cashflow debt democracy ecocare fairness financial accountability public excluded rates sewage transparency watewater
WorkBoot Blogs » The number 2s tax
It was a huge relief (excuse the bad pun) to me that the confusion over toilet pan charges resolved in the ratepayers favour at Wednesday’s Council meeting.
The proposed rates resolution just didn't make sense.
The first change from last year was that a “one off uniform targeted rate” in 2010/11 of $7974.39 was re-worded to a “uniform targeted rate” in 2011/12 of $8397.00. As this was no longer a “one off”, did this now mean that Council was expecting ratepayers to pay that charge every year? I was assured NO and the wording was changed back to "one off uniform targeted rate".
The second was a change from a uniform annual charge which was quoted in the annual plan as being 3 percent. However for residential properties it was to change from $750.00 “per annum” in 2010/11 to $773.00 “per pan per annum”. Any Mangawhai EcoCare ratepayer with 2 toilets was facing a 106 percent increase to $1546 per year, and with 3 toilets a 209% percent increase to $2319 and so on.
To add to my concerns, on the afternoon before the meeting, I received a document by email, sent to the Mayor and all Councillors, from retired lawyer Mr. Clive “Legal Eagle” Boonham identifying multiple serious deficiencies in the resolution that contravened the Rating Act and that would render the wastewater rates invalid.
I raised these issues and to cut a long story short these issues are apparently “typos” that could now simply be amended on the spot and the resolution then passed.
All very well but many of the issues were more than typos so I moved:
That item 4.5 Rates Resolution 2011/12 be referred to a special meeting on the last possible day to allow setting of the rates; and
That Council seeks urgent legal advice to the Council that specifically addresses each of the points raised in Mr Boonham’s memorandum of 21 June 2011; and
That if Council has misled any rate payers as to the extent of the rates increase that Council extend a formal apology.
Disappointingly the motion failed due to lack of a seconder, so discussion was called to a close.
The questionable resolution with the “typos” fixed, was then passed with me voting against it. We had time to get things right but it appears we do not yet have the culture within Council that can take that time.
Anyway, a win for proof reading on the day, and a satisfactory outcome for the Ecocare ratepayers, who are free to enjoy their second or more loos for another year, without the number 2s tax destroying their peace of mind as they answer the call of nature.
You can view the 2010/11 rates resolution on page 8 here
You can view the proposed 2011/12 rates resolution on page 8 here
.
it beggars belief that a charge for more than one loo exists. Just because you have more loos does not mean it gets flushed any more times in the day. There are only so many times that one goes!!!
Posted by margie, 02/07/2011 8:41pm (2 years ago)
Ratepayers in Mangawhai may be "relieved" that they are not paying EcoCare rates on two or more toilet pans, thanks to Councillor Larsen's intervention at the eleventh hour. However, the ratepayers in the rest of Kaipara are not so lucky. For the past three years at least they have been rated on a "per pan" basis.
Take a look at the rates resolution for last year (25 June 2010) at: http://www.kaipara.govt.nz/documents/cminutes_june_25_public_copy_unconfirmed.pdf
On page 10 under (e) Wastewater Disposal Rates you will find the general wastewater provisions that relate to the whole of Kaipara except for Mangawhai. Beneath the general provisions are are the specific charges for each separate drainage district. (Mangawhai has been included in error here as it has completely different provisions to the rest of Kaipara.)
You will see that there are two charges. The first is a "connection charge" to be levied on rating units that are actually connected to the sewer. This is described in the first paragraph of the general provisions. The second is what is called a "non-connection charge" which is to be levied where a property is not connected but a connection is available. It is half the connection charge and will normally apply to vacant sections that have a sewer within 30 metres. This is described in the second paragraph.
The problem is that in the first paragraph the rate is set for "each WC or urinal in respect of each rating unit". There is no distinction between residential or non-residential properties so the per pan charge clearly relates to residential properties.
This error goes back to at least 2008 and perhaps beyond. (Earlier rates resolutions are not on the Council website.)
There is also another major error. Note how the connection charge in the first paragraph applies to each "rating unit". That is the correct terminology under the Rating Act. A "rating unit" is all the land comprised in a certificate of title. However, in the next paragraph the rate applies to "premises". This is an unfortunate word. It means "land and buildings". So the non-connection charge only relates to properties that have land and buildings on them. It does not apply to vacant sections - which were clearly meant to be targeted.
This means that any non-connection charge levied against vacant sections for the past three years or so is invalid.
If the draftsperson had used the statutory expression "rating unit" then there would not have been a problem. That expression encompasses either properties with buildings or vacant sections.
Note also that the name given to the charge in each paragraph is completely different. One is "a targeted annual rate" and the other is "a Uniform Annual Charge". Why? They are both the same rate. This only leads to confusion and that is well illustrated by the massive blunder in the recent rates resolution for this new rating year, which I will cover in my next post.
Finally note how the second charge is called a "Uniform" charge. It is nothing of the sort. Take a look at the charges for each rating district and you will see that it is a differential rate based on the location of the property.
Posted by Legal Eagle, 02/07/2011 7:51am (2 years ago)
Does a second pan mean we go more often instead of queuing for the one and only.
Posted by John, 01/07/2011 10:54am (2 years ago)
The legal irregularities highlighted by legal eagle are very disturbing. Even more serious is the fact that councillors failed to require alleged legal opinions to be shown to them. The previous council acted either illegally or at best not in the spirit of the legislation in planning particularly in the area of consultation and resource consent conditions - when are they going to be challenged in court? A few years ago local government was given "the power of general competence" see local govt act. In return for this increased freedon to act in various areas and in view of the expensive and sometimes dodgy activities is it not time that councillors become exposed to the possibility of facing court action for blatant disregard for the law rather than be able to hide behind indemnity. The story of mismanagement and lack of transparency goes much further than eco care.
Posted by scrutator, 26/06/2011 8:46pm (2 years ago)
Well done Jonathan. hang in there!
Posted by Christine Bygrave, 26/06/2011 5:15pm (2 years ago)
your failure to get a seconder to the "motion" speaks volumes to what would seem to solve a straight forward
problem.Paphries Ventricosa
Posted by Doug, 26/06/2011 8:56am (2 years ago)
My letter to the Council setting out the defects and matters of non-compliance in the rates resolution for the 2011-12 rating year can be found here:
http://www.kaiparaconcerns.co.nz/
Posted by Legal Eagle, 25/06/2011 2:23pm (2 years ago)
I've always found it a challenge to use more than one loo at a time. In fact no matter how many pans there are in the house the amount of crap i produce is constant. Much like some councils...
Posted by seymour, 25/06/2011 8:45am (2 years ago)
RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments