2025/26 Annual Plan | Mahere ā-Tau

Share 2025/26 Annual Plan | Mahere ā-Tau on Facebook Share 2025/26 Annual Plan | Mahere ā-Tau on Twitter Share 2025/26 Annual Plan | Mahere ā-Tau on Linkedin Email 2025/26 Annual Plan | Mahere ā-Tau link

Consultation has concluded

Our annual plan sets out what we’re going to do in the year ahead, the money we’ll use to do it and the impact this will have on rates.

The 2025/26 Annual Plan was adopted for consultation on 27 March 2025, with the formal consultation period taking place from 1 to 30 April 2025.

The consultation document and supporting documents were publicly available on the Waikato Regional Council website from 1 April 2025. Copies of the consultation document were made available at public libraries throughout the region, as well as being posted to key stakeholders and those who requested a copy.

We raised awareness of the consultation through print and digital advertising, a community drop-in event and a Facebook Live question and answer session.

The public was invited to provide feedback in a variety of ways, including via online submission forms, email, post and in-person delivery to any regional council office. During consultation, 143 submissions were made and 10 individuals and groups were heard during hearings in Paeroa and Hamilton.

The 2025/26 Annual Plan was adopted by the council on 24 June 2025. 


What we proposed

Simplifying public transport rating

We proposed a model that acknowledges different levels of access to a range of community and public transport services throughout the region.

Based on the level of access to bus services, we proposed five different rating categories across three geographical areas. The rating cost to properties in these areas is based on the level of public transport services available.

The proposal does not impact the total amount of rates collected across the region for public transport. So, while it may result in some households paying slightly more, others should pay slightly less. The only change is to how we collect the part of public transport funding that comes from rates.

For Hamilton, we proposed two options. This acknowledges that around 80 per cent of bus services are within Hamilton, so these ratepayers pay considerably more than other parts of the region for public transport.

Option two is for the rate in Hamilton to be based on the capital value of a property. This recognises that currently Hamilton’s public transport rating is based on a property’s capital value, so option two is less likely to be a significant change to the current rates that you pay.

Council’s preferred option is for every household in Hamilton to pay the same because it keeps things simple and will provide a consistent approach across the region. This is option one.


Wharekawa Coast (Kaiaua) rating

We want to improve the community’s resilience to extreme weather events by providing active and ongoing river and catchment management activities on the Wharekawa Coast. This would include:

  • upper catchment stability control through planting and erosion control
  • general river management works, including clearing of blockages in streams and culverts, and works to improve channel stability and capacity
  • stream mouth clearance/opening
  • technical advice to landowners on management techniques
  • works in the coastal marine area that may include estuarine wetland protection and enhancement, and natural erosion measures.

The programme is estimated to cost $150,000 per annum over 10 years and we proposed to fund most of this through a new targeted rate. This would allow this work to commence in July 2025.

As with similar programmes in the region, there would also be a contribution made through the general rate to recognise the wider public benefits of the work such as improved river stability and reduced sedimentation of river and coastal environments. The programme will also benefit sites that contribute to the regional economy and lower the risk of disruption from flooding on essential lifeline services (such as roads and telecommunication).

We proposed a funding split that would mean that 70 per cent of the cost is recovered via a targeted rate paid by the Wharekawa community, and 30 per cent paid for through the general rate. The 70 per cent targeted rate contribution reflects the funding approach of similar river and catchment programmes in other parts of the region.

For ratepayers outside the Wharekawa community, the cost equates to around 2 cents per $100,000 of capital value (CV). So, a property with a CV of $500,000 would only pay 10 cents more per year.

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


Rates remission policy

The primary industry compliance rate was introduced through the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan to ensure the greater cost of our primary industry compliance and engagement activities is borne by those that use the services, with less of the costs borne by general ratepayers. The targeted component of the rate applies to properties 20ha or greater.

We recognised that properties subject to the targeted rate that were covered in large areas of bush would not benefit from our primary industry compliance activities. We have been using our general remissions policy since the rate was introduced to ensure those properties are not unfairly targeted.

We’re now formalising this approach through a specific primary industry compliance rate remission.

This remission will give a full discount on the primary industry compliance rate for any portion of land that’s covered in bush.


Fees and charges

We needed to reflect increases in our year-on-year costs and we made some updates to ensure consistency with changes to legislation.

We wanted to make sure those affected have the opportunity to share their views on the proposed price adjustments.

For more information on the 2025/26 Annual Plan | Mahere ā-Tau, please visit our website.

Our annual plan sets out what we’re going to do in the year ahead, the money we’ll use to do it and the impact this will have on rates.

The 2025/26 Annual Plan was adopted for consultation on 27 March 2025, with the formal consultation period taking place from 1 to 30 April 2025.

The consultation document and supporting documents were publicly available on the Waikato Regional Council website from 1 April 2025. Copies of the consultation document were made available at public libraries throughout the region, as well as being posted to key stakeholders and those who requested a copy.

We raised awareness of the consultation through print and digital advertising, a community drop-in event and a Facebook Live question and answer session.

The public was invited to provide feedback in a variety of ways, including via online submission forms, email, post and in-person delivery to any regional council office. During consultation, 143 submissions were made and 10 individuals and groups were heard during hearings in Paeroa and Hamilton.

The 2025/26 Annual Plan was adopted by the council on 24 June 2025. 


What we proposed

Simplifying public transport rating

We proposed a model that acknowledges different levels of access to a range of community and public transport services throughout the region.

Based on the level of access to bus services, we proposed five different rating categories across three geographical areas. The rating cost to properties in these areas is based on the level of public transport services available.

The proposal does not impact the total amount of rates collected across the region for public transport. So, while it may result in some households paying slightly more, others should pay slightly less. The only change is to how we collect the part of public transport funding that comes from rates.

For Hamilton, we proposed two options. This acknowledges that around 80 per cent of bus services are within Hamilton, so these ratepayers pay considerably more than other parts of the region for public transport.

Option two is for the rate in Hamilton to be based on the capital value of a property. This recognises that currently Hamilton’s public transport rating is based on a property’s capital value, so option two is less likely to be a significant change to the current rates that you pay.

Council’s preferred option is for every household in Hamilton to pay the same because it keeps things simple and will provide a consistent approach across the region. This is option one.


Wharekawa Coast (Kaiaua) rating

We want to improve the community’s resilience to extreme weather events by providing active and ongoing river and catchment management activities on the Wharekawa Coast. This would include:

  • upper catchment stability control through planting and erosion control
  • general river management works, including clearing of blockages in streams and culverts, and works to improve channel stability and capacity
  • stream mouth clearance/opening
  • technical advice to landowners on management techniques
  • works in the coastal marine area that may include estuarine wetland protection and enhancement, and natural erosion measures.

The programme is estimated to cost $150,000 per annum over 10 years and we proposed to fund most of this through a new targeted rate. This would allow this work to commence in July 2025.

As with similar programmes in the region, there would also be a contribution made through the general rate to recognise the wider public benefits of the work such as improved river stability and reduced sedimentation of river and coastal environments. The programme will also benefit sites that contribute to the regional economy and lower the risk of disruption from flooding on essential lifeline services (such as roads and telecommunication).

We proposed a funding split that would mean that 70 per cent of the cost is recovered via a targeted rate paid by the Wharekawa community, and 30 per cent paid for through the general rate. The 70 per cent targeted rate contribution reflects the funding approach of similar river and catchment programmes in other parts of the region.

For ratepayers outside the Wharekawa community, the cost equates to around 2 cents per $100,000 of capital value (CV). So, a property with a CV of $500,000 would only pay 10 cents more per year.

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


Rates remission policy

The primary industry compliance rate was introduced through the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan to ensure the greater cost of our primary industry compliance and engagement activities is borne by those that use the services, with less of the costs borne by general ratepayers. The targeted component of the rate applies to properties 20ha or greater.

We recognised that properties subject to the targeted rate that were covered in large areas of bush would not benefit from our primary industry compliance activities. We have been using our general remissions policy since the rate was introduced to ensure those properties are not unfairly targeted.

We’re now formalising this approach through a specific primary industry compliance rate remission.

This remission will give a full discount on the primary industry compliance rate for any portion of land that’s covered in bush.


Fees and charges

We needed to reflect increases in our year-on-year costs and we made some updates to ensure consistency with changes to legislation.

We wanted to make sure those affected have the opportunity to share their views on the proposed price adjustments.

For more information on the 2025/26 Annual Plan | Mahere ā-Tau, please visit our website.

Consultation has concluded

  • What we decided

    Share What we decided on Facebook Share What we decided on Twitter Share What we decided on Linkedin Email What we decided link

    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.