funded through the general rate.

For ratepayers outside the Wharekawa community, the cost would equate to around 2 cents per $100,000 of capital value (CV).

We specifically sought feedback on how we should fund the 70 per cent targeted rate component that would be paid by the Wharekawa community.

The councilʼs preferred option (Option 1) was for the targeted rate component to be split into two rating zones, with direct beneficiaries paying more (70 per cent of the targeted rate component) and indirect beneficiaries paying less (30 per cent of the targeted rate component).

Of the 22 submissions received, 18 supported establishment of the programme. Eight submissions were from residents and ratepayers on the Wharekawa Coast. Of these, 25 per cent supported Option 1 – the two-tier rating model – 50 per cent supported the direct and indirect beneficiary areas paying the same flat rate (Option 2), and 25 per cent did not indicate a clear preference.

Following careful consideration of the feedback received, alongside staff recommendations, councillors decided to proceed with Option 1, with one slight alteration.

A submission made by Hauraki District Council flagged an issue relating to the southern area fronting the Firth of Thames, where they have applied a rate for land drainage activities that overlap with activities proposed by Waikato Regional Council. Through the deliberations process, Waikato regional councillors resolved to rate these households at the indirect rather than the direct beneficiary rate. The change acknowledges that, while these residents or ratepayers still derive some benefit from the new scheme, itʼs important to reflect they are already being rated by Hauraki District Council for some existing flood protection. The change will result in a reduction of $14,490 to the amount set to be collected for this initiative.

Fees and charges

Based on the proposed budget for 2025/26, we reviewed the fees and charges set for regulatory services and information gathering.

And, as part of our consultation, we sought public feedback on proposed price adjustments designed to reflect increases in our year-on-year costs and ensure consistency with changes to legislation.

A total of eight submissions were received on this topic, expressing a range of views. Taking these into account, councillors opted to proceed with the fees and charges consulted on with no changes.

Rates remission policy

We proposed a change to the remissions we offer, introducing a new remission policy for the primary industry compliance rate.

This was designed to recognise that properties subject to the targeted rate that were covered in large areas of bush would not benefit from our primary industry compliance activities.

Of the 17 submissions received, 82 per cent were in support of the new remission and 18 per cent opposed.

We heard from a number of rural landowners who noted there were other areas that might also be considered for future remission which could not be used for productive purposes. In light of this feedback, the council will continue to keep its remissions policies under review.

Prior year surplus

During deliberations, councillors also debated whether to use a prior year surplus of $2.545 million to reduce rates for 2025/26, or hold onto it for one-off costs that may arise due to rapid changes in our operating environment. Although evenly split on the issue, it was decided, by casting vote, that the surplus would not be relinquished.