How much have your rates increased over the years?

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › How much have your rates increased over the years?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

mudguard

2328 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#3434538 14-Nov-2025 14:58

mattwnz:

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.

Surely the ones paying for that infrastructure will be the eventual home owner?

I live on a Peninsula in Auckland and have mains water (and gas 😥) however a lot of the houses in the area are on tank water. A legacy of it being mostly holiday homes fifty years ago. I believe for someone to connect to the town supply it's quite expensive. However maybe another way of looking at it was the newer houses paid for the mains water to be supplied to them, so they've already borne that cost.

I'm not sure how accurate that example is to be fair.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#3434556 14-Nov-2025 15:53

In some towns you can't even build a new home at the moment because they don't have the sewage capacity and/or water capacity to add any more houses. But who is actually accountable for this failure because it shouldn’t have happened? So they aren't allowing new building consents to be issued. That is why this granny flat law is going to be interesting, because many people will want to do this, but the infrastructure may not be able to handle it, and the council may not allow them. Although I was listening to the building show at the weekend and someone was saying that their council was happy if the granny flat used a septic tank and got it's drinking water from the roof and had tanks. But that isn't possible in many urban areas.
But I think historically developers haven't paid enough in some towns when building new homes on new subdivisions. The cost difference around NZ is large. It allows them to make more profit if they can pay as little as possible. But if the cost is too high, they aren't going to build in certain areas.

But most towns now seem to be getting new water entities that will run the water, and I understand people will be paying these entities a fee directly for water services instead of the council. Poetnailly teh ocsts coudl be signifincatly higher and you are paying for another level of staff and management/branding etc. Allows councils to potentially put up rates even higher though.

tweake

2648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1139

#3434560 14-Nov-2025 16:41

Benoire:

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.

the rough rule of thumb was hotmix cost 3x as much but lasted 4x times longer. its been a while i can't quite recall exact details. generally hot mix is cheaper in the long run and its also easier to install. chip seal, especially emulsion, is screwed up constantly, unfortunately they just don't know how to lay chip in the first place, and it needs fixing straight away. of course most of the time they just don't bother fixing it. so we end up with a cheap job done badly that costs more than if they did it properly with the expensive stuff.

tweake

2648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1139

#3434562 14-Nov-2025 16:48

mattwnz:

I don’t think we have been under paying. But councils have been spending a lot on nice to haves and vanity projects.

it certainly been a bit of both. how much depends on the each council. for me, around here certainly basic maintenance was done on the cheap while they spent on nice to haves. water was practically free, untill every was so run down and busted that they where forced into upgrades, and dumped all the cost onto todays ratepayers. its gone from free to $400 and up. i was advised to budget $1k for water. it really upset a lot of the retired people here because its all on the fixed charge not the usage.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#3434564 14-Nov-2025 16:52

The amended Three Waters looks like it would be the perfect solution now, compared to what we are now going to end up with. Massive price rises incoming for many areas.

tweake

2648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1139

#3434574 14-Nov-2025 16:58

trig42:

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.

the catch with that is the developers simply pass on the cost to the new home owners, who push the cost down the housing ladder, and its often the FHBers who end up paying for it. then when fhbers can't afford it, they don't buy, the homes owners can't sell and don't buy the new homes. developers and builders then go bust. which is the situation today. lots of developers and building crowds going bust.

what really needs to happen is that cost should be put over everyone. spread over a large base the cost is not much, rather than pushing all the cost onto a few. but mention that to home owners, you will need a flak jacket.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#3434624 14-Nov-2025 17:12

tweake:

the catch with that is the developers simply pass on the cost to the new home owners, who push the cost down the housing ladder, and its often the FHBers who end up paying for it. then when fhbers can't afford it, they don't buy, the homes owners can't sell and don't buy the new homes. developers and builders then go bust. which is the situation today. lots of developers and building crowds going bust.

what really needs to happen is that cost should be put over everyone. spread over a large base the cost is not much, rather than pushing all the cost onto a few. but mention that to home owners, you will need a flak jacket.

That is one reason the previous government incentivized investors to buy new builds. The current government reversed that. Infact if you buy a new build, you are likely going to be paying significantly higher rates, than you would if you purchased an old house that likely has half the CV. So new home buyers get double hit with costs. Even though they are living in a drier healthier home, and putting less load on the NZ health system as a result.

The problem is also economies of scale. Auckland can get far better economies of scale that the rest of NZ, especially small towns. So rates appear cheaper in Auckland than much of the rest of the country. They have to incentivize people to live in other areas and at the moment living costs outside of Auckland are very high, as you tend to pay a lot more for everything outside the main centres.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#3434626 14-Nov-2025 17:21

tweake:

Benoire:

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.

the rough rule of thumb was hotmix cost 3x as much but lasted 4x times longer. its been a while i can't quite recall exact details. generally hot mix is cheaper in the long run and its also easier to install. chip seal, especially emulsion, is screwed up constantly, unfortunately they just don't know how to lay chip in the first place, and it needs fixing straight away. of course most of the time they just don't bother fixing it. so we end up with a cheap job done badly that costs more than if they did it properly with the expensive stuff.

I also don't think the figures factor in the inconvenience costs which would reduce productivity. Also damage from stone chips which increase what people pay in insurance premiums.

tweake

2648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1139

#3434688 14-Nov-2025 19:28

mattwnz:

I also don't think the figures factor in the inconvenience costs which would reduce productivity. Also damage from stone chips which increase what people pay in insurance premiums.

not just insurance. we where always having vehicles away getting windscreens replaced.

we just had a lot of roadworks done recently and i drove through while they where doing it. they where pouring 10x the amount of chip down, which creates poor bedding and the stones rip out. hello new windscreen.

tweake

2648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1139

#3434689 14-Nov-2025 19:32

mattwnz:

That is one reason the previous government incentivized investors to buy new builds. The current government reversed that. Infact if you buy a new build, you are likely going to be paying significantly higher rates, than you would if you purchased an old house that likely has half the CV. So new home buyers get double hit with costs. Even though they are living in a drier healthier home, and putting less load on the NZ health system as a result.

The problem is also economies of scale. Auckland can get far better economies of scale that the rest of NZ, especially small towns. So rates appear cheaper in Auckland than much of the rest of the country. They have to incentivize people to live in other areas and at the moment living costs outside of Auckland are very high, as you tend to pay a lot more for everything outside the main centres.

sort of. i lot of "affordable" new builds where not much off 2nd hand homes price. rates shouldn't be a lot different.

yes economies of scales matter. a lot of small towns suffer as people move away from work and rates get pushed up. auckland gets cheap rates, i mentioned mates rates is the same as mine, yet his place is 2mill. yet aucklanders still complain of being hard done by.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3434697 14-Nov-2025 22:51

gregmcc:

I think it's time that council rates should be called what they are - Property tax and should tax deductible.

I want my tax to be tax deductible. Wut?

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#3434698 14-Nov-2025 22:57

Well the GST they collect on rates should be going back to the council it comes from to be used on infrastructure. It is essentially a tax on top of a tax.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3434700 14-Nov-2025 23:01

trig42:

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.

Yup. When you look at the actual numbers the majority of rates are spent on "basics." There has been systemic underinvestment to reduce costs to ratepayers which has resulted in an investment and infrastructure deficit. New Zealand is a relatively large country with a tiny population so when it all comes home to roost it gets expensive fast.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3434701 14-Nov-2025 23:02

mattwnz:

Well the GST they collect on rates should be going back to the council it comes from to be used on infrastructure. It is essentially a tax on top of a tax.

Sure, we can raise GST to 17.5% to compensate.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5