Excessive Hamilton City and Waikato Regional Rate Increases

Forums › Off topic › Excessive Hamilton City and Waikato Regional Rate Increases

Technofreak

6656 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3474

Trusted

#302565 2-Dec-2022 11:47

I have been discussing my rate increases with both the Hamilton City Council and the Waikato Regional Council.

HCC say there has been an average increase of 7% whereas mine went up 22% year on year.

WRC say their rate went up by an average of 7.7% whereas mine went up 31% year on year.

I don't know what others on here might think but but I consider those increases to be excessive. The answers I've been getting back seem to be smoke and mirrors to me.

Some of their reasoning was percentage increase in our property value was above average. Even if you allow for this it doesn't explain the huge increase.

I'm interested to know what other ratepayers in these areas have experienced.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

1 | 2 | 3

353 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 88

#3004615 2-Dec-2022 12:07

Same happened in South Wairarapa last year.

Council told us it was a 7% increase, but on average they all went up by ~29%. They eventually had to come out and say yes it was ~29%. Funnily pretty much none of the Councilors involved are still on Council.

tchart

2396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 577

ID Verified

Trusted

#3004618 2-Dec-2022 12:11

AFAIK the % they quote is across the board.

However that would infer that some properties have dropped by 20-30%? They usually explain this that your property has increased by 30% while some have decreased.

Just remember that you can agrue against their calculated GV when they re-value all properties. You could get a market valuation that shows its worth less but that has other implications.

I love how they always say "well its only a cup of coffee a week". Except its not, its 1 new cup of coffee, plus 7% of the previous years new cup, plus 7% of the year before that etc. Over 10 years your rates have double with a 7% increase. Example below of $1000 over 10 years at 7%.

mentalinc

3384 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1023

Trusted

#3004643 2-Dec-2022 13:10

And how much has the value of the house increased on paper (at the time of the last revaluation, not the "today" price)?

If your house went up 50% and others went up 10%, you're rates end up being higher. i.e. you're now paying more of the share of the councils operating costs (what rates are for) based on the value of your house increasing.

Don't like it, get a cheaper house, or push for reduction in council spending.

CPU: AMD 5900x | RAM: GSKILL Trident Z Neo RGB F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC-32-GB | MB: Asus X570-E | GFX: EVGA FTW3 Ultra RTX 3080Ti| Monitor: LG 27GL850-B 2560x1440

Quic: https://account.quic.nz/refer/473833 R473833EQKIBX

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3004649 2-Dec-2022 13:39

Rates are so old fashioned.

What does property value have to do with your use of services? Per capita based on adults living at the address is both more logical and fairer.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3004660 2-Dec-2022 14:05

The argument isn't that rates reflect your share of service usage, the argument is that property value is directly connected to the services provisioned to the property. And how would a per-capita model work with rental properties? You'd end up with rents needing to be priced based on the number of occupants. The current model is a kludge, but it's the only one that makes any sense.

mudguard

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#3004674 2-Dec-2022 14:22

Geektastic: Rates are so old fashioned.

What does property value have to do with your use of services? Per capita based on adults living at the address is both more logical and fairer.

You might have four adults and six kids in Otara paying more than one person in a mansion in Mission Bay?

Samsung

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

Behodar

11095 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6074

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3004675 2-Dec-2022 14:33

mudguard:

You might have four adults and six kids in Otara paying more than one person in a mansion in Mission Bay?

One person in a mansion in Mission Bay is probably using their own private pool, not the communal one. Probably buying their own books, not using the public library. Et cetera.

I'm not saying the system is better or worse; just an observation.

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#3004680 2-Dec-2022 14:41

The calculations on which rates are based are on the notices IIRC. It's easy enough to do your own calculations, but yes they always quote the 'average'. The other grating thing this time around is the valuations were done during the property peak...now things have dropped, we are still stuck paying based on the premium values for the next couple of years. The only voice you have other than contesting the valuation, is local council vote at election time.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

xpd

Geek of Coastguard
14116 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4576

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3004684 2-Dec-2022 14:51

We argued with Auckland council over rates increase on our first house..... they said value had gone up xx amount and we said "Fine, you sell it for us at that price" - they dropped the rate back down.

XPD / Gavin

LinkTree

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3004687 2-Dec-2022 14:56

Kyanar:
The argument isn't that rates reflect your share of service usage, the argument is that property value is directly connected to the services provisioned to the property. And how would a per-capita model work with rental properties? You'd end up with rents needing to be priced based on the number of occupants. The current model is a kludge, but it's the only one that makes any sense.

Which council services are provided to a property?

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3004689 2-Dec-2022 14:58

mudguard:
Geektastic: Rates are so old fashioned.

What does property value have to do with your use of services? Per capita based on adults living at the address is both more logical and fairer.

You might have four adults and six kids in Otara paying more than one person in a mansion in Mission Bay?

As you should. There are 10 people using the council’s services not one.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

mudguard

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#3004710 2-Dec-2022 15:31

Geektastic:

As you should. There are 10 people using the council’s services not one.

I guess you could do the same instead of income tax. Take the total required, divided by the number of adults in New Zealand. Send them all a bill.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3004739 2-Dec-2022 16:20

mudguard:

Geektastic:

As you should. There are 10 people using the council’s services not one.

I guess you could do the same instead of income tax. Take the total required, divided by the number of adults in New Zealand. Send them all a bill.

It would certainly be fairer than expecting 3% to foot 25% of the bill...

driller2000

936 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 374

ID Verified

#3004925 2-Dec-2022 22:04

Geektastic:
Kyanar:

The argument isn't that rates reflect your share of service usage, the argument is that property value is directly connected to the services provisioned to the property. And how would a per-capita model work with rental properties? You'd end up with rents needing to be priced based on the number of occupants. The current model is a kludge, but it's the only one that makes any sense.

Which council services are provided to a property?

I am assuming this wasn't rhetorical...

Because if it isn't - then the answer is on every Councils website - in generic and specific form eg. SWDC:

"Council rates pay for the delivery of all our services. This ranges from maintaining roads and footpaths, providing clean drinking water, disposing of stormwater and wastewater, managing all the bylaws, providing libraries and swimming pools, as well as the upkeep of all our parks, reserves, buildings, and public facilities, to name a few.

Rates are charged for the services you have access to and benefit from.

Council aims to provide at least a basic level of service to all our ratepayers, which is constrained by the significant volume of ageing infrastructure which has been underfunded for many years."

https://swdc.govt.nz/services/rates/frequently-asked-questions-2021-22-rates/

https://swdc.govt.nz/wp-content/uploads/SWDC-Annual-Plan-Pull-Out-2.pdf

Senecio

2853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3162

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3004949 3-Dec-2022 05:01

Geektastic:

It would certainly be fairer than expecting 3% to foot 25% of the bill...

You haven’t quite grasped how taxes work?

Taxes are an intentional redistribution of wealth. So yes, 3% of the population should foot 25% of the bill.

1 | 2 | 3