What’s driving Tasman’s draft 8.8% rates hike?

The average rates increase in Tasman this year is proposed to be 8.8 per cent, despite a plan adopted less than 12 months ago signalling a rise of 7 per cent.

Tasman District Council’s long-term plan for the current decade was adopted in June 2024.

That plan indicated a 7 per cent rates increase but an overspend of $6.5 million is forecast for this financial year and so the council has been forced back to the drawing board.

A raft of changes is proposed to the original outline for the upcoming 2025/26 financial year beginning on July 1, resulting in an updated plan for the same year, now with an average 8.8 per cent rates increase.

The council blames rising costs for its overspend and the need for a greater average rates increase.

It says interest rates, depreciation and maintenance costs, and the price of electricity, are all higher than expected and is subsequently allocating more money to certain areas.

Among many other smaller increases, next financial year the council wanted an extra $534k to reinstate water and wastewater maintenance to earlier levels to reflect actual spending, $392k for parks and reserves maintenance to account for managing new reserves and inflation, $357k for its IT fees and licences, $222k to bring its environmental compliance services in-house after its contractor exited the contract, and $242k for sewerage works, including upgrading capacity at the overflow-prone Beach Rd pump station.

Errors in its earlier plan have also resulted in proposals for allocating $104k for local government sector group subscriptions, $103k for the Māpua Ferry, and $80k for the eBus service due to a misunderstanding with NZTA funding.

New Government rules also require the council to pay $310k for its water and wastewater to be monitored by both the national water regulator Taumata Arowai and the Commerce Commission.

Councillor Kit Maling thought the fees were “bloody rubbish” when Audit NZ already audited the council’s water services, and said the prospect of future fee increases were “a real concern”.

But budget increases aren’t the only changes proposed for next year’s plan and several areas are proposed to see reductions to keep rates from jumping even higher.

Chief executive Leonie Rae said the council had scrutinised “every line” of its budget to find ways to reduce spending without drastically impacting the current levels of service.

“We’re really thinking about what was essential, and what we could actually let go of or potentially do better.”

The council proposes selling $3 million of its unneeded Emissions Trading Scheme credits to partially offset its deficit, effectively shaving 0.5 per cent off the rates increase.

Other cuts include slashing the staff salary budget by $1.4m, using funding from a Government levy rather than rates for a $1m upgrade of the Richmond Resource Recovery Centre, selling an extra $1m of surplus council property, and reducing insurance coverage to save $700k.

Efficiencies and optimisations are also being pursued in traffic management.

Group manager community infrastructure Richard Kirby says while the number of cones might not drop, there would be likely fewer manned points during roadworks.

The council has indicated it was likely to rescind an earlier original cost-cutting measure of removing bins and closing public toilets, but Richard says a more targeted approach to managing those facilities would be taken.

Bins that are underutilised or near others will be “slowly removed” over time, while public toilets which don’t get much use in winter, like those on Rabbit Island, would be closed during those months.

Some other proposed measures to lessen the general rates increase would still be felt by some residents, like introducing paid parking in off-road, all-day Richmond car parks, and shaving library opening hours.

The council is also seeking to increase most of its fees and charges by 10 per cent to ensure some council services remain user-pays rather than being subsidised by rates.

Elected members grudgingly approved the proposals last week, with Mayor Tim King saying that none of them were “hugely comfortable” with the 8.8 per cent increase, as they tried to balance affordability with ensuring the council’s levels of service continued to meet residents’ expectations.

But councillor Mark Greening, the only member to vote against the plan, railed against measures.

He thought the council should drastically cut staff numbers to reduce staffing costs by up to $6m, significantly more than the $1.4m reduction already proposed.

“The public should be concerned,” he said. “This annual plan is still tinkering around the edges and fails to address the fundamental problems.”

The proposal is expected to go out for consultation on May 12 for two weeks.