Balancing user pays with common good.

For many of our services we charge a fee to cover some of the cost of the work required to provide them.

This includes services such as planning and building consents and inspections, renting a social house, going to the swimming pool, dropping off rubbish at the transfer station, or registering your dog.

This is different to how you pay for things such as roads or libraries, which are seen as a common good, and are funded by everyone.

When we are setting these fees, we try to balance them so that most of the cost of providing the service is covered by the fees, but some of the cost is covered by all ratepayers so they aren’t so expensive to put off development, stop people going for a swim, or disposing of their rubbish responsibly.

As part of this Long-Term Plan we are proposing to increase the fees we charge for services to bring them closer to how much it costs us to provide the service.

These changes will not affect the total rates charged to ratepayers. Instead, the goal is to adjust the charges to better reflect the actual cost of providing these services. Any rates funding that was previously used to subsidise some of these
services will be used other purposes such as maintenance.

We want to know how you think we should balance what we charge with how much subsidy we provide.

Some questions to ask yourself:

  • Should we increase the amount we charge people for a building consent?
  • Will rising planning costs reduce development in the district
  • Should we need to support physical activity or swimming through subsidising pool entry costs?
  • Are we charging enough dog registration to cover the cost of animal management?

Proposed Fees and Charges Schedule 2024-25

This document details all the proposed fees and charges under the preferred option.

How should we set our fees over the next 10 years?

The options

Our preferred option is option 2.

Limit Fee Increases
Summary of Option
No fee increases, same or reduced levels of service, increase demand on rates income for subsidies.
What this Option will look like

Pros:

  • Fees & Charges remain the same for users who are getting a good deal.
  • Some venues/activities will be more attractive due to competitive charges.
  • Community groups and lower-income users are supported to access services.

Cons:

  • Service users not covering the costs of the service and placing burden on ratepayers.
  • Rates income diverted from other core services and activities to cover shortfall from fees and charges which could impact levels of service.
  • Ratepayers covering costs of services not used by all ratepayers (such as community halls).
Impact
  • Impact on rates: 15% average rate increase, but less will be spent on other core services.
  • Impact on Fees & Charges: Nil.
  • Ratepayer subsidies between 60-80% of operating costs on community facilities such as swimming pools, stadium, and airport.
Higher User Pays
Summary of Option
Moderate increases to most fees & charges, no impact on rates, same level of rates subsidies.
What this Option will look like

Pros:

  • Users (including visitors and all residents) are covering more of the cost of the service and paying a fairer share.
  • Less rates going to subsidising the facilities used by community groups and individuals so less demand on rate increases.
  • Activities and amenities that provide a “community good” are supported by all
    ratepayers.
  • Rates income distribution will remain as proposed to cover expenses for core services.

Cons:

  • User charges increase so paying for services will cost more, which may deter some users such as developers or businesses.
  • Community groups and lower income residents may not be able to afford the increases and have less access to facilities and services.
Impact
  • Impact on rates: 15% average rate increase, nil increase to cover costs of subsidies.
  • Impact on Fees & Charges: 15% increase across most fees and charges.
  • Ratepayer subsidies remain at current levels of between 48-69% for community facilities such as swimming pools, stadium, and airport.
Fully User Pays
Summary of Option
Significant increases to fees & charges, no impact on rates, no rate subsidies.
What this Option will look like

Pros:

  • Users (including visitors and all residents) fully cover the cost of the service.
  • No rates going to subsidise the services, which means rate income can be diverted to other core services to potentially increase levels of service.
  • No pressure on rates increases to cover funding shortfalls from fees & charges.

Cons:

  • Some fees & charges will increase significantly, reducing affordability, and not be financially sustainable to continue operating.
  • Community groups and low-income users will not be able to access services and facilities.
  • Levels of service will either be capped or decreased to keep costs down, meaning limited opening hours and access to services and facilities for public.
  • Council services and facilities will no longer be cost competitive and will likely result in decreases usage, exacerbating revenue issues for services and facilities. Decreased income would result in less investment in maintenance and upkeep, resulting in degradedconditions for community facilities.
Impact
  • Impact on rates: 15% average increase, nil increase to cover subsidies.
  • Impact on Fees & Charges: Overall increase of 56% to cover rates subsidies shortfall.
  • Ratepayer subsidies nil, meaning increases of between 65-100% of fees for community facilities such as swimming pools, stadium, and airport.

Preferred Option

1

Limit Fee Increases

2

Higher User Pays

3

Fully User Pays

Summary of Option

No fee increases, same or reduced levels of service, increase demand on rates income for subsidies.

Moderate increases to most fees & charges, no impact on rates, same level of rates subsidies.

Significant increases to fees & charges, no impact on rates, no rate subsidies.

What this Option will look like

Pros:

  • Fees & Charges remain the same for users who are getting a good deal.
  • Some venues/activities will be more attractive due to competitive charges.
  • Community groups and lower-income users are supported to access services.

Cons:

  • Service users not covering the costs of the service and placing burden on ratepayers.
  • Rates income diverted from other core services and activities to cover shortfall from fees and charges which could impact levels of service.
  • Ratepayers covering costs of services not used by all ratepayers (such as community halls).

Pros:

  • Users (including visitors and all residents) are covering more of the cost of the service and paying a fairer share.
  • Less rates going to subsidising the facilities used by community groups and individuals so less demand on rate increases.
  • Activities and amenities that provide a “community good” are supported by all
    ratepayers.
  • Rates income distribution will remain as proposed to cover expenses for core services.

Cons:

  • User charges increase so paying for services will cost more, which may deter some users such as developers or businesses.
  • Community groups and lower income residents may not be able to afford the increases and have less access to facilities and services.

Pros:

  • Users (including visitors and all residents) fully cover the cost of the service.
  • No rates going to subsidise the services, which means rate income can be diverted to other core services to potentially increase levels of service.
  • No pressure on rates increases to cover funding shortfalls from fees & charges.

Cons:

  • Some fees & charges will increase significantly, reducing affordability, and not be financially sustainable to continue operating.
  • Community groups and low-income users will not be able to access services and facilities.
  • Levels of service will either be capped or decreased to keep costs down, meaning limited opening hours and access to services and facilities for public.
  • Council services and facilities will no longer be cost competitive and will likely result in decreases usage, exacerbating revenue issues for services and facilities. Decreased income would result in less investment in maintenance and upkeep, resulting in degradedconditions for community facilities.

Impact

  • Impact on rates: 15% average rate increase, but less will be spent on other core services.
  • Impact on Fees & Charges: Nil.
  • Ratepayer subsidies between 60-80% of operating costs on community facilities such as swimming pools, stadium, and airport.

  • Impact on rates: 15% average rate increase, nil increase to cover costs of subsidies.
  • Impact on Fees & Charges: 15% increase across most fees and charges.
  • Ratepayer subsidies remain at current levels of between 48-69% for community facilities such as swimming pools, stadium, and airport.

  • Impact on rates: 15% average increase, nil increase to cover subsidies.
  • Impact on Fees & Charges: Overall increase of 56% to cover rates subsidies shortfall.
  • Ratepayer subsidies nil, meaning increases of between 65-100% of fees for community facilities such as swimming pools, stadium, and airport.

Have your say button