2006/2007 financial year
(1) At a meeting held on 7 June 2006, the Kaipara District Council (the Council) resolved to adopt its funding impact statement as part of its long-term council community plan for 2006–16 (the LTCCP). The funding impact statement set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Kaipara District for the 2006/2007 financial year:
(2) The LTCCP contained a policy on development contributions or financial contributions that provided for development contributions for the Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme and Mangawhai roading:
(3) At a meeting held on 28 June 2006, the Council resolved to set, among other things, the following rates:
(b) a wastewater disposal rate (being a targeted rate set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002) for the wastewater disposal areas of Dargaville Wastewater District, Te Kopuru Urban Drainage District, Maungaturoto Urban Drainage District, Kaiwaka Urban Drainage District, and Glinks Gully Effluent Disposal Area:
(4) In relation to the water supply rate for Maungaturoto, Station Village, the Council did not comply with section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because section 19 does not authorise a rate to be set on the basis of a minimum charge per meter reading:
(5) In relation to the wastewater disposal rate, the Council did not comply with section 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(a) section 18 states that the calculation of liability for a targeted rate must utilise only a factor (or factors) that are identified in the funding impact statement as factors that must be used to calculate the liability for the targeted rate, as well as being factors that are listed in Schedule 3 of the Act; and
(c) the reference in the funding impact statement to a factor being “a uniform annual connection fee per separately occupied or inhabited residential property …”
and “a uniform non-connection fee, being 50% of the full connection fee per separately unoccupied or uninhabited residential property capable of being effectively connected …”
was not in accordance with the factor in Schedule 3 of the Act:
(6) Also, the Council failed to comply with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in relation to the wastewater disposal rate. This is because—
(c) the Council resolution setting the targeted rate did not refer to “a uniform annual connection fee per separately occupied or inhabited residential property …”
or “a uniform non-connection fee, being 50% of the full connection fee per separately unoccupied or uninhabited residential property capable of being effectively connected …”
or “a uniform annual pan charge per commercial wc or urinal”
, as was specified in the funding impact statement, but instead referred to “targeted annual rate … for each wc or urinal in respect of each rating unit … served either directly or through a private drain by a public sewerage drain”
and to a “uniform annual charge … in respect of each premises … within 30 metres of a public sewerage drain to which is capable of being effectively connected”
; and
(d) the Council resolution setting the targeted rate did not refer to “a graduated scale of pan charges, based on a notional one pan per 20 pupils/staff members, for certain schools and educational establishments (paying sewerage charges) as defined in the Rating Powers (Special Provision for Certain Rates for Educational Establishments) Amendment Act 2001, and any amending or repealing legislation in respect of that Act”
as was specified in the funding impact statement, but instead referred to a “Special 75% School Charge”
and a “Special 50% School Charge”
:
(7) Under section 45(1) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, a rates assessment must clearly identify certain matters, including—
(8) The Council failed to comply with section 45(1) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 with respect to rates assessments for the 2006/2007 financial year because it did not—
(9) In relation to the Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme,—
(c) at a meeting on 25 October 2006, the Council considered a report that provided full details of the proposed Mangawhai EcoCare Sewerage Scheme, its capital costs and its funding regime, and set out a scope change that would double the scope of the scheme; and
(10) Also, in relation to the Mangawhai EcoCare Sewerage Scheme,—
2007/2008 financial year
(11) At a meeting held on 6 June 2007, the Council resolved to adopt its funding impact statement as part of its annual plan for 2007–2008. The funding impact statement set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Kaipara District for the 2007/2008 financial year:
(12) At a meeting held on 27 June 2007, the Council resolved to set, among other things, the following rates:
(b) a wastewater disposal rate for the wastewater disposal areas of the Dargaville Wastewater District, Te Kopuru Urban Drainage District, Maungaturoto Urban Drainage District, Kaiwaka Urban Drainage District, and Glinks Gully Effluent Disposal Area:
(13) In relation to the water supply rate Maungaturoto, Station Village, the Council did not comply with section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same type of error as described in recital (4):
(14) In relation to the wastewater disposal rate, the Council did not comply with sections 18 and 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same type of errors as described in recitals (5) and (6):
(15) Further, the Council failed to comply with section 45(1) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 with respect to rates assessments for the 2007/2008 financial year because it made the same type of errors as described in recital (8):
2008/2009 financial year
(16) At a meeting held on 4 June 2008, the Council resolved to adopt its funding impact statement as part of its annual plan for 2008/2009. The funding impact statement set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Kaipara District for the 2008/2009 financial year:
(17) At a meeting held on 25 June 2008, the Council resolved to set, among other things, the following rates:
(b) a wastewater disposal rate for the wastewater disposal areas of the Dargaville Wastewater District, Te Kopuru Urban Drainage District, Maungaturoto Urban Drainage District, Kaiwaka Urban Drainage District, and Glinks Gully Effluent Disposal Area (excluding the Mangawhai Urban Drainage Area); and
(18) In relation to the water supply rate for Maungaturoto, Station Village, the Council failed to comply with section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(19) In relation to the wastewater disposal rate, the Council failed to comply with sections 18 and 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same errors as described in recitals (5) and (6):
(20) In relation to the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate, the Council failed to comply with section 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(21) Also, in relation to the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate, the Council failed to comply with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(22) Further, in relation to the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate,—
(b) the Council wrote to each ratepayer who would be eligible in that year (where the ratepayer's allotment was created after 23 March 2002) and asked the ratepayer to elect whether a one-off targeted rate or the targeted rate (payable over 25 years) would apply. Ratepayers subsequently made an election, and if no election was made, the one-off targeted rate applied and the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate was assessed accordingly:
(23) To the extent that the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate had characteristics of being a lump sum contribution for a capital project, the Council did not comply with Part 4A of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(a) Part 4A of the Act sets out a procedure (which includes a capital project funding plan) where a Council wishes to fund, or partially fund, a capital project by lump sum contributions from its ratepayers; and
(b) while the chapter called the Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme as contained in the Schedules of the LTCCP for 2006–2016 had characteristics of a capital project funding plan, this chapter did not make it clear that it was a capital project funding plan or meet some of the requirements of section 117E of the Act; and
(24) In relation to the Mangawhai uniform annual charge, the Council did not comply with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(b) the funding impact statement referred to a factor being “a uniform annual connection charge per separately occupied or inhabited residential property …”
and “a uniform non-connection charge, being 50% of the full connection charge per separately unoccupied or uninhabited residential property capable of being effectively connected …”
and also made a reference to the “Mangawhai (pan charge)”
of $693; but
(25) Further, in relation to the Mangawhai uniform annual charge, the Council did not comply with section 43(2) and (4) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(26) However, the Council has subsequently refunded to the applicable ratepayers the Mangawhai uniform annual charge that was assessed on any rating unit where there had been a change in the factor where connection occurred during the 2008/2009 financial year:
(27) In addition, the Council did not comply with section 45(1) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 with respect to rates assessments for the 2008/2009 financial year because it made the same type of errors as described in recital (8):
2009/2010 financial year
(28) At a meeting held on 23 June 2009, the Council resolved to adopt its funding impact statement as part of its LTCCP for 2009–2019. The funding impact statement set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Kaipara District for the 2009/2010 financial year:
(29) The LTCCP for 2009–2019 contained a policy on development contributions or financial contributions that purported to continue the development contributions policy for the Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme and Mangawhai roading previously adopted by the Council in its LTCCP for 2006–2016. However, the policy in the LTCCP for 2009–2019 failed to do so in a way that complied with section 106 of the Local Government Act 2002:
(30) At a meeting held on 24 June 2009, the Council resolved to set, among other things, the following rates:
(b) a wastewater disposal rate for the wastewater disposal areas of the Dargaville Wastewater District, Te Kopuru Urban Drainage District, Maungaturoto Urban Drainage District, Kaiwaka Urban Drainage District, and Glinks Gully Effluent Disposal Area (excluding Mangawhai Urban Drainage Area):
(31) In relation to the water supply rate for Maungaturoto, Station Village, the Council did not comply with section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same type of errors as described in recital (18):
(32) In relation to the wastewater disposal rate, the Council did not comply with section 18 or 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same errors as described in recitals (5) and (6):
(33) In relation to the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate, the Council did not comply with section 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same errors as described in recital (20):
(34) Also, in relation to the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate, the Council did not comply with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(35) Further, in relation to the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate,—
(b) the Council wrote to each ratepayer who would be eligible in that year (where the ratepayer's allotment was created after 23 March 2002) and asked the ratepayer to elect whether a one-off targeted rate or the targeted rate (payable over 25 years) would apply. Ratepayers subsequently made an election, and if no election was made, the 25-year targeted rate applied and the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate was assessed accordingly:
(36) To the extent that the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate had characteristics of being a lump sum contribution for a capital project, the Council acknowledges that the same irregularities occurred as described in recital (23) (except recital 23(d)):
(37) With respect to the Mangawhai uniform annual charge, the Council failed to comply with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(38) The Council failed to comply with section 43(2) and (4) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in relation to the Mangawhai uniform annual charge to the extent that it made the same type of errors as described in recital (25):
(39) In relation to the forest owners' roading impact rate, the Council did not comply with section 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(40) Also, in relation to the forest owners' roading impact rate for that financial year, the Council failed to comply with section 18 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(a) section 18 states that the calculation of liability for a targeted rate must utilise only a factor (or factors) that are identified in the funding impact statement as factors that must be used to calculate the liability for the targeted rate, as well as being factors that are listed in Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002; and
(41) Further, in relation to the forest owners' roading impact rate, the Council failed to comply with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same type of errors as described in recital (21):
(42) In addition, the Council failed to comply with section 45(1) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 with respect to rates assessments for the 2009/2010 financial year because it made the same type of errors as described in recital (8):
2010/2011 financial year
(43) At a meeting held on 9 June 2010, the Council resolved to adopt its funding impact statement as part of its annual plan for 2010–2011. The funding impact statement set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Kaipara District for the 2010/2011 financial year:
(44) At a meeting held on 25 June 2010, the Council resolved to set, among other things, the following rates:
(b) a wastewater disposal rate for the wastewater disposal areas of Dargaville Wastewater District, Te Kopuru Urban Drainage District, Maungaturoto Urban Drainage District, Kaiwaka Urban Drainage District, and Glinks Gully Effluent Disposal Area (excluding Mangawhai Urban Drainage Area):
(45) In relation to the water supply rate for Maungaturoto, Station Village, the Council failed to comply section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same type of errors as described in recital (18):
(46) In relation to the wastewater disposal rate, the Council failed to comply with sections 18 and 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same errors as described in recitals (5) and (6):
(47) In relation to the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate, the Council failed to comply with section 17 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same errors as described in recital (20):
(48) Further, in relation to the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate, the Council failed to comply with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same errors as described in recital (34):
(49) With respect to the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate,—
(b) the Council wrote to each ratepayer that would be eligible in that year (where the ratepayer's allotment was created after 23 March 2002) and asked the ratepayer to elect whether a one-off targeted rate or the targeted rate (payable over 25 years) would apply. Ratepayers subsequently made an election, and the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate was assessed accordingly:
(50) To the extent that the rate had characteristics of being a lump sum contribution for a capital project, the Council acknowledges that the same irregularities occurred as described in recital (23):
(51) In relation to the Mangawhai uniform annual charge, the Council did not comply with section 23 or section 43(2) and (4) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same type of errors as described in recitals (25) and (37):
(52) In relation to the forest owners' roading impact rate, the Council failed to comply with sections 17, 18, and 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same type of errors as described in recitals (39) and (40):
(53) Also, the Council failed to comply with section 45(1) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 with respect to rates assessments for the 2010/2011 financial year because it made the same type of errors as described in recital (8):
(54) Finally, under section 98(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council was required to adopt an annual report for the 2010/2011 financial year by 30 November 2011. The Council resolved to adopt the annual report for the 2010/2011 financial year on 29 August 2012:
2011/2012 financial year
(55) At a meeting held on 8 June 2011, the Council resolved to adopt its funding impact statement. The funding impact statement set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Kaipara District for the 2011/2012 financial year:
(56) At a meeting held on 22 June 2011, the Council resolved to set, among other things, the following rates:
(b) a wastewater disposal rate for the wastewater disposal areas of the Dargaville Wastewater District, Te Kopuru Urban Drainage District, Maungaturoto Urban Drainage District, Kaiwaka Urban Drainage District, and Glinks Gully Effluent Disposal Area (excluding Mangawhai Urban Drainage Area):
(57) In relation to the water supply rate for Maungaturoto, Station Village, the Council did not comply with section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same type of errors described in recital (18):
(58) In relation to the wastewater disposal rate, the Council did not comply with sections 18 and 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because it made the same errors as described in recitals (5) and (6):
(59) In relation to the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate, the Council did not comply with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(60) With respect to the Mangawhai uniform annual charge, it is unclear whether the Council complied with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This is because—
(b) the funding impact statement referred to a factor being “a uniform annual connection charge per separately occupied or inhabited residential property …”
and “a uniform non-connection charge, being 50% of the full connection charge per separately unoccupied or uninhabited residential property capable of being effectively connected …”
and also made a reference to the “Mangawhai–Annual Fee”
of $773; but
(61) In addition, the Council failed to comply with section 45(1) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 with respect to rates assessments for the 2011/2012 financial year because it made the same type of errors as described in recital (8):
2012/2013 financial year
(62) Section 93(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that the Council must, at all times, have a long-term plan (LTP). Under section 93(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council was required to adopt the LTP for the 2012–2022 period by 30 June 2012. The Council resolved to adopt its LTP for 2012–2022 on 29 August 2012:
(63) Section 93(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 also provides that the Council must use the special consultative procedure in adopting an LTP. Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the requirements of the special consultative procedure and requires the Council to ensure that any person who makes a submission on the proposal within that period—
(64) In addition, section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that the Council must ensure that the notice given to a person who has asked for an opportunity to be heard contains information—
(65) The Council did not comply with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 because although it sent written notices acknowledging receipt of submissions, in that notice it failed to—
(66) The Council failed to comply with section 45(1) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 with respect to rates assessments for the 2012/2013 financial year because it made the same type of errors as described in recital (8):
General
(67) It is desirable that the irregularities relating to the forest owners' roading impact rate, the Mangawhai uniform annual charge, the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate, the wastewater disposal rate, and the water supply rate for Maungaturoto, Station Village for financial years 2006/2007 to 2011/2012 (inclusive) be validated and the penalties added to those rates be validated:
(68) It is desirable that the irregularities relating to the continuation of the Council's development contributions policy in 2009 be validated:
(69) It is desirable that the irregularities relating to the conduct of the special consultative procedure for the Council's LTP for 2012–2022 be validated:
(70) It is desirable that the irregularities relating to the Council's late adoption of its annual report for the 2010/2011 financial year and its late adoption of its LTP for 2012–2022 be validated for the avoidance of doubt:
(71) It is desirable that the omissions relating to the Council's rates assessments for the financial years 2006/2007 to 2012/2013 (inclusive) be validated:
(72) Legislation is the only means by which the forest owners' roading impact rate, the Mangawhai uniform annual charge, the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate, the wastewater disposal rate, and the water supply rate for Maungaturoto, Station Village, and the other irregularities can be validated:
(73) The objects of this Act cannot be attained other than by legislation: