• Preamble

  2003/2004 rates

  (1) At a special council meeting held on 26 June 2003, the Tasman District Council resolved, among other things, as follows:

  “That the general rate, including utilities rate, and Uniform Annual General Charge be adopted as proposed in Council's draft 2003/2004 Annual Plan:

  “That the Motueka Business Rate, as proposed in Council's draft 2003/2004 Annual Plan, be approved for the 2003/2004 financial year:

  “That the Richmond Business Rate be increased to raise $5,000 more than last year and the Corporate Services Manager write to all ratepayers in the defined area advising them of the increased amount:

  “That Council adopt a Community Facilities Rate for the 2003/2004 year:

  “That the Community Facilities Rate for the 2003/2004 year be set at $35.00 per rateable property:

  “That Council adopts its 2003/2004 Annual Plan, as amended, including rates and charges, pursuant to section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002:

  “That Council adopts its Funding Impact Statement, as amended, for the 2003/2004 financial year”:

  (2) The funding impact statement—

  • (a) set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Tasman District for the 2003/2004 financial year; and

  • (b) provided that the rates could be paid by instalments for the 2003/2004 financial year and set out the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid; and

  • (c) set out the penalties that were to be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  (3) However, the resolutions did not comply with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (the Act) because they failed—

  • (a) to state clearly that the Council was setting rates as required by that section; and

  • (b) to refer to all of the rates that were purported to be set (when the resolutions only referred to the adoption of some of the rates):

  (4) The Council did not comply with section 23 of the Act by purporting to set the rates before the Council had resolved to adopt the annual plan and the funding impact statement:

  (5) The Council did not comply with section 24 of the Act because it failed to state in a resolution,—

  • (a) for all of the rates that were purported to be set and assessed, the financial year to which the rates applied; and

  • (b) that the rates could be paid by instalments for the 2003/2004 financial year and the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid:

  (6) The Council did not comply with section 57 of the Act because it failed to resolve to authorise that penalties be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  2004/2005 rates

  (7) At a special council meeting held on 29 June 2004, the Tasman District Council resolved, among other things, as follows:

  “That the rating information and charges incorporating the Uniform Annual General Charge and targeted rates No 1 to 7 inclusive be adopted:

  “That wording in the Funding Impact Statement for the targeted rate—Mapua Stopbank, read “Council sets a targeted rate for the purpose of meeting targeted investigations costs of the Mapua stopbank”:

  “That the remaining items of the Funding Impact Statement, including targeted rates 9 to 16 inclusive, and definitions, assessment and invoicing, penalties, uneconomic balances, and early payment be adopted:

  “That—

  • “(a) the Tasman District Council sets rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on rating units in the District for the financial year commencing 1 July 2004 and ending on 30 June 2005, as detailed in the Funding Impact Statement:

  • “(b) except for metered water rates, the Council will invoice rates quarterly, with final dates for payment of each instalment being 31 August 2004, 30 November 2004, 28 February 2005, and 31 May 2005. Metered rates are invoiced separately. All invoices for metered water rates are due for payment on the 20th day of the month following the month in which the invoice is issued:

  “That Council adopt its Long Term Council Community Plan for the period commencing 1 July 2004”:

  (8) The funding impact statement—

  • (a) set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Tasman District for the 2004/2005 financial year; and

  • (b) provided that the rates could be paid by instalments for the 2004/2005 financial year and set out the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid; and

  • (c) set out the penalties that were to be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  (9) The Council did not comply with section 23 of the Act by purporting to set the rates before the Council had resolved to adopt the Long-term Council Community Plan and the funding impact statement:

  (10) The Council did not comply with section 57 of the Act because it failed to resolve to authorise that penalties be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  2005/2006 rates

  (11) At a meeting held on 24 June 2005, the Tasman District Council resolved, among other things, as follows:

  “That the Refuse/Recycling Rate of $55 (inclusive of GST) and refuse bag price of $1.10 (inclusive of GST) be adopted for incorporation into Council's Funding Statement for the 2005/2006 financial year:

  “That the general rate increase for the 2005/2006 financial year be 5.9%:

  “That the Uniform Annual General Charge for the 2005/2006 financial year be $160:

  “That targeted rates 1–4 as identified in the Funding Impact Statement be adopted for the 2005/2006 year:

  “That targeted rates 5–18, from the Funding Impact Statement, with amendments as noted, be adopted for the 2005/2006 year”:

  (12) At a meeting held on 30 June 2005, the Tasman District Council resolved, among other things, as follows:

  “That Council—

  • “(a) adopts the Funding Impact Statement dated 30 June 2005 for the 2005/2006 financial year; and

  • “(b) adopts its 2005/2006 Annual Plan as amended by the Council resolutions of 24 June 2005”:”

  (13) The funding impact statement—

  • (a) set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Tasman District for the 2005/2006 financial year; and

  • (b) provided that the rates could be paid by instalments for the 2005/2006 financial year and set out the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid; and

  • (c) set out the penalties that were to be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  (14) The resolutions did not comply with section 23 of the Act because they failed—

  • (a) to state clearly that the Council was setting rates as required by that section; and

  • (b) to refer to all of the rates that were purported to be set (when the resolutions only referred to the adoption of some of the rates):

  (15) The Council did not comply with section 23 of the Act by purporting to set the rates before the Council had resolved to adopt the annual plan and the funding impact statement:

  (16) The Council did not comply with section 24 of the Act because it failed to state in a resolution,—

  • (a) for all of the rates that were purported to be set and assessed, the financial year to which the rates applied; and

  • (b) that the rates could be paid by instalments for the 2005/2006 financial year and the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid:

  (17) The Council did not comply with section 57 of the Act because it failed to resolve to authorise that penalties be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  2006/2007 rates

  (18) At a special council meeting held on 20 June 2006, the Tasman District Council resolved, among other things, as follows:

  “That the general rate increase for the 2006/2007 year be 4.8% (excluding growth):

  “That the Uniform Annual General Charge be increased by $20 in 2006/2007, and a further proposed $20 for the subsequent two years, ie 2007/2008 and 2008/2009:

  “That—

  • “(a) the Funding Impact Statement, as amended, for 2006/2007 be adopted by Council for inclusion in the LTCCP:

  • “(b) Council adopt its final LTCCP, as amended, for audit for 2006–2016”:”

  (19) At a special council meeting held on 29 June 2006, the Tasman District Council resolved, among other things, as follows:

  “That the 2006–2016 Long Term Council Community Plan Volumes 1 and 2 be adopted for audit with the amendments noted:

  “That Council adopts the audited LTCCP for 2006–2016”:

  (20) The funding impact statement—

  • (a) set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Tasman District for the 2006/2007 financial year; and

  • (b) provided that the rates could be paid by instalments for the 2006/2007 financial year and set out the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid; and

  • (c) set out the penalties that were to be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  (21) The Council did not comply with section 23 of the Act because it failed to resolve to set its rates:

  (22) The Council did not comply with section 24 of the Act because it failed to state in a resolution,—

  • (a) for all of the rates that were purported to be set, the financial year to which the rates applied; and

  • (b) that the rates could be paid by instalments for the 2006/2007 financial year and the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid:

  (23) The Council did not comply with section 57 of the Act because it failed to resolve to authorise that penalties be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  2007/2008 rates

  (24) At a special council meeting held on 22 June 2007, the Tasman District Council resolved, among other things, as follows:

  “That the Kaiteriteri refuse rate be $41.00 for the 2007/2008 financial year:

  “That—

  • “(a) a fire protection feasibility study for the central Takaka township be undertaken at a cost of up to $90,000 and the fire protection operations rate as indicated in the draft annual plan be reduced from $140.00 to $88.00 for the 2007/2008 financial year:

  • “(b) the revised wording be included in the 2007/2008 Annual Plan:

  “That the funding impact statement be adopted for the 2007/2008 year:

  “That Council adopts its 2007/2008 Annual Plan incorporating the following documents, as amended:

  • “Schedule of fees and charges

  • “Reserve financial contributions

  • “Variations to engineering work programme

  • “Amendment to the LTCCP

  • “Funding Impact Statement”:

  (25) The funding impact statement—

  • (a) set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Tasman District for the 2007/2008 financial year; and

  • (b) provided that the rates could be paid by instalments for the 2007/2008 financial year and set out the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid; and

  • (c) set out the penalties that were to be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  (26) The Council did not comply with section 23 of the Act because it failed to resolve to set its rates:

  (27) The Council did not comply with section 24 of the Act because it failed to state in a resolution,—

  • (a) for all of the rates that were purported to be set, the financial year to which the rates applied; and

  • (b) that the rates could be paid by instalments for the 2007/2008 financial year and the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid:

  (28) The Council did not comply with section 57 of the Act because it failed to resolve to authorise that penalties be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  2008/2009 rates

  (29) At a meeting held on 26 June 2008, the Tasman District Council resolved, among other things, as follows:

  “That the Richmond business rate contained in the draft 2008/2009 Annual Plan be increased by 3%.

  “That Council fund the additional costs identified in the annual budgets of community boards in Golden Bay and Motueka by way of a targeted rate over each community board area.

  “That—

  • “(a) the funding impact statement as attached to the agenda, and as amended to include the increased funding for Nelson Tasman Tourism, exclusion of funding for the Headingly Centre, the increase to the Richmond Business Rate and cost savings and additional revenue, be adopted for the 2008/2009 year:

  • “(b) Council adopts its 2008/2009 Annual Plan:

  • “(c) the ASB Bank Aquatic Centre targeted rate be considered in next year's LTCCP review”:”

  (30) The funding impact statement—

  • (a) set out all of the rates that the Council proposed to set and assess in the Tasman District for the 2008/2009 financial year; and

  • (b) provided that the rates could be paid by instalments for the 2008/2009 financial year and set out the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid; and

  • (c) set out the penalties that were to be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  (31) The Council did not comply with section 23 of the Act because it failed to resolve to set its rates:

  (32) The Council did not comply with section 24 of the Act because it failed to state in a resolution,—

  • (a) for all of the rates that were purported to be set and assessed, the financial year to which the rates applied; and

  • (b) that the rates could be paid by instalments for the 2008/2009 financial year and the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid:

  (33) The Council did not comply with section 57 of the Act because it failed to resolve to authorise that penalties be added to rates that were not paid by the due date:

  Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates

  (34) The funding impact statement for the 2006/2007 financial year—

  • (a) referred to the Council setting a targeted rate for the purposes of stormwater works, with the rate being based on the capital value of each rating unit in various drainage areas; and

  • (b) further set out the categories of property and the rates (in cents per dollar of capital value) for the different drainage areas; and

  • (c) referred to the Council resolving to include new drainage areas (including Ligar Bay and Tata Beach) from 1 July 2006:

  (35) Each of the drainage areas was purported to be accompanied by a map setting out the boundaries of the area. However, maps purporting to show the boundaries of the Ligar Bay urban drainage area and the Tata Beach urban drainage area for the 2006/2007 financial year for the purposes of the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates were not identified:

  (36) The Council did not comply with section 17 and Schedule 2 of the Act because it failed to identify the category of rateable land in Ligar Bay and Tata Beach in respect of which the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates were purported to be set and assessed:

  General

  (37) It is desirable that the irregularities relating to the 2003 rates, 2004 rates, 2005 rates, 2006 rates, 2007 rates, 2008 rates (the specified rates), and Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates for the 2006/2007 financial year be validated and that the penalties added to those rates be validated:

  (38) Legislation is the only means by which the specified rates and the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates can be validated:

  (39) The objects of this Act cannot be attained other than by legislation:

The Parliament of New Zealand therefore enacts as follows: