By Andrew Bydder, Hamilton City Councillor
To understand Hamilton’s DC policy, we will use a real and current example from 24 May 2024 that was sent to me by a builder today.
The Waikato Hockey Association in Innes Common has an existing spectator shelter (red roof) between the two main turfs.
The Association has added two new rain shelters (clear roof, no walls) either side of the existing shelter.
The DC Information Sheet that accompanies all DC demand letters states:
A DC is a levy on new developments that create additional demand on the council’s infrastructure.
DC’s may be assessed on Water, Reserves, Wastewater, Transport, Stormwater, Community.
Therefore, an assessment should be done on the additional demand.
A simple analysis of the new rain shelters is that they are for existing spectators. They do not provide additional capacity at the ground, they simply keep rain off the people who will already be at the site. There is no additional demand on Water (e.g. no new drinking fountains), Reserves (no new
people visiting), Wastewater (no new toilets), Transport (no new people visiting) or Community (no new people visiting).
The new roofs do not connect to any stormwater system. They drain onto the concrete footpath between the turfs. The footpath has drains. As the roof is catching and draining water that would otherwise have fallen on that same footpath, there is no change in demand.In this example, no DCs should be payable.
The DC Information Sheet also states:
DCs are a one-off charge used for providing new or expanded infrastructure and are only used in the area and for the activity for which they were required.
We can also do the analysis a different way. As the council did not provide any new or expanded infrastructure, no DCs should be payable.
Now that we have understood the policy, we can look at how staff have assessed this particular example.
The roof has correctly been assessed as having no new users for reserves or community, and no change to stormwater.
However, the roof has been assessed as having a $4,446.55 increase on wastewater, based on it being 36% of a house. I assume the lack of walls is what reduced the house amount, not the fact that there are no toilets.
It has also been assessed as having a $1,622.30 increase on water, based on it being 28% of a house.
The 8% of the building that disappeared from the wastewater assessment is presumably where the water taps are, because I could not find any water usage.
There is also an assessment of $5,757.16 increase on transport, based on it being 122% of a house.
So the no new users for reserves and community are now driving to the hockey grounds at three times the rate of their toilet usage. You might have to read that a couple of times, because it really doesn’t make any sense.
That makes a total of $11,826.00 (after unnecessary rounding) for a roof that cost under $10,000 to build.
How does this happen?
A unit of demand based on an assumed commercial usage is applied to a square metre rate of floor area, then this is applied to all new non‐housing buildings.
The unit of demand does not take into account the actual demand of any specific activity. This is contrary to the DC legisla?on. Instead, it is based on a list of capex projects that staff allocate to a region.
The fact that the roof is not a commercial user is ignored because the policy lacks nuance. If it is not residential, it can only be put into the commercial category.
The floor area is measured from wall to wall. You may have noticed that the rain shelter roof has no walls. It has no floor area. It is not what most of us would call a building. Staff changed the definition of floor area a few years ago so they could charge more people, particularly industrial buildings that
had rain shelter over truck loading bays, knowing full well that there was no increase in infrastructure demand, not even stormwater from the roof because all industrial sites have on‐site soakage with no council connection.
Another definition that has been altered is a Bedroom. The average reader would assume this means a room with a bed in it. The average reader would also assume it does not include a lounge that does not have a bed in it. The average reader would be wrong. This is rather important because residential DCs are charged on the number of bedrooms. Peacock property developers have been rather upset to find that the three‐bedroom house they have sold off the plans at a fixed price is apparently a four‐bedroom house and they have to pay another $17,000.
Despite these recurrent problems, staff do not make changes because there is no accountability. I am required to respect staff. I will treat them with the respect that they deserve.
The policy doesn’t follow its own policy. It is fundamentally flawed, has been for years, and council has been told so for years. The builder will not be paying the DCs. If the council wants to remove a perfectly good roof so that spectators get soaked, then I suggest councillors should expect a public backlash.
[The content of any Opinion pieces represents the views of the author and the accuracy of any content in a post labelled Opinion is the responsibility of the author. Posting of this Opinion content on the CityWatch NZ website does not necessarily constitute endorsement of those views by CityWatch NZ or its editors. CityWatch NZ functions to provide information and a range of different perspectives on New Zealand’s cities and local councils. If you disagree with or dispute the content, CityWatch NZ can pass that feedback on to the author. Send an email to feedback@citywatchnz.org and clearly identify the content and the issue.]
