Tough choices for lower rates

Banner - second.png

 

The feedback period has now closed.


Your choices for 2026/27

To limit the rates increase, we need to make some trade-offs, including:

Moneybag.png

Tightening budgets

Some services may look or feel different.

Moneybag2.png

Increasing user-pays charges

People who use a service pay a greater share. 

Moneybag3.png

Reducing some rates subsidies (remissions)

Removes certain financial relief. 

These choices help focus resources where they matter most while keeping rates more affordable.

What are we proposing?

We want to keep rates increases as low as we can, but that means making some choices about services, fees, and discounts. Click on each section below to see what could change, what options you have, and how it could affect your rates.

Proposal one: Reducing mowing and garden maintenance

To help limit next year’s rates increase, we’re proposing to reduce mowing and garden maintenance. These changes could save up to $450,000 per year.

What this means:

  • Less frequent mowing in parks, cemeteries, road berms and medians
  • Seasonal flower beds replaced with simpler planting
  • Some shrub gardens replaced with grass or hard surfaces
  • Annual Onehunga weed spraying cancelled

Areas may look less manicured, with longer grass and fewer flowers, but these changes help keep rates increases more affordable.

The options

You can choose between two options:

  • Option one: Keeping the current mowing and garden maintenance schedule (status quo)
  • Option two: Reduce service levels (this is our preferred option)

Reducing service levels will result in a reduction of $17.94 on average (-0.38%) compared to this year. 

Want to know more about you give us your feedback? You can find more information in our consultation document and reducing mowing and garden services supporting document

Proposal two: Reduce opening hours at Coromandel, Matarangi, and Pāuanui Refuse and Recycling Transfer Stations

To help limit next year’s rates increase, we’re proposing to reduce opening hours at the Refuse and Recycling Transfer Stations (RTS) in Coromandel, Matarangi, and Pāuanui. After-hours drop-off facilities at Matarangi and Pāuanui will continue to operate as usual.

What this means:

  • Reduced access to Refuse and Recycling Transfer Stations services in Coromandel, Matarangi, and Pāuanui.  

The options

  • Option 1: Keep current RTS hours (status quo)
    • Costs more in the short term
    • Most convenient for residents and visitors
  • Option 2: Reduce days to Friday to Monday (this is our preferred option)

    • Costs less (-$4.19 on average, -0.09% on rates)
    • Focuses service on the busiest days
    • Less convenient for some users, may increase risk of illegal dumping
  • Option 3: Reduce hours to 10am–3pm  
    • Costs less (-$3.27 on average, -0.07% on rates)
    • 7 days a week still open, but shorter hours
    • May be less convenient for some users 

Want to know more about you give us your feedback? You can find more information in our consultation document and reduced opening hours supporting document.

Proposal three: Increase fees and introduce new charges

To help limit next year’s rates increase, we’re proposing to increase the fees we charge for services and introduce some new fees. This means users will pay a greater share of the costs, reducing the amount funded through rates.

Overall, we’re proposing an average increase of 13%, with variations depending on the service. New fees are also proposed for boat ramps, wharves, and cemeteries.

The options

  • Option 1: Increase fees by inflation (2.5%) and introduce new fees 

    • Keeps fee increases modest
    • Introduces new fees where it makes sense for users to cover the cost
    • Ratepayers continue to cover a larger share than some may consider fair
    • Fees may not keep up with rising costs

    Impact on rates: Reduction of $12.00 on average (0.25%)
    Impact on user fees: +2.5% on average

  • Option 2: Increase fees by an average of 13% and introduce new fees (this is our preferred option)

    • Creates a fairer split between users and non-users of services
    • Reduces pressure on rates by recovering more costs through fees
    • Helps services remain financially sustainable long-term
    • Higher fees may be difficult for some users
    • Some people may choose not to use certain services if fees increase

    Impact on rates: Reduction of $62.59 on average (1.33%)
    Impact on user fees: +13% on average

Want to know more about you give us your feedback? You can find more information in our consultation documentStatement of Proposal Draft 2026/27 Fees and Charges, and all our proposed Fees and Charges changes.

Proposal four: Reduce some rates remissions

To help limit next year’s rates increase, we’re proposing to reduce selected rates remissions. Remissions are like discounts that reduce rates for eligible individuals, but the cost is shared by all other ratepayers.

What this means:

  • Excess water use: Remission reduced from 100%/50% to 50% in any two consecutive affected billing periods
  • Late-payment penalties: Remission no longer automatically applied if payment is received within 14 days
  • These changes are expected to save around $150,000 per year

The options

  • Option 1: Keep current remissions (status quo)

    • Continues financial support for eligible ratepayers
    • Remissions remain predictable and familiar
    • Costs are carried by all other ratepayers

    Impact on rates: No change to the average rates bill

  • Option 2: Reduce remissions (this is our preferred option)

    • Reduces overall costs for ratepayers
    • Still provides some relief for eligible ratepayers
    • May increase out-of-pocket costs for households affected by leaks or late payments
    • Simplifies the system and encourages timely payment

    Impact on rates: Reduction of $5.98 on average (-0.13%)

    • Excess water use remission: saves $70,000, reduction of $2.79 (0.06%) per ratepayer
    • Late-payment penalties remission: saves $80,000, reduction of $3.19 (0.07%) per ratepayer

Want to know more about you give us your feedback? You can find more information in our consultation document and proposed rates remissions changes supporting document

     

Online Town Hall meeting: Video and Q&A's

We know our community loves a town hall, so we took it online to make sure everyone had a chance to attend. View the recording from our meeting and additional questions and answers below:

 

Additional Questions & Answers:

Thank you to those who made it to our online hui and for the great questions. We couldn’t ask all the questions that were put to us in the time we had available. Here’s some more information in response to those we couldn’t get to.

Besides what you are consulting on can you advise where other cuts or adjustments are being made?

Our Mayor and councillors have made a number of other reductions across our budgets. Some of these are internal cost-savings including reducing budgets for staff and consultants, infrastructure investigations, efficiency projects with our regional ‘Co-Lab’ partners and more enforcement of fines. We’ve also made changes to our financial settings that reduce the rates increase as a result. This includes pausing disaster reserve top-ups and looking to use different tools instead, spreading borrowing over longer periods, and changing depreciation/accounting treatment for some assets.

You can read more on page 6 of our Tough Choices for Lower Rates consultation document.

Are any changes proposed to the kerbside collection process?

No, we’re not proposing changes to the kerbside rubbish and recycling collection services in this budget.

Will Onehunga weed spraying stop everywhere in the district?

Yes, we’re proposing to stop spraying for Onehunga weed across the whole district. We’ve found that the long-term effectiveness of the programme is limited so think this is an area we could save on costs. We're not proposing any targeted weed control programme as a replacement.

You talk about users pays aren’t you just shifting the cost off one on to another?

Increasing fees does shift costs from one place onto another, yes. It means that a greater share of costs for particular services or activities is paid directly by the people who use that service or activity, rather than being subsidised by ratepayers. This is a ‘user pays’ model.

In many cases, our fees have not kept pace with the rising costs of providing those services, which has led to more being subsidised by rates. We believe that people who use a service most contribute a greater share of its cost and receive more benefit. These proposals are, in part, about bringing the balance between rates and user fees back into line so costs are shared more fairly. 

Regarding the proposal to replace flower beds, lawns with hard surfaces – does this increase flood risk?

We are still working through the most appropriate solution for each of the gardens and lawns we’re proposing to change. Each location would be assessed for suitability, and we wouldn’t implement a change to hard surfaces where it’s clear there would be an increased flooding risk

Would the council consider supporting local community groups to look after some mowing and gardening areas?

Local community groups and volunteers play a huge role in helping to keep our towns and villages the special places they are.. Mayor Revell used the installation of public art works as an example of this during the town hall meeting and he is certainly open to exploring how we can support our communities to deliver other activities, which could include maintaining certain public garden areas.

Other than Onehunga weed is there any plans to reduce the spraying of pest plants

No, there are no plans to reduce other pest plant spraying at this stage.

How closely do you and senior staff look into how operating expenditure is spent? A lot of ratepayers see high levels of mismanagement in some services with no accountability. Are these all being looked into and analysed as a cost saving measure?

Senior staff and elected members regularly review what we spend and how it’s spent — from setting budgets through to tracking actual costs throughout the year. This includes reviewing work programmes, project timing, and making sure we have the right level of resourcing in place. We also monitor expenditure monthly to keep budgets on track and follow strict procurement processes for both operating and capital spend.

We also have a range of accountability measures in place behind the scenes. We report publicly on some of these through our annual report, which is independently audited and explains any significant differences between what we planned to do and what was delivered.

In addition, the Mayor established an Efficiency Taskforce last year to take a fresh look at operating costs for 2026/27. This work has already led to a number of savings that are reflected in the proposals we’re consulting on.

You can read more about these changes on page 6 of our Tough Choices for Lower Rates consultation document and view our audited annual reports here: Annual Reports | TCDC.

What is the annual cost of mowing the 'architectural' mounds at the entrance to Thames over & above normal mowing.

This particular section of the Ngati Maru highway (State Highway 25) costs approximately $9,000 per year to mow.

Who monitors the Green by Nature Outfit?

Our Parks and Reserves team are the main supervisors for the contractors delivering mowing and gardening services across our district. Our contractual agreement with Green by Nature includes clear performance targets we expect to be met. We also regularly report to our Mayor and Councillors on deliverables and spend and discuss issues raised.

Excess water remissions - how many and what total dollar value has this been?

The number of remissions processed each year can vary considerably. Remissions given in the 2024/25 financial year for excess water total around $150,000.

Why isn't the Thames Pool being consulted on?

Our Long Term Plan included budget for physical works on the pool to start in 2026/27 and be mostly completed in the following year. Because the pool replacement is still in the planning stage, we are not ready to spend this budget in 2026/27. As a result, our only option is to defer the spend for a year. This does not mean that the budget has been removed entirely, rather it has been delayed by one year. This Tough Choices for Lower Rates consultation is focussed on how we might make savings.

In terms of making a decision on the future location, size and funding of the Thames Pool, our Council is still working through its options. We’ve already consulted with our communities on their preferences for a future pool and will keep talking with you about this key decision.

How can less than $100 of savings per ratepayer become a 3.77% increase but if we stay with the status quo, we get a 13.4% increase.

We forecast an average rates increase of 13.4% if we made absolutely no changes to our plans for the 2026/27 year. We’ve already committed to a package of actions that brings that figure down by 7.7% (you can read about those decisions on page 6 of our Tough Choices for Lower Rates consultation document). The four proposals we’re asking for feedback on would bring it down by a further 1.93%. This means that if all of our proposals go ahead, the average rates increase will be 3.77% instead of the forecast 13.4%. It's important to note that these figures are an average and impacts for specific households may be slightly higher or lower than this.

What is the difference between “community spaces” costs and “protecting the public” costs?

“Community Spaces” costs include looking after our public facilities - community halls, public toilets, airfields, harbours, cemeteries, libraries, and our parks and open spaces. “Protecting the Public” costs include our emergency management activities, coastal and hazard management, and community health and safety including enforcing our bylaws, providing our dog control services, and  licensing businesses selling food or alcohol. You can find out more about our plans for these in our Long Term Plan – pages 31 and 43.

What assumptions is the Council making for increased rate income from new developments, and where are these areas?

In 2024 we made an assumption that the number of rating units paying rates will increase by an 1% per year until 2034 and slow down after that. That’s 1,622 new rating units in the 10 years from 2022 (when we set this assumption). We’ve also made assumptions that:

  • residential increases will be strongest in Matarangi (1% per annum), Whitianga (0.8%), Coromandel (1%), Cooks Beach (0.7% and Hāhei (0.7%). These increases include both ‘infill’ subdivision and larger new developments.
  • industrial and commercial rating units will increase at the same rate as forecast employment growth
  • all other rating units will remain constant.

(More information on our assumptions are set out in our Long Term Plan).

When it comes to forecasting increases in rates income we update these assumptions based on year-to-date actual growth. We’ll get back to you shortly on the dollar amount that we’re forecasting for rates income from new developments.

In addition to the ongoing rates income, we have forecast $2.3 million of increased capital funding from developments in 2026/27.

How does this affect the Green by Nature contract? how much is the penalty for this should there be a contract?

All of the contracts that our Council holds with its service providers allow for variations to increase or decrease the amount of work undertaken in that contract. In this instance, once the results of the consultation are known, we will discuss with the contractor any impacts on it service delivery model.

I like the user pays system, but would this mean that late fees were reintroduced at libraries?

No, the changes we’re proposing to our fees do not include reintroducing late fees at any of our libraries. We are proposing other changes to our library fees which you can read about on page 47 of our draft Schedule of Fees and Charges.

Proposal 2: the three areas mentioned are “summer holidays” locations. Will the proposal be all year, or is there seasonal flexibility?

Yes, it will be all year. We’ll continue to monitor when our RTS sites have the highest demand and will consider whether we should introduce seasonal flexibility if needed.

If the suggested changes/reductions are implemented, how many jobs are lost?

Some of the changes being considered may have staffing impacts, including the $1 million reduction in personnel costs, but because these are employment matters with decisions yet to be made, it wouldn’t be appropriate to discuss in public forums.

Why are you removing garden beds?

We currently maintain over 200m2 of annual (flower) garden beds in what we consider to be high profile locations across the district. These require regular maintenance to remain healthy and weed-free, as well as replacement of plants twice per year (or every season for some flowers beds). This is expensive to maintain, and we propose to replace them which lower maintenance options such as shrubs, grass, or in some cases hard surfaces, in order to reduce costs.

Can’t find the question you asked here or in the recording?

Please contact us at consultation@tcdc.govt.nz and we’ll look into it.

         

Privacy disclaimer 

The information you provide is used for the purpose of obtaining feedback on Tough Choices for Lower Rates: consultation on our 2026/27 Annual Plan, including fees and rates remissions. 

We must act in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act 2020 and Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.  

When you provide feedback to us, your name, general township location, and feedback will be publicly available. Personal details such as your address, phone number and email will be kept private and used only for internal purposes such as keeping you informed unless we are required to disclose it elsewhere. 

For more information on how we handle personal information, see our Council’s Privacy Statement 2020 online. 

Please let us know if the information contains any sensitive information which you consider should not be publicly disclosed.