Sign In / Register
Hibiscus Coast residents are questioning Auckland Council’s transparency after receiving rates bills far above the promised 5.8 per cent average increase.
While council acknowledged there would be variations, it did not clearly warn that Coast households would face higher than average rises.
News releases from Mayor Wayne Brown told homeowners to expect an average increase of 5.8 per cent this year. Instead, many Coast households have opened their bills to find rises two, three or even four times higher.
One 94-year-old retiree visited the Hibiscus Matters office with his figures neatly written out. He and his wife live in a small two-bedroom home in Silverdale, bought in 2013 as their retirement home. Fully expecting the 5.8 per cent touted in news releases by Mayor Brown, he was shocked when their rates rose from $3386 to $3920 – an increase of 15.78 per cent, or about $534 a year. For couples on fixed incomes, he says, it is “a real kick in the guts.”
Many young families have also been caught out.
One couple told the paper that their Stillwater rates had increased by 32 per cent.
“We’re first home buyers four months ago. We purchased our house with the idea of what rates would be, and having heard that council will increase rates on average 5.8 per cent, we budgeted accordingly…Came as quite a shock. We have a third bub on the way and I’m starting maternity leave soon – will be interesting times.”
In Dairy Flat, another resident said:
“That the CV of their property had fallen by five per cent yet our rates are up 14 percent.” We are in semi-rural Dairy Flat and collect our own rain water and manage our own septic tanks. I am not sure what extra services justify this increase.”
“We are a young family with a single income now paying close to $5k a year in rates. Why rates are treated as a perceived wealth tax, rather than a fee for services provided, makes no sense.”
Pensioners on fixed incomes say the increases are particularly hard.
One couple said their house previously had a CV of $1,350,000 and their quarterly payments were $884.35. That equated to an annual charge of $3537.40. The latest rates demand is with a CV of $1,300,000 and $1016.47 quarterly, giving an annual charge of $4012.56. It’s a 13.5 per cent increase, and the couple say there appears to be zero information with the bill to justify the massive increase.
“This is both absurd and unaffordable, especially when compared to the average annual salary increase of just two per cent for general employees,” the resident said.
“We’re already facing rising costs across the board, supermarket prices are soaring, fuel and insurance premiums continue to climb, and now this steep rates increase adds even more pressure. To make matters worse, my property value has dropped by nearly 15 per cent. On what basis were the house CVs increased? I work two jobs, seven days a week, while managing a herniated spine. This rates hike places an unfair burden on me and my family. Elected representatives must be more thoughtful and considerate of the realities faced by ordinary citizens.”
The frustration is echoed online. Social media groups across Rodney and the Hibiscus Coast are full of stories of steep bills. Rural households have been especially vocal. One resident said:
“Our rates have gone up from $191 per month to $321 and the addition of the rubbish bins that we already had (plus the compost that we don’t use and never wanted in the first place) is totally unacceptable – how are people supposed to afford to live?”
Albany Ward Councillors John Watson and Wayne Walker issued a joint statement outlining their concerns.
“Firstly we’d like to put it on the record that we actually voted against this year’s rate increase. That was even before the impact of the revaluations became known and was based on three years of already record rate increases.
“We would strongly support any government move to immediately cap rate increases to the level of inflation. The latest increases are simply unsustainable for many people already under real financial strain.
“The communication by senior council officials has been non-existent. There appears to be no appreciation whatsoever of the impact of these increases on people’s lives. No warning whatsoever was given to anyone regarding the scale of these increases.
“We believe that at least some of the impact of the revaluations could have been reduced by altering the UAGC component, that is, by changing the overall rates settings to make the fixed component larger since it’s the variable part of the rates that increases as a result of revaluation.”
The growing anger prompted council to call a meeting last Thursday in an attempt to placate irate residents, however, options for ratepayers are limited. Objections to property valuations closed on July 24, while the council advises that relief measures are available and urges anyone struggling to pay to contact them to discuss payment plans or apply for the government’s rebate scheme.
In the Thursday online webinar, council said ratepayers can still object after the deadline but they may have to bear the cost of a reevaluation. However, they advised that ratepayers have a legal obligation to pay their rates bill even if they have raised an objection. Currently, close to 11,000 objections have been raised, the council said.
