This policy sets out the principles and framework we use for funding our day to day spending (operating expenditure) and investment in assets (capital expenditure).

What we proposed:

• Change the basis for charging for River X and Y rates from land value to capital value. The rational for this proposed change is that properties with higher capital values have a higher value asset base to protect and therefore should meet a higher portion of the rates load to cover expenditure on stop banks, erosion control and river works to protect those assets.

• Increase the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) to 15% of the budgeted total revenue to be collected from General Rates.The UAGC is a fixed charge per rateable property.

• Adjust the areas where stormwater, River X & Y, Richmond CBD, and Refuse and Recycling rates are applied.The adjustments were proposed to better reflect the benefits and where the services are available.

We asked submitters for general feedback on the Policy.

What we heard in submissions

We received 92 submissions.

17 submissions commented on the shift from land value to capital value for River X and Y rates. Three supported the change, although with reservations, while five did not support it. Others did not directly address this change.

Five submissions suggested excluding specific properties from River Y rated areas, citing proximity or height above the river.

13 submissions addressed the proposed change to the UAGC to be 15% of general rates revenue. Five agreed (some suggesting a higher rate), one supported with reservations, three opposed due to the impacts on low-value properties, and one advocated for the abolishment of the UAGC.

Two submissions discussed river management, including gravel extraction, while four had concerns about the Waimea Dam's Zone of Benefit rating map.

What we decided

We confirmed the proposed changes to the Policy i.e.

• Change the basis for charging for River X and Y rates from land value to capital value.

• Set the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) at 15% of the budgeted total revenue to be collected from General Rates.

• Adjust the areas where stormwater, River X & Y, Richmond CBD, and Refuse and Recycling rates are applied.

Read the Revenue and Financing Policy

This Policy sets out to ensure the fair, equitable, and proportionate contribution from developers in the necessary costs for infrastructure to support new development.

What we proposed:

• Changes to the small homes discount criteria. This involved reducing the dwelling size criteria but retain the number of bedrooms criteria.

• Introduction of criteria for assessing which non-residential developments are eligible for a special assessment. This change will increase consistency in determining which developments are eligible for a special assessment.

• Remissions for some types of development on some Māori land. This applies to not-for-profit social, cultural, ora or educational centre developments and for papakāinga on specific categories of Māori land. This helps us meet a statutory requirement to assist in achieving the desired outcomes of the Te Whenua Māori Act.

• Increased development contribution charges to reflect the higher level of investment we need to provide the infrastructure to accommodate for growth. If these costs are not funded through development contributions, they will have to be funded through rates.

What we heard

We received 77 submission comments on this draft Policy. Of these, 24 submitters supported the proposed changes, some particularly mentioning the concepts of user pays and equity. There was general approval for the small home discount criteria and non-residential development changes. Opinions were split regarding remissions for Māori land developments, with suggestions for specific adjustments to the Policy from various trusts and incorporations.

Concerns were voiced by some submitters regarding the proposed increase in development contribution charges. Several suggested phasing in these increases over time to mitigate the immediate financial impacts on developers and the housing market. Additionally, there were calls for differentiated charges, with higher fees for greenfield developments and lower fees for brownfield or intensification projects to incentivise more sustainable urban growth.

Specific feedback included adjustments to assessment rates for retirement village units, aimed at reflecting their lower impact on infrastructure compared to standard residential units. Changes to development contribution area maps were also supported, particularly in Wakefield, to align with infrastructure needs and property connectivity.

What we decided to

• confirm the changes to the criteria for the small home discount and non-residential developments.

• confirm increased development contribution charges were confirmed and these came into effect on 1 July 2024

• make changes to the Wakefield stormwater and wastewater development contribution area maps.

• decline to specify new assessment rates for retirement village units' charges but amended the Policy to clarify that they’ll be assessed using the bedroom-based rates for water, wastewater, and stormwater charges.

• further consider differentiated charges, with higher fees for greenfield developments and lower fees for brownfield or intensification projects, during the next review of this Policy.

Read the Development Financial Contributions Policy.

Rates Remission Policy

This Policy provides for rates remissions to achieve a range of objectives.

What we proposed:

• Introducing a new remission for social housing and papakāinga.

• Clarifying definitions for disaster-affected properties

• Broadening eligibility for community organisations

• Updating property thresholds

• Refining water usage relief criteria

• Adding rate exemptions for missed invoices or deceased ratepayers.

These changes are designed to modernise and improve the Policy's effectiveness in providing fair rates relief across various circumstances.

What we heard

We received 82 submissions on the Policy.

34 submissions either fully supported or partially agreed with the changes, often offering specific feedback on individual remission policies rather than the overall framework.

Among submissions, ten expressed complete or partial disagreement with the proposed changes, with some believing providing this support was a central government role, not local government’s, while others were concerned over the scope of criteria.

Feedback regarding the new remission for social housing and papakāinga was split, with 11 submissions supporting the initiative and suggesting a larger eligibility criterion. A minority opposed it, advocating for central government intervention instead.

What we decided

After considering all feedback, we decided to confirm the proposed changes to this Policy.

Read the Rates Remission Policy.

What we proposed:

We proposed the introduction of a new policy on the postponement and remission of rates on Māori land.

The purpose of this Policy is to support Māori freehold land to be used in a manner that is determined by the landowners, and to remove/reduce barriers that may stand in the way of achieving the aspirations for their whenua, such as historic rates arrears. It also provides greater consistency, equity, and clarity around the rating of Māori land for the benefit of Māori landowners and Council.

The introduction of this Policy enables us to meet a statutory requirement to assist in achieving the desired outcomes of the Te Whenua Māori Act.

What we heard

We received 107 submissions on this new Policy. 53 disagreed with the changes proposed. The most common rationale for not supporting the Policy was a belief the Council should not endorse a policy that is based on ethnicity. There were similar numbers of submissions in support and against the introduction of this new Policy.

Approximately 32 agreed in full, or in part with the proposal. These submissions noted the complexity of Māori land and supported the Council enabling greater use of this land by Māori.

What we decided

After considering all feedback, we decided to confirm the introduction of this Policy as proposed.

Read the Policy on Postponement and Remission of Rates on Māori Land.ori Land.

This Policy intends to provide a consistent approach to how the Council funds community facilities.

What we proposed

We proposed the introduction of a new policy on how we fund community facilities. We had some de facto policy about the level of community fundraising we required to contribute to the costs of developing new facilities in the past. However, this was not well documented and what types of community facilities were covered by this requirement was also unclear.

The draft Policy proposed that the expected community fundraising contribution to community facilities would be 30% of the first $3 million of project costs plus 20% of the remainder of the project costs.

The new Policy also aimed to further clarify which community facilities are funded by the District Facilities Rate and the Shared Facilities Rate.

What we heard

We received 119 submissions on this Policy with 43 supporting the proposal.

14 submissions opposed the Policy. Some of these submitters preferred that the Council retain the existing funding proportions, with others stating that the Council should not invest in community facilities currently due to the impact on rates and debt.

A few submitters requested broadening the range of facilities to be covered by the Policy to include marae and motorsports facilities.

What we decided

After considering all feedback, we decided to confirm the introduction of this Policy as proposed.

We decided not to broaden the range of facilities to be covered by the Policy to include marae and motorsports facilities Rather we will retain flexibility to consider how we support the funding of these facilities on a case-by-case basis.

Read the policy here.

What we asked

We proposed to increase most fees and charges at and above 10% and in the consultation we asked for comments or feedback on these proposed new levels. A full draft schedule of proposed fees was made available for comment.

This level of increase accounted for the significant rising costs of delivering Council services across the board and is similar to the proposed rates revenue requirement increase for 2024/2025. The increase helps maintain the share of the Council’s revenue from fees and charges. Increasing fees and charges reduces the impact of cost increases on ratepayers but increases the costs to users of Council services.

What we heard

There were 132 submissions received to the Schedule of Fees and Charges. The main topics, issues, and concerns of submitters were:

What we decided

In most cases, we decided to confirm the fees in the draft schedule of fees and charges.

Aeordromes

We received the most submissions on the fees at aerodromes. We had proposed a significant increase in fees for flight movements substantially as this fee had not increased since 2019. We also proposed to remove the annual lump sum payments for landing fees and introduce a fee for hangar applications.

In response to the submissions which were all against the size of the fee increases, we modified the increase for most of the aerodrome fees as follows:

Waste Management and Minimisation Fees

We reduced the size of the increase in the fee for the minimum weight-based charge and the charge for a 60-litre refuse bag at a Resource Recovery Centre to $3.60. This being equivalent to $360 per tonne.

We also confirmed the sale price for a Tasman District Council rubbish bag at $5.40 for a small bag (45 litres).

The Water Supply charges to Nelson City Council and those in the Nelson Industrial Water Supply Area were revised to reflect the increase in water rates in the final LTP 2024-2034.

Read the full Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2024/2025.