Archive | Finance

Council examines development levies as it faces growing revenue shortfall

Published 14 October 2009

Auckland City Council expects revenue from development contributions will fall short of planned spending by $2.8 million in the June 2010 financial year, and by $3.7 million in 2011.

 

The answer of its city development committee last week was to “amend the development contributions policy” – raising levies, but not beyond the council’s rate of inflation.

 

Proposals on new levies will be brought back to the appropriate committees (city development and finance & strategy) for consideration in November & December.

 

In a paper presented to the city development committee on 8 October, development contributions policy manager Andrew Pickering said any changes could only be done as amendments to the 10-year plan through a special consultative procedure.

 

The problem, he said, was that development levels – approved dwellings in particular – had reached historic lows while population growth still appeared to be tracking consistent with the council’s long-term planning basis.

 

The options he suggested were to:

lengthen recovery periods (but that would increase financing costs)defer capex for growth (which might be only a partial solution)reset the policy model (which may mean higher per-unit charges), rebalancing expected revenue & planned spending.

 

The third option is the one used previously.

 

The contributions policy under the Local Government Act has brought the council $51 million in cash revenue plus $7 million of land since it was introduced in 2005. Another $20 million came in the first 2 years from the financial contributions policy under the Resource Management Act, which has been phased out.

 

The long-term population projection for the city is for an average increase of 6300 people/year & average 2700 new households/year.

 

Mr Pickering said consents for new homes had dropped sharply in the past year to about half the level of 2 years ago.

 

“It is expected that new dwelling levels will recover towards at least the average over 2006-08 of around 2000 dwellings/year, as housing demand from population increases, and recessionary conditions give way to renewed economic growth.

 

“In particular, annual net immigration is running at around 14,500 (national total), up from 5200 a year earlier. Recent surveys have indicated increasing optimism, and improvements have been noted in the housing market generally.

 

“The recovery generally is, however, still regarded as fragile and, for the construction sector, likely to be subject to capacity constraints over the next 1-2 years. On this basis, the level of development activity across Auckland City is expected to recover only slowly & partially over the next few years.

 

“In addition, we expect to see the development recovery start with an upswing of resource consents. As a large fraction of development contributions revenue is recovered on building consents – typically 6 months-1 year after the resource consent – we would not expect to see any significant increase in development contributions until mid-2010.”

 

Mr Pickering said one policy possibility was to revise the measure of standard dwelling. Another was to fund some growth costs from rates until the market picked up – but that would require a big hit for ratepayers in election year, a harder call to make than raising the costs to developers beyond the council’s internal inflation rate.

 

“A rates increase approaching 1% would be required for the 2010 financial year to address the projected shortfall, with a further similar rise in the year following.

 

“This option would be appropriate if the council considers it is inappropriate to continue to seek the full identified cost of growth from the growth community. This approach could be used as a short-term measure, and this decision revisited as development levels increase again.”

 

Labour councillor Leila Boyle tried to have the inflation cap removed from the committee recommendation, but that was voted down.

 

Committee chairman Aaron Bhatnagar said the council majority was “very mindful that the financial climate is such that significant changes to the development contributions policy could hurt development at a time that it is tough going out there.”

 

However, Cllr Richard Northey said Cllr Bhatnagar’s proposed caqp could put the council at some risk: “The laws around development contribution-setting are very carefully phrased so the charge we make on developers is no greater than the objective costs that development generates. If they see a development charge greater than that cost, even if less than inflation, it would be struck down in the courts. If they are generating a cost which is greater than the rate of inflation, we are effectively giving the ordinary ratepayer a cost which is a user charge….  We could be getting the general ratepayer to subsidise others by that particular option, and that’s very unwise.”

 

Cllr Glenda Fryer added what is probably political reality for an election year: “I think we have to be very cautious about being seen as the friend of the developer, which would make us the foe of the general ratepayer. Funds are used for infrastructure, like water & parks. In 1990, policy was (introduced) for the cbd not to pay for parks, but that stayed in until 2000. If we put this cap in place, I can see it staying in a long time. Remember, we’re a friend of the ratepayer here and not the developer.”

 

Cllr Bhatnagar retorted: “I do find it a bit rich that Cllr Fryer & others say they’re the friend of the ratepayer, because the evidence 2004-07 (rate rises) suggests otherwise.”

 

Bringing the debate back to ground level, city development general manager John Duthie told the councillors: “You’ve got to relate your levies to the rate of growth, and that to your rate of expenditure.”

 

Want to comment? Go to the forum.

 

Attribution: Council committee meeting & agenda, story written by Bob Dey for the Bob Dey Property Report.

Continue Reading

Council could lose parking revenue to new transport agency

Published 14 October 2009

Auckland City councillors have discovered a Government proposal in the legislation for the new Auckland Council that could rip parking revenue out of the city coffers and hand it to an autonomous transport agency.

 

Despite the certainty of that according to the way the proposal is written, councillors quibbled over what to do about it. The eventual outcome was for “the suggested accountability” to be discussed with some urgency. Councillors have a closed workshop on governance next week.

 

Cllr Richard Northey brought the possibility of losing parking revenue to the attention of the regional governance committee yesterday.

 

Transport committee chairman Ken Baguley said the council made $30 million/year in parking revenue, which the Government proposal suggested would come under the control of a new transport agency, “almost paralleling the NZ Transport Agency”, because it would be looking after local roads.

 

Cllr Baguley also highlighted the difference between regional policy, which is to reduce cbd parking provision to encourage use of public transport, and city policy, which continues to provide for a reasonably high level of parking in new development consents – thereby raising the issue of patch protection versus policies for the wider common good.

 

“As a city, we’re already almost at loggerheads with the regional parking plan, which would have no parking, or virtually none. It accounts for 7.5% of our rates – we’re not going to give that away.

 

Council chief executive David Rankin said: “As far as the Government’s concerned at the moment, this is a decided thing and will be incorporated in the third Auckland governance bill.”

 

Bag: there is going to be a transport agency, that’s a done deal. We’ve also said the community boards are going to have a say about some of things that are part of the transport committee.

 

Rankin: next week we can give you everything we know.

 

Cllr Graeme Easte added that Cllr Baguley had overlooked one further aspect: The governance of this – the policies, the priorities – that’s not something we want to hand over to a bunch of bureaucrats at arm’s length.”

 

The changes come down to what’s in the service agreements of the new Auckland Council, the local boards which are to be set up, and also the new transport agency.

 

Cllr Baguley: “The funding is a byproduct of the service plan, but it says we have no say in the service plan.”

 

Mr Rankin: “One deduces they are attempting to avoid a lot of political councillor involvement in the programme.”

 

Want to comment? Go to the forum.

 

Attribution: Council committee meeting & agenda, story written by Bob Dey for the Bob Dey Property Report.

Continue Reading

Manukau council opens second bond issue

Published 30 August 2009

Manukau City Council has decided on a further retail bond issue for $100 million after the success of a $90 million issue in July.

 

Mayor Len Brown said the previous bond issue, filled within 11 working days, was for mum-&-dad investors: “To a great extent, these were the people who invested in this bond offer and it shows New Zealanders are prepared to invest their hard-earned cash in their own communities.

 

“We believe that Auckland’s growth & success is a worthwhile investment. We are confident that, in this bond offer, ordinary New Zealanders, including those who missed out last time, share our belief and will again show their confidence in the community and take advantage of this opportunity.”

 

The council approved the bond issue at its meeting on Thursday. Finance director Dave Foster said it had also been discussed with & approved by the Auckland Transition Agency, which is managing the Auckland governance restructure.

 

The bonds are for 4 & 6 years, the same as the previous issue. The offer opened on 28 August and closes on Wednesday 23 September. It has a minimum investment of around $10,000.

 

Mr Foster said: “This bond issue will support the funding needs of the Auckland region as a whole, and brings another opportunity for the wider community to invest in the region’s future growth & development.”

 

The bonds are secured over the rates of the city through a debenture trust deed. They will have first ranking, alongside other council debt secured under that trust deed.

 

A detailed description of the security – including the effect of the Auckland regional governance reorganisation – is set out in the investment statement for the bonds. The arranger is BNZ Capital.

                                                                                

Want to comment? Go to the forum.

                                                                                              

Attribution: Council release, story written by Bob Dey for the Bob Dey Property Report.

Continue Reading

Rates apportionment case goes to Privy Council

Hearing set for 3-4 July

Local Government New Zealand said today it would appeal the Court of Appeal decision in the “apportionments case” to the Privy Council.

“This case is a challenge to the way the Valuer-General & his predecessors have classified blocks of flats, shops & similar properties for rating purposes. The Valuer-General believes that a block of flats should be treated as a single ‘separate property’ for rating purposes, whereas Local Government NZ believes each flat or shop should be a ‘separate property’ in its own right.

“The issues in the case are complex, but what it really comes down to is one single question. Should valuation legislation be about rating equity or convenience for the valuer,” Local Government NZ chief executive Peter Winder said.

Local Government NZ succeeded in most of its case in the High Court in 1999, but the Court of Appeal overturned that judgment in 2000.

Mr Winder said the outcome was important for the downstream consequences on past rating methods.

58 of New Zealand’s 74 local bodies have made uniform charges on each flat or shop in a block of shops, but some ratepayers have advice that only a charge per block can be made.

Mr Winder said the case was not about the legality of the charges themselves but about the way properties have been valued.

“If we are successful this will automatically resolve the issue. If we are not successful then I predict that further litigation will follow to determine whether the charges were lawful.”

In the event that councils do have to refund rates, the 58 councils could be liable to make refunds of at least $36 million to the owners of about 12,000 properties.

The other three parties that joined with Local Government NZ to bring the case have not decided whether or not to join the appeal, but will do so in the next month. The case will be funded by the 58 affected councils.

Local Government NZ has retained Auckland QC Alan Galbraith to present the appeal, provisionally set down for 3-4 July. Local Government NZ doesn’t expect a decision until August or September.

Mr Winder said the affected councils had been advised not to make any refunds while the case is before the courts. He said $36 million amounted to about 2% of the rate take nationally, but some councils could be up for as much as 6% of their rates if the case goes against them.

Continue Reading

Privy Council rules in favour of councils on rates

$36 million of paid rates can’t be clawed back

The Privy Council has ended a 5-year rating valuation dispute by ruling that occupation, not the existence of a separate title, is the prime determinant of a separate property for rating purposes.

The ruling means councils around the country won’t have to hand back rates levied on individual shops or flats, which could have cost them $36 million.

North Shore City Council said a decision the other way would have cost it $5.9 million.

The ruling has historic effect — rewriting of the Rating Act means that from 1 July 2003 a block of flats or shops will be regarded as a single property, but that if a council wants to it can charge each shop or flat in a block separately.

Local Government NZ & 3 councils appealed against the way the Valuer-general had directed that certain properties be treated for valuation purposes.

Most of the country’s 74 city and district councils had been levying uniform annual charges on each flat or shop, but protesting ratepayers claimed only a single charge could be levied over the entire block. By ruling that occupation is the prime determinant, the Privy Council has deemed that each shop or flat in a block is a separate property and can be charged.

Local Government NZ chief executive Peter Winder said the Privy Council deciison was significant for 2 reasons. “It means that local authorities need not refund any of the rates that were under challenge. And just as importantly it gives a clear directive that the primary consideration in rating & valuation law is the promotion of a fair & equitable rating system rather than what is convenient.”

Continue Reading
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux