• clear definition of the rating principles
• simplifying the rating system
• introduction of  separately used or inhabitated parts of a rating uint (SUIPs)
• enahance use of fixed charges

The Council's approach is bas follows:

• Where users can be clearly identified they should directly contribute to the cost of providing the services. An example is water metering where people are charged according to the amount of water they use.
• Where services are provided to particular parts of the District, a targeted rate will be charged to that part of the District. An example would be those areas where rubbish and recycling is collected.
• Where users cannot be clearly defined then the cost of providing that service will be charged as part of a uniform annual charge across all rateable properties. An example of this is parks, gardens and reserves.

What are your views about the Council's approach to rating?

 What are your views?  To make a submision download a copy of the submission form. Posting your views on this forum is not considered a formal submission. 

The results of the rating review changes the incidence of rates to reflect the Council’s approach to rating. A summary of rates and examples of how these policy changes may affect your property are included in this summary under the tabled entitled “Average Rate Increase for 2009/10”. 

The Council is proposing an average rates increase of 6.36% in the 2009/10. The impact of solid waste cost increases accounts for 4.2% of the proposed rates rise.  There is a forecast average rates rise of 8.3% over the ten year period of the Plan.

Changes to the rates system are proposed as follows:
• The differential charged on all properties over $10 million for roading and general rating purposes will be removed.
• The general rate that was charged for land drainage, refuse disposal, parks, gardens and recreation, swimming pools, trade  waste and libraries has been removed in favour of different rates for the different activities as follows:
• Stormwater will be based on which catchment the property is in and will be charged as a uniform annual change (25%) and  per capital value.
• Parks and gardens will be charged through a uniform annual charge as it is difficult to define the users.
• Swimming pools and libraries will be covered by a uniform annual charge based on where in the District properties are and  how close they are to a swimming or library complex.
• Water will be charged using a targeted rate and through metering of water use.  The price of water would be double during   summer to reflect peak demand costs (from 1 July 2010) and be relatively lower during low demand periods.  This is   expected to have the impact on slowing the need for major capital investment in upgrading the scheme.  Water meters for   Whakatane and Ohope urban areas would be read every three months from 1 July 2010.
• A uniform annual charge of $21 will be charged to all rateable properties to cover refuse management. Only those properties   that get refuse and recycling picked up would be charged an additional targeted rate for a collection service.
• The Council is proposing to hold the Uniform Annual General Charge at $325 and,
• The Roading Uniform Annual Charge at $50 – the same as last year. 

What are your views?  To make a submision download a copy of the submission form. Posting your views on this forum is not considered a formal submission. 

How does this affect you?

If you use a consistent amount of water throughout the year, you average cost is not change significantly. The table below illustrates what an  individual household with consistent water consumption might be charged under the current system.

	Jun- Aug	Sep - Nov	Dec- Feb	March - May	Average charge and Total cost
Price per m3	$         1.00	$         1.00	$         1.00	$         1.00	$    1.00
Consumption in m3	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	160.00
Amount payable	$       40.00	$       40.00	$       40.00	$       40.00	$ 160.00

Now we will show what it would look like under proposed system

	Jun- Aug	Sep - Nov	Dec- Feb	March - May	Average charge and Total cost
Price per m3	$         0.80	$         0.80	$         1.60	$         0.80	$    1.00
Consumption in m3	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	160.00
Amount payable	$       32.00	$       32.00	$       64.00	$       32.00	$ 160.00

Now let's look at what would happen to household which uses more water in summer months under the proposed new system

	Jun- Aug	Sep - Nov	Dec- Feb	March - May	Average charge and Total cost
Price per m3	$         0.80	$         0.80	$         1.60	$         0.80	$    1.00
Consumption in m3	20.00	20.00	90.00	30.00	160.00
Amount payable	$       16.00	$       16.00	$      144.00	$       24.00	$ 200.00

What are your views? You can make a written submission to the Council. Submission close on Monday 8 June 2009.

If adopted this would affect:

• commercial shop buildings with seprately used unit
• apartments blocks/complexs- on single title
• farms with two dwellings or more

SUIPs will increase UAGCs on those properties that have more than one separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit. This will however, not increase the Council's rating income but instead will shift the sources of rating income.

What are your views?  To make a submission download a copy of the submission form. Posting your views on this forum is not considered a formal submission. 

What are your views?  To make a submision download a copy of the submission form. Posting your views on this forum is not considered a formal submission. 

The Council has indicated in the LTCCP 2009 that over the 2009/10 financial year it wants to review the appropriatness of the legisaltion framework controlling the Harbour Endowment Fund and whether the Fund should be retained in its current form. Any proposal for change to the Fund would be included in the  draft Annual Plan for 2010/11 for community feedback.

What are your views?  To make a submision download a copy of the submission form. Posting your views on this forum is not considered a formal submission. 

• establishing a transfer station to enable refuse to be trucked out of the District.
• introducing a uniform annual charge of $21 across the District
• Building a composting plant. This would allow the Council to reduce the amount of waste being trucked from the District
• New landfill-investigate alternative site(s).

What are your views

• What can individual households do to reduce their waste stream?
• How can the Coun cil assist individual household and the community to reduce the about of waste we produce?

It is anticipated that the selling of pensioner housing could release over $5million which could be used to fund critical capital works that the District need.

The Council is aware that the propsal may be controversial and that current tenants could be affected by a change in ownership or management.

In reaching its preferred option the Council also considered the following options:

1. Retain pensioner housing as is. This option recognises that, it is a self funding activity that absorbs overheads and there is community acceptance of this activity.
2. Use reserves from pensioner housing for other purposes. The Council could retain the units and increase rents to match market rentals and use surplus reserves to fund other activities.
3. Raise finance against pensioner units. A further alternative is for the Council to raise fianance against the pensioner units to fund capital projects and increase rents to pay for the interest.
4. Sell other Council assets to fund capital projects. The Council has reviewed all assets it owns as part of developing the LTCCP. It has indicated that it will dispose of assets that are no longer required to support services it delivers. 

What are your views?

• Should the Councl sale the pensioner housing?
• If the Council were to sale the pensioner units, what should the proceeds used for? The Council is proposing to use the monies raised to fund critical projects the District needs?
• Are there other alternatives the Council should consider?

To make a submision download a copy of the submission form. Posting your views on this forum is not considered a formal submission. 

In making the decision, Councillors considered the reduction of Councillors and the abolition of Community Boards would save ratepayers about $500,000 annually and at the same time create a better level of decision making, attract a higher calibre of Councillors and ultimately provide better outcomes for the community.

What are your views? To make a submision download a copy of the submission form. Posting your views on this forum is not considered a formal submission.