Some issues about the Tasman District Council

February 19th 2012
Posted by William Cleaver

Here are some recent Grumpy Old Men discussions. Our council seem to be hell bent on charging for anything they think they can and frankly I think the rate payers have had enough.

$160k for development contribution for en suites. The issue is what are they charging for. Development contribution on our understanding is for extra wear and tear on the utilities. Well there is no extra in this case. Either the resident goes to a community bathroom or has one in their room. The end product and amount of it remains the same.

Rain Water collection. God gives us water to use on the land, if that water is taken without due concern for others well the council should have some sort of monitoring or charges relating to it. But the collection of rain water for personal use is exactly that. Just out of interest, if this so called charged-for rainwater ruins my property can I charge the council for damage? (They claim to own the water).

Employing a CEO on the eve of a possible amalgamation seems a tad foolhardy. What if it goes through, how much of rate payers money will go to a redundancy?

The Council are making businesses seal meters of their driveways to comply with NZTA ruling, yet areas that the council appear to own have not been touched. I refer to the wayside car-parks on council land.

Tapu Bay residents want to pay for and build a retaining wall to keep the sea at bay. Council won't issue a resource consent and preferred to spend $12,000 on land fill only to have it washed away over a period of one year. Now because of that they are not interested in doing anything. Sounds a little big headed to me.

A good dog ownership scheme was presented to the council, their response was too hard to administer and not enough information available. Well 13 other councils have a scheme and the all the info required took me 20 minutes to find on the net. Councillor Trevor Norriss, you only have to read the letters to the editor and Motueka Online to see that there is trouble brewing.

Peter Talley just contributed to the letters to the editor and we wouldn't want the town's largest industry going west. Like I have said before, these issues are brought to and spoken about over coffee in the cafe. They come from residents that know of or are directly effected by TDC. I am 100% sure that if you got a gathering in the town and yelled out WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE COUNCIL you would get a riot.

Comment by Anton Petre, Tasman:
[Posted 25 February 2012]

A charge for rainwater collection for personal use is outrageous and completely intolerable. Next the TDC will want a window tax back. Any en suite tax is also not to be tolerated. This is all a great argument for amalgamation and getting rid of the TDC.

Comment by Trevor Norriss:
[Posted 29 February 2012]

The $160,00 for development contributions you are talking about I presume came from the Letter to editor from Mr Talley. Council under the rating powers act has the ability to fund the cost of development by three options only - Development contributions, Rates, or a mixture of both. TDC uses the later - Development contributions and general rates. These development contributions are district-wide and help pay for infrastructure upgrades and renewals.

The reason that these are used is a result of submissions to council from ratepayers who are not against development but want developers to pay their fair share, otherwise the whole cost of development would fall on ratepayers. For instance in Motueka Council is spending millions of dollars replacing stormwater, sewerage systems that are past their use by date or do not have the capacity to accommodate growth. The Motueka sewerage ponds are another area that are overdue for a major upgrade and yes unfortunately it costs.

Rain Water charges for domestic/personal use? I do not know where you got this info from, it's absolute rubbish [please let me know where you got this from].

Employment of new CEO. Council is required to have a CEO, he employs the staff not councillors. The new CEO's contract takes into consideration the possible amalgamation issue, and the earliest time that he may become redundant is October 2012.

Sealing of driveways onto the State highway. Once again a requirement of the NZTA when a business is upgrading or expanding. This is usually to improve safety, sightlines or to prevent stones from unsealed yards etc getting onto the sealed highway creating a problem with passing traffic (broken windscreens etc).

Tapu Bay [once again not sure where you got this info from]. Yes some Tapu Bay residents wanted a timber wall, and the chances of getting consent (notified) is a very costly process and no guarantee of a positive outcome. Council is committed to working with the residents for an outcome [as usual it may not please all].

Mr Talleys Letter - I suggest that you read the reply from Stuart Bryant [Guardian 22 Feb].

It is no surprise that business people from Nelson support amalgamation. They will be the biggest beneficiaries when a new council has to bring the Nelson Land Value rating system (with a differential on business) to a Capital Value system. That differential will have to be spread somewhere? Ask Paul Matheson ex Mayor of Nelson, they looked at it but backed away because it caused residential rates to rise [political suicide I think its called]. Hamilton City have also recently looked at it and abandoned it for the same reason.

Dog Registration. TDC has one of the cheapest dog fees in the country. The reason for this is it is simple to administer. Compare TDC and Nelson City fees, about half, the biggest cost of dog control is in the urban areas with complaints of dogs barking fouling etc. Look out if amalgamation takes place, some one will have to land the plane in the middle, with TDC dog owners fees increasing and Nelson's coming down. Who knows? We did look at a good dog owner policy but the administration costs would have caused fees to rise for other owners.

I would be more than happy to meet with the Grumpy old men's club. They may not be so grumpy if they had all the info?

Comment by William Cleaver:
[Posted 3 March 2012]

Grumpy old Men say: We thank Mr Norriss for clarifying some issues brought up Feb 25.

The issues that arise with the GOM come from numerous sources. The Rain water issue was from a letter to the editor in the Motueka Golden Bay news. Tapu Bay issue from a resident. Probably the issues that are brought up have no merit to them or are factual. We don't really know but it's what GOM and locals alike chat about.

$160k Development contribution for existing services at the Mot Hospital/retirement seems a little harsh. This project may never get off the ground, then where would we be then when want to retire. By the year 2025 most of NZ's population will be over 60.

Requirement By NZTA to have sealed driveways etc. Why then does the unsightly carpark at the reserve and cemetery in Riwaka not sealed? There is always gravel on the road by trucks and hoons doing donuts.

If there was some research done on the good doggie scheme the council may find that yes TDC fees are cheap whereas others are dearer. But where there is a scheme in place for a cheaper registration just for looking after your Dog most already unregistered dog owners would pay. As already stated 13 other councils think this way.

Another issue strangely not directed at the council. If a family doesn't earn enough to live by they are entitled to get assistance by NZ Government (WINZ). But If a family that is self employed trying to build up their business so they can employ staff, yet they don't earn enough to even feed themselves are entitled to NO ASSISTANCE at all.

Last Year and for the past four we have friends, myself included who have earned less than we would get on the dole. Yet we are entitled to nothing. As a business owner we have fees that hinder our growth and we are the ones taking the risk to make growth in the community.

>> , to be added to the page. [If this link doesn't work, use this form instead]

[ Return ]