Our website is currently under construction — thank you for your patience.
This Week’s Issue

Council confirms switch to a Capital Value Rating

Want to promote your business or idea?

We Support Local

Written by

The Informer
The Informer

Published on

TCDC announce their decision on rates.

The Council’s Release

From 1 July 2026, Thames-Coromandel District Council will transition to a capital value-based rating system. This means rates will be calculated on the total value of a property — including both land and improvements — rather than land value alone.

The decision was made at the Council’s recent meeting following a formal consultation process. Councillors considered three options:

Option 1: Retain the existing land value system;

Option 2: Shift to capital value, with the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) becoming a fixed percentage of the general rate. 

Option 3: As above, with changes to targeted rates for rubbish/recycling and roading/building control to better align charges with the services they fund.

A total of 650 submissions were received during the March–April consultation period, representing around 2% of all ratepayers. Over half (56%) supported retaining the current system, while 40% preferred either of the capital value-based options. Submissions often focused on personal financial impacts, with many citing fairness, equity, and affordability. 

Some respondents expressed concerns that one part of the district would end up subsidising another part in a shift to capital value. Respondents from both the east and west sides of the district expressed this contention. Some comments also reflected the misconception that a shift to capital value was primarily intended to increase Council’s rates revenue – which it will not.

There was robust debate amongst councillors about the principles of fairness, affordability and equity, and to what extent Councillors should rigorously be guided by the feedback numbers as opposed to considering that feedback alongside those principles. 

The Vote:

Council voted 6-4 in favour of Option 3 – switching to capital value plus changes to targeted rates, to 4 against.

Those who voted in favour: Mayor Len Salt, Cr. John Grant, Cr Gary Gotlieb, Cr John Morrissey, Cr Martin Rodley, Cr Robyn Sinclair. 

Those against the proposed change: Cr Deli Connell, Cr Rekha Giri-Percival, Cr Peter Revell, and Deputy Mayor Cr Terry Walker.

Result:

The change will not increase Council’s total rates revenue, but individual ratepayers will see differing impacts. Approximately one-third of ratepayers will experience increases of more than 2%, one-third will see minor changes under 2%, and one-third will see a decrease of more than 2%.

Public Comments on Process and Decision

Some respondents raised concerns that one part of the district could end up subsidising another. Although Council disingenuously reiterated that the move is not intended to raise more revenue, it’s clearly a move to extract more income from East Coast communities.

In making their decision, the Council’s propaganda stated that Councillors weighed the feedback alongside broader principles of fairness and systemic equity. The question is “what are these principles of fairness?”

Is it fair to raise the rates of a superannuant on a fixed income by $400 per annum, as the Council’s calculator showed? That is a week’s income for that superannuant. During the consultation process when asked to define what they meant by “fair” council staff stared at the wall and could not answer.

Another important point which should not be ignored in this matter is the question of conflict of interest. A matter which comes down to the wire, in terms of voting, and affects us all, should involve disclosure of how the councillors are personally affected so we can be sure this had no impact on the decision making process. Alternatively why hurry, have a referendum at the upcoming election.

Statement from one Residents and Ratepayers Association:

“It’s been a great box-ticking exercise for Council. We spoke. They listened. Then they did what they were going to do anyway!”

Statement from a visitor to The Informer office

“The proposed move aims to make rates fairer by better reflecting ratepayers’ ability to pay. How would Council know anybody’s “ability to pay”?

“My rates will increase by $250 because apparently I can afford to pay the extra.”

A Councillor’s statement to The Informer

“Councillors spend a great deal of time being briefed, reading the many papers from residents and analysing the different backgrounds and views. We have had long discussions as a Councilors. We are elected have to make hard and informed decisions that will bring the widest benefit long-term.” 

Second dwelling on properties review:

Council also resolved to update its Rates Remission Policy, rethinking their approach to second dwellings on properties. The Council opted to change the Rates Remission Policy to increase the automatic remission for the second Separately Used or Inhabited Part (SUIP) from 50% to 100% for properties with two habitable units where the second one meets the criteria of a minor dwelling (like a granny flat). This amounts to a small increase in rates for most ratepayers to offset the increased remission.

More Rubbish News

From 1 July, Thames-Coromandel District Council will increase some fees and charges to reflect rising service costs and align with neighbouring districts. The Pay As You Throw (PAYT) rubbish tag will rise by 25 cents to $8.25, though existing tags remain valid.

A new $5 minimum fee will apply at weighbridges at Refuse and Recycling Transfer Stations. Charges for disposing of general and green waste will also increase. Fees for 60L and 20L rubbish bags remain unchanged at $5 and $2 respectively. More details on these and other updates are available at www.tcdc.govt.nz/fees.

More Stories

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Gift this article