Key change we proposed:
What is the problem?
There are several problems with the current funding policy for stockwater management:
- There is a wide difference in stockwater rates between the lowest and highest stockwater ratepayers. The lowest pay $260 per year. The top 20% pay from $1,600 to $9,400.
- Around 45% of ratepayers do not use the stockwater race network for stockwater. This adds to perceptions of unfairness amongst non-users.
- The policy is not perceived as providing strong financial incentives for water users to shift to more efficient sources of stockwater.
- There is no alternative to address this unfairness and improve financial incentives other than to increase the minimum charge.
- Targeted rates based on charges for services are unfair as the information on services in the rating database is not robust.
- As races close, the number of ratepayers paying targeted rates declines meaning that a budget exceeding $1M is divided between fewer ratepayers over time, making the current approach unsustainable.
Please read our full consultation document to see the range of options available for funding Stockwater Management, and an assessment of each option.
Other changes proposed
Other changes - Minor adjustments to funding sources
| Activity | 2021-24 Policy | Proposed | Reason/Rationale |
| Drinking Water | 100% Uniform Targeted Rate | 95-100% Uniform Targeted Rate 0-5% Fees & Charges |
The proposal recognises revenue from fees & charges as volumetric charge applies to extraordinary users. |
| Wastewater | 100% Uniform Targeted Rate | 90-100% Uniform Targeted Rate 0-5% Fees & Charges 0-5% Other Sources (grass sales revenue) |
The proposal recognises revenue from fees & charges and other sources such as grass sales. |
| Solid Waste Collection | 100% Uniform Targeted Rate | 95-100% Uniform Targeted Rate 0-5% Fees & Charges |
The proposal recognises revenue from fees & charges. |
| Ashburton Youth Council | 100% UAGC | Activity deleted | Council has decided to engage with youth in other ways, which are funded through other activities. |
| Commercial Property | Contribution to general rate & UAGC | 100% Fees & Charges | The proposal is consistent with how revenue sources for all activities are explained in the policy & acknowledges use of surplus. |
| Forestry | Contribution to general rate & UAGC | 100% Other Source (Forestry Net profit of sales) | The proposal is consistent with how revenue sources for all activities are explained in the policy & acknowledges use of surplus. |
| Cemeteries | 20-40% General Rate 60-80% Fees & Charges |
40-50% General Rate 50-60% Fees & Charges |
The activity often struggles to achieve enough revenue from fees & charges. With cemetery extension the operating expenditure for the activity has also increased. We are proposing to implement 40-50% range for use of general rate with the intention of maximising fees and charges, |
| Ashburton Library | 100% UAGC | 95-100% UAGC 0-5% Fees & Charges |
The proposal recognises revenue from fees & charges. |
| Ashburton Art Gallery & Museum | 100% UAGC | 95-100% UAGC 0-5% Fees & Charges |
The proposal recognises revenue from fees & charges. |
Other changes - Activities separated
| Activity | 2021-24 Policy | Proposed | Reason/Rationale |
| Ashburton Airport | Activity part of Commercial Property in current policy |
50-60% General Rate 40-50% Fees & Charges |
Improves transparency of airport funding. |
| Campgrounds | Part of combination of activities under Reserves & Campgrounds |
65-75% General Rate 25-35% Fees & Charges |
Improves transparency of campground funding. |
Rating Boundaries
We also proposed changes to our rating boundaries. See below for further information on what changes we proposed and why.
