Tauranga rating regimes changes decided

City councillors have decided to change the city’s rating system. Photo: Supplied.

Tauranga’s rating system is going to change in line with councillors deciding to change the uniform annual general charge from the current maximum of 30 per cent to 15 per cent.

This will be phased in over three years.

The decision is in tandem with the introduction of a differential for commercial rates, which will also be phased in over three years.

At a meeting on Friday night, councillors decided against introducing the third part of the rates changes - the city centre targeted rates which was also floated in the draft Long Term Plan.

The lower UAG for most ratepayers will be phased in over three years; 25 per cent on 1 July 2018, 20 per cent on 1 July 2019 and 15 per cent on 1 July 2020.

Councillors also resolved that if Council introduces any new targeted rates set on a uniform basis, the total Uniform Annual General Charge plus other uniform rates (except wastewater) will remain at 15 per cent of total rates revenue, or 25 per cent on July 1, 2018 and 20 per cent on July 1, 2019.

The commercial differential will be phased in over the next three years, with a ratio of 1:1.067 on July 1, 2018, 1:1.134 on July 1, 2019 and 1:1.2 on July 1, 2020. Councillors directed staff to explore alternative targeted rate options for complementing, or replacing, this differential, and report back to Council in the next Annual Plan process.

Tauranga City Council is also following Auckland in looking at rating Air BnB providers. Staff are directed to explore targeted rate options for online short-term accommodation providers, and report back to Council in the next Annual Plan process.

In other rating decision the councillors last week backed down from the proposed 9.6 per cent rates increase, stepping back to the previous rates cap of the CPI plus two per cent.

Some councillors say the rates decision had a direct bearing on the decision to flag the council’s $15m contribution towards a museum.

In other decisions, the council has voted to increase and accelerate the investment in safer cycling across the city, and it has agreed to pay $1.8 million for tsunami sirens in the tsunami evacuation zones.

In other decision the ratepayers will pay for a dedicated glass collection service beginning in October this year, and the council will organise and pay for kerbside rubbish collection, beginning in 2021.


11 Comments

@ Captain Sensible

Posted on 11-06-2018 18:03 | By Crash test dummies

Yes, that is ever week. But one day they will eventually notice the vacant homes and then finally start to wonder why. Then I guess they will be looking at a "Vacant" tax without realising that is that was fairly imposed then they themselves would be the best ratepayers in Tauranga.

@ Really

Posted on 11-06-2018 18:00 | By Crash test dummies

True, the proeprty value has nothign to do with anything rating. The fact is that raets should actually be per/head as that then is based upon user-pays. What area of Council spendign is based on something else? At elast if it was right.

TCC Doesn't Understand FAIR

Posted on 06-06-2018 20:21 | By Really

Funny how TCC have taken it upon themselves to become some sort of socialist institution deciding what is FAIR for ratepayers to based on how much TCC perceives they can pay... how does the value of a property impact the services received from TCC?

clueless

Posted on 06-06-2018 16:49 | By Captain Sensible

TCC are clueless and every week demonstrate what numpties they really are. Taxing residents out of their homes is scandalous.

Tsunami sirens

Posted on 06-06-2018 14:47 | By Centurion

Emergency managers tested a limited siren system in the late 1990s. This was not followed up because councillors at the time could not understand that this limited basic system was being tested to identify those areas where additional infill sirens were needed. There were also protests from residents outside potential impact areas that they could not hear the sirens. From memory, the cost of the initial installation was around $14,000, to achieve complete coverage across the western Bay of Plenty coast was estimated as somewhere in the region of $200, 000. So now, after two decades of refusal to recognise the tsunami threat, two decades of delay, two decades of additional threat assessments (at who-knows what cost), etc, council will now put a system in place costing $1.8 million. Sounds about right for TCC.

@ maildrop

Posted on 06-06-2018 13:56 | By Crash test dummies

Tourism is a liability to Tauranga, TBOP costs us all dearly and on sign of that changing. Even if you go to Rotorua, you can hardly see any beneifit to the population at large resulting from the apparent millions of people that wander through the place all year round! Tourisum being beneficial to locals is a complete dillision and bereft of reality as to its "TRUE" benefits to a community. Funny thing though, only those being paid ex Council and those wanting to spend more (already on Councils payroll) seem to peddle the scam that it is good or beneficial somehow. At no time does anyone actually provide evidence that it actually is!

@ hapukafin

Posted on 06-06-2018 13:46 | By Crash test dummies

Heaven forbid! User pays logically means Rates are on a per person basis for housing. That would reveal big time just how out of hand and extravagant COuncil has become with its spending.

Logic says

Posted on 06-06-2018 13:10 | By rastus

Your correspondent is quite correct in stating that rating on the value of a property instead of rating on the number of people residing on a property. - it is the loading of beings living on any given property that costs should be based on. It costs no more to our council to provide services to a $800,000 home than it does to a $400,000 home.

living alone

Posted on 06-06-2018 09:58 | By hapukafin

residence that is occupied by one person should be rated just as that.It is so unfair to be rated on property valuation.There is plenty of info available to show people who are living alone.

RATING DISTORTION

Posted on 06-06-2018 09:53 | By Crash test dummies

Is being driven by a desperate need to spend. Rather than looking at how to reduce costs they are instead being lead by the nose to only look at how to get more money (rates) from just some sectors of the community. The result being that the skewed rates base now is going to discriminate even more against some than is already the case. This decision has nothing to do with "FAIR" it is all amount desperation to get money from anywhere to be able to keep on recklessly spending.

Quite right

Posted on 06-06-2018 08:10 | By maildrop

I get nothing from all this tourist and migration boom, only a headache. Businesses are creaming it in so time to claw a little back. And it is only a little.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now
Opinion Poll

What do you think about businsses rejecting people’s job applications if they have tattoos?

I think it’s fine. Companies should be able to do what is right for their business.
They shouldn’t be able to discriminate someone for having tattoos.
I guess it depends where the tattoo is.

VOTE
VIEW RESULTS