So depressing and water rates on the way 

 

•  

  2017 = $2,446

   

•  

  2025 = $4,390

   

One thing I forgot to mention and I don't think has been mentioned. It's somewhat important to look at what services have been added/removed from rates bills over the comparison period.

For several large areas of Auckland for instance we went from user pays rubbish collections (bin tags for Ex-Waitakere and another part of the city I can't remember which, or no Council organised rubbish for Rodney) to a service fee charged on the annual rates bill, I'm not sure about for the bin tag areas but it worked out very cost effective for Rodney compared to Econowaste. But it does inflate the last year to this year comparison.

Looking at Whangarei one of the big-ticket items on all rates bills is the wastewater fixed charge ($928!) which is per-dwelling and not scaled on valuations/etc.

The rates on our previous home went from $3600 to $5200 from 2021 to 2025 (Selwyn district). Our current house has gone from $7000 to $8200 in the same timeframe (Christchurch City). It is hardly a mansion, but I guess we have a gold plated stadium coming, as well as an expensive swimming complex (which is only about 7 years behind schedule). It is quite ridiculous that rates are so expensive compared to other services. Rates = $160 per week. Power = $80. Insurance = $60. Internet = $20.

nova:

 

The rates on our previous home went from $3600 to $5200 from 2021 to 2025 (Selwyn district). Our current house has gone from $7000 to $8200 in the same timeframe (Christchurch City). It is hardly a mansion, but I guess we have a gold plated stadium coming, as well as an expensive swimming complex (which is only about 7 years behind schedule). It is quite ridiculous that rates are so expensive compared to other services. Rates = $160 per week. Power = $80. Insurance = $60. Internet = $20.

 

Christchurch is spending ~45% of the total rates income on water and transport - this doesn't include the investment from NZTA either which will be at least 51% of the total cost per project... Essentially we as a country are paying for a low density country based on sprawling housing with an insane km of roads and water requirements... Basic bag of fag paper calc for roads is 94,000KM of roads across NZ with a pop of ~5.16m means 0.018 km per person... the UK is 3 x cheaper at 0.006km per person and they also have effeciencies of scale so asphalt etc. is even cheaper...

Benoire:

 

 they also have efficiencies of scale so asphalt etc. is even cheaper...

 

and they use real asphalt which is more economical than seal and chip.

tweake:

 

and they use real asphalt which is more economical than seal and chip.

 

We use real asphalt here too, different binders as we're more susceptible to UV degredation and not as much structural AC but that is mainly cost related... in Auckland we have found that chipseal is generally 2 x cheaper than ashpalt over the life of the road pavement (~25y) and is more suited to the majority of ground conditions which cause early failure in asphalts due to the low CBRs of the formation.

It's pretty nuts here in Kapiti. 

We pay for our water via meters, the council abandoned doing rubbish collection (you must now pay for private bins), etc, and yet in the last few years our council has wasted millions on art galleries, failed tourist gateways, and multi million dollar eco bus shelters which were all wildly unpopular with ratepayers. I'd say KCDC is a poster boy for why central government is trying to force councils "back to basics" with good reason.

I think the big issue is that for too long we've been underpaying.

All these things that need fixing now - water pipes, wastewater treatment being the two that come to mind, have been languishing for years with no investment as the council (who want to be re-elected within 3 years) are kicking the can down the road.

Look at Wellington - the water system(s) there are stuffed. Ratepayers (and then probably taxpayers) have to foot the bill for 50+years of 'out of sight, out of mind'.

Issue is the same where I live - here the council has an aging water system, and they want more development in town (this town already has one of NZ's biggest retirement villages). I hope that the council is charging the developers of these new subdivisions (and there's a massive one just starting construction down the road) the real costs of adding them to the wastewater and water systems designed for a town without the extra 1000 dwellings they're planning. Somehow, I suspect they've done a 'deal' to get the development over the line, who is going to pay? Existing ratepayers.

I don’t think we have been under paying. But councils have been spending a lot on nice to haves and vanity projects. The government has basically said this themselves and that they need to get back to basics with is why they are going to freeze rates increases in the future. Things like public art and town halls and other vanity projects. Then possibly not charging developers enough when they setup new developments in order to increase or replace infrastructure. But no one is being held to account for this. Most council staff also get very well paid and have some amazing benefits , at least my local council does. 

We cannot sensibly discuss rates increases without understanding the historic context. 

After WWII, my grandad's generation built much of the infrastructure our NZ cities depend on. They built it not just for themselves, but for all of us, their descendants. All Western countries that experienced a post WWII boom in population and infra now face the same challenge — how to pay for the unavoidable maintenance, upgrades, replacement, and expansion of this infrastructure. 

It is now incumbent upon our generations to determine how to best plan and pay for our core infrastructure, while our population ages, lives longer, our cities grow, and as we face new threats like climate change.

This is a great discussion some of the major financial issues, across generations: "Playing the Long Game With New Zealand Infrastructure"

Lias:

 

It's pretty nuts here in Kapiti. 

 

We pay for our water via meters, the council abandoned doing rubbish collection (you must now pay for private bins), etc, and yet in the last few years our council has wasted millions on art galleries, failed tourist gateways, and multi million dollar eco bus shelters which were all wildly unpopular with ratepayers. I'd say KCDC is a poster boy for why central government is trying to force councils "back to basics" with good reason.

 

Whilst these types of projects are opposed by the majority, the small group of people who support them are good at making a lot of noise and building up political influence. Although I hate the cycling lobby, I have to admit that they have managed to develop an impressive amount of power within the political sphere. 

This type of waste is going to continue until local body election turnout increases. 

I live in a large townhouse complex with roadways owned by our residents. I accept that means we have to pay for their upkeep.

What really annoys me though, is that we also have to pay rates on the land occupied by those roadways. So, the council gets revenue out of us in addition to avoiding the cost of maintenance. 

alasta:

 

I live in a large townhouse complex with roadways owned by our residents. I accept that means we have to pay for their upkeep.

 

What really annoys me though, is that we also have to pay rates on the land occupied by those roadways. So, the council gets revenue out of us in addition to avoiding the cost of maintenance. 

 

Since you own the road, you could put up a toll booth and gather some revenue of your own. 

alasta:

 

I live in a large townhouse complex with roadways owned by our residents. I accept that means we have to pay for their upkeep.

 

What really annoys me though, is that we also have to pay rates on the land occupied by those roadways. So, the council gets revenue out of us in addition to avoiding the cost of maintenance. 

 

Unless its a legal road Its just land to the council, 

I have a long path up to my front door, I maintain it , but should I expect the council's footpath team to do that for me because I pay rates?

Kapiti. 
It would be an interesting investigative project to know how we get to this.
What architectural company/consultant came up with this failure.

No Mr Nash, it does not make sense in 'any' economic environment. 

I expect that a green roof absolutely blew out costs, structure, water tightness etc.
Then you have to maintain the thing.
The environmental resource inputs would go far larger than any green dividend.
Plus you can barely see it.

Anyhow by doing this you deprive community of more shelters where you need them.
Or other green programs that actually do something.
You used up all the budget on one.

Never mind the roof is a great place for 'Solar Panels' , at minimal structural burden.
If you have a green points system. 

Ground a great place for planting (who knew), where people can see and enjoy, gardeners can tend.
You could probably 10x or 100x the green impact and making a nicer environment as well.

Its counter to everything it is supposed to be.