The unitary authority’s proposal released this month provides an indication of the impact on ratepayers and consent holders, with fears about the cost appearing to be founded.
Environment Canterbury (ECan) is consulting on two spending options amounting to an increase of more than $40 million than this year, of which the Government’s essential freshwater package has been identified as a key factor.
The Waikato Regional Council’s 10-year budget for its draft Long-Term Plan (LTP) would see a 7.3% rates rise in year one, of which about 2% is due to meeting the Government’s freshwater requirements.
That 2% includes costs required around extra staffing, as well as the monitoring and auditing of farm environmental plans (FEPs).
Waikato Regional Council chief financial officer Janine Becker says the bulk of funding those requirements would come out of that first year.
Year two of the plan proposes an average rates increase of 8.5% and in 2023-24, it would be 2.4%.
Costings around implementing the requirements of the new National Policy Statement on Biodiversity are estimated to be about $500,000 and will be funded from the second year increase.
It argues that for 77% of Waikato Regional Council ratepayers, the overall rates rise will be less than $1 a week, but for the remaining 13% it would vary. Ratepayers in some catchments could see higher bills due to the costs of maintaining infrastructure.
“That would indicate that it will be the rural sector that is impacted by that,” Becker said.
The LTP has been approved by the council for auditing and adoption will be voted on at the end of March before sending it out for consultation from April 1.
Marlborough Federated Farmers provincial president Phillip Neal says ratepayers already pay the council a fee for environmental monitoring, in his case $9692 a year, plus 60% of the actual cost.
At present the balance, 40%, of the council’s Environmental Protection group’s costs are funded by general rates, but under the proposal, all the costs would be recovered.
Neal says the council’s proposal proves farmer fears that the essential freshwater reforms would impose costs.
He says the council’s proposal is short on detail such as how often, where, when and how council staff will make inspections, and it appears it will affect all landowners, including lifestyle blocks.
“Landowners can accept that policy comes from the central Government, however, this proposed charge appears to be implemented directly by MDC (Marlborough District Council) staff and councillors,” Neal said.
He says farmers need to be alert to the actions of their councils.
Marlborough Mayor John Leggett says the council is fulfilling its requirements as set by the Government and expecting a push-back from farmers.
“These additional reporting and monitoring requirements are put onto us as a local authority and have to be accounted for,” Leggett said.
He promised visits by council officers will not be excessive.
The report to the Marlborough council’s February meeting states that the proposal will enable the recovery of monitoring costs for permitted activities under the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (NES-FW) introduced last year.
“Monitoring NES-FW permitted activities undertaken by the Environmental Protection group incur a cost to council. If this cost is not recovered from the property owner, it would be borne by the general ratepayer,” the staff report advised.
The costs to be recovered are for staff time, travel, reporting, reviewing, administration, sampling and testing, and any external costs such as consultants.
