Problems emerge over key rating system changes

Are councillors engaged in “virtue signalling” over the rating systems changes which have seen some rates hiked by more than 100-percent _ unleashing a stream of ratepayer reaction _ though not quite a flood?

Ratepayers hit by SUIP (Separately Used or Inhabitable Part) rating demands for a second (or more) inhabitable property using council services on their land, stumped up about 100 negative responses to the new rating demand. Some 660 properties qualify for the new SUIP charges.

“What we are talking about here is not so much unintended consequences,” said Mayor Martin Connelly, “but seeing the consequences that we actually intended, which is if you have two (inhabitable) buildings on a property that they both have to pay for (council) services they are getting.”

He was responding to Councillor Colin Olds’ comments about “unintended consequences” of the SUIP policy, and that during last year’s rating review “we didn’t drill down on the detail on what some of these consequences would look like. I blame myself and all of us really. We should have actually recognised the impact.”

Councillor Pip Maynard said she “didn’t fully appreciate or understand what was going to happen” as a result of introducing extra charges for multiple dwellings.

“It’s getting to the point that our ratepayers can’t be ratepayers any more because they can’t afford it,” she told the Working Strategy Committee meeting last month.

Officials asked ratepayers three questions on the issue of rates remission (reduction) which accompanied the policy change _ and received a mainly positive response.

1. In certain circumstances (should Council): provide relief to ratepayers with more than one Separately Used or Inhabitable Part (SUIP) that are used to accommodate dependent or other family members? Yes 77.5%; No 12.7; DK 9.8.

2. Provide relief to ratepayers with more than one Separately Used or Inhabitable Part (SUIP) where retail premises may also be the owner’s residential accommodation? Yes  56.3%; No  29.6; DK 14.1.

3. Provide relief to ratepayers with more than one Separately Used or Inhabitable Part (SUIP) to house essential workers required for the day-to-day operations of pastoral and dairying properties?Yes: 73.2%; No: 24.3; DK: 2.5.

In public forum comments, ratepayers told councillors the new rating system was poorly designed,  rates were now beyond what they could afford, and there were unfair anomalies.

It was also noted the rates remissions for dairy and pastoral farming do not apply to horticulture or viticulture.

Deputy Mayor Melissa Sadler-Futter said the remissions definition for farming businesses needed to change to “primary production” to include horticulture and viticulture.

Chief Executive Janice Smith told the meeting the policy could not be amended without consultation, but the Long-Term Plan process would provide that opportunity. 

The committee also agreed: “to instruct the CEO to instigate a data integrity check on the relevant urban property data that is used to define the application of a SUIP.”