Council election year has rolled around again.

Sitting councillors dust off their collection of corflute signs and mull whether their grinning mugshots can serve again, or are too far removed from the reality of three more years’ toll on their actual looks.

Challengers plan their campaigns. Where have the current lot gone wrong; what are the policies and pitches that will appeal to voters in October?

It’s all as it should be.

Gaining a seat as one of the city’s 13 governors (14 for 2025-2028, with the addition of a Māori ward) is a huge privilege and responsibility. Those who would do it deserve electors’ close scrutiny.

The thing I’m proudest of about the current term is that (alongside finally getting Riverlink across the line) I was part of the council that refused to kick the can down the road on investment in 3 waters infrastructure.

I’m sure I don’t need to go over again how under-investment in wastewater, drinking water and storm water assets across many years has left networks vulnerable. We’ve all seen the leaks, and periodic releases of treated sewage in times of high rainfall when the system is overwhelmed.

There’s nothing more core to a council’s function than delivering reliable and safe water to taps, and treating human and trade waste to a standard that minimises harm to the environment.

So this council bumped up spending on 3 waters infrastructure by $600 million to $1.6 billion in the Long-Term Plan, as part of a capital investment programme that has never been higher. We’ve completed significantly more water pipe renewal than any other council in the region.

Consequent rates increases have been painful for residents. Of the proposed 12.6% rates increase next financial year, 51% is due to 3 waters costs.

Electors will get to say in a few months’ time whether that was the right thing to do.

Going forward, it seems almost certain future investment in 3 waters in the wider region will be put on a sounder footing, one removed from politicians unwilling to front up on maintaining infrastructure that is largely underground and out of sight.

The proposed asset-owning CCO (council-controlled organisation) certainly won’t mean the end of costly 3 waters bills. But network fixes can gather pace, and the looming and large costs can be spread over a longer period.

Under professional directors chosen for technical and financial expertise, we should avoid the appalling pratfalls of the current Wellington Water set-up, where contractor panels decided who got work and at what cost, and asset management details were in the hands of the very contractors bidding for ratepayers’ funding.

Last week Hutt councillors grilled Wellington Water representatives on the next stages of upgrades at the Seaview wastewater plant. Some $230 million of Hutt Valley ratepayer investment is to happen at the plant over the next decade, not least replacing a super-expensive sludge dryer.

We sought – and gained – confirmation all work will be subject to competitive tender, odour control is at the forefront, and future-proofing for growth is being built in. The new dryer will have 40% greater capacity, for example.

It’s not the most glamorous of council projects, but I believe it’s one of the most important.

Many Hutt ratepayers will be appalled with news another sizeable rates increase is proposed for the new financial year beginning July.

With elderly parents on the pension in their own home in the Hutt, and a daughter and son with large mortgages, it’s not lost on me that rates bills cause a lot of dismay alongside all the other cost of living pressures.

So what’s going on with Hutt City Council’s costs?

When 2025/26 annual plan discussions started, it looked like the rates rise would need to be 15.3% without taking on any additional projects/services.

Insurance costs are up, the bulk water levy has risen $900,000.

We’re getting $22 million less over the next three years from central government for local road renewal and maintenance than we’d budgeted for, forcing HCC to pay 100% of costs to keep up some sort of programme of footpath renewal. Other roading projects are also having to be deferred, despite a $58m programme of works.

Councillors’ instructions to officers were clear: there was no way we’d approve a rates rise higher than the 13.4% forecast in the Long-Term Plan settled with residents last year.

For the current year, as well as cutting the Safer City Ambassadors, science in schools kits, Te Wao after school and aspects of the events programme, we told officers to find another $600,000 of savings.  That’s on track by pruning training budgets, leaving some positions unfilled and shaving procurement costs.

We also made the unpalatable call to install meters in Petone, and put up the hourly parking charge.  If we hadn’t, that would have been another $900,000 or so needed from rates. We reasoned car users, including from outside the city, should pay their way.

In workshops and meetings this year, we’ve budgeted on officers finding a further $500,000 of savings. We’re also proposing other cuts and modest staff reductions yet to be discussed with those affected.

That brings the proposed rates increase down to 12.6%, in a year when Upper Hutt ratepayers are looking at 19.9%, Wellingtonians 18.5% and Porirua residents 6.8%.

Pointed questions are being asked by Hutt councillors about the value for money Wellington Water is achieving. Pipe repair costs appear to be higher here than in other regions. Findings of an in-depth review on this are imminent.

These are vital questions when 51% of our rates rise is investment in water services.

But even if it’s found contractor costs should come down, the backlog of three waters upgrades ahead of the Hutt – not least $238m of work needed on the Seaview wastewater treatment plant – is massive, and growing.

At the end of annual plan meetings, not a single councillor had additional suggestions of where further HCC cost savings could be found.  I think that’s telling in an election year when councillors are looking to curry favour with voters.

We’re in territory now where further cuts can only come from service reductions. Calls on social media for staff reductions in reality also mean cuts in services.

Annual plan consultation starts soon. Perhaps you have views on where you’d be willing for council to pull back. If so, now’s the time to tell us.

Planned closure of the Ava rail bridge walkway is imminent but Hutt City Council hasn’t given up on finding a solution to preserve pedestrian and cycle access in the medium term.

Councillors are very aware of the popularity of this Hutt River crossing point. For school students, Bob Scott Retirement Village residents, runners, dog walkers and plenty of others – including Ava station rail commuters – it’s an important and convenient piece of infrastructure.

But there’s also no getting around the fact it can’t be left as is.

The rail and sleepers are near end of life and if not replaced, could see the bridge closed and the Hutt Valley Line cut off within two years.

Work has been deferred for several years because of funding constraints.

KiwiRail learned last year it would get $52 million for urgent Wellington network upgrades, including the Ava bridge. But advice to the city council came too late for us to budget anything for the walkway in our Long-Term Plan.

The bridge was built in the 1920s with ownership of the walkway divested to council in 2006.

Okay, so just renew the bridge’s walkway and rail components with new materials and we’re good to go?

If only it were that simple.

The current walkway sits on extended sleepers that are attached to the bridge spans – this is not allowed by modern engineering standards. Another code requirement is that a walkway be at least 5 metres away from a railway line; the current Ava separation is barely 2m.

A replacement walkway can be built, so long as it is attached to Ava bridge’s concrete piers.

KiwiRail says it’s in the business of trains, not walkways, but will work with council if funding can be sorted.

At Mayor Campbell Barry’s instigation, KiwiRail is now drawing up potential designs for how a walkway could be incorporated.

Forgive the cliché/pun, but there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge before anyone can say there’s a viable/funded solution.

Another constraint is that KiwiRail is currently required by Government to spend the funding allowance before the end of this financial year.

More than likely there are cost savings if rail and walkway work is done as a package. It would be intensely annoying if some arbitrary accounting deadline torpedoed the chance to find a way forward everyone can work with.

As well as the money question – an early estimate for a clip-on walkway was $8 million – there’s also the fact the Government has pledged to fund and build the Cross Valley Connection (and Petone-Grenada Link) as a ‘Road of National Significance’ (RONS). The former would require a new bridge somewhere between the Waione and Ewen bridges. Would the Ava bridge walkway then be necessary?

The CVC-P2G project is still at an early ‘investment investigation’ stage and there are 16 other RONS.

Hutt ratepayers are facing massive capital costs, with $2.6 billion of three waters infrastructure work in the next decade, not to mention Riverlink.

Just as for every household budget, sometimes it can’t stretch to everything. But there’s no lack of will to find an Ava walkway solution.

‘Four more years of stench’ makes an attention-grabbing headline but it’s misleading in terms of the messages delivered at this week’s public meeting on the Seaview sewage treatment plant.

It wrongly gives the impression we’re stuck with the current level of stink for the foreseeable future.  In fact, there are grounds for optimism that odour improvements might only be a month or two away as moves to get complicated systems that govern what is a live biological process back into balance.

What has to be admitted – and was admitted by Wellington Water and contracted plant operated Veolia at the meeting – is that even as upgrades costing tens of millions of dollars are pursued, no-one can guarantee there won’t be repeated spells of the present nauseating smell.

Mayor Campbell Barry was upfront with the 25 or so community members who turned up to the November 25^th meeting, several of whom were in tears over their utter frustration with the ongoing problems at the Seaview plant.

The mayor said the current levels of stench were “totally unacceptable” and far below the level of service residents and ratepayers deserved.

There’s $225 million in Hutt City Council’s 10-year plan for wastewater issues, and dealing with the Seaview plant odour is the city’s top priority.  Replacing significant components of the plant are being front-loaded into the first three or four years of the Long-Term Plan.

The wastewater treatment issues stem from ageing parts and infrastructure, and are a symptom of what we’re seeing with 3 waters networks not just in the Hutt, but up and down the country, Mayor Barry said.

As several of the residents pointed out, smells from the plant have been ongoing for years.  But they’ve been much worse this year.

A number of them said the odour neutraliser spray “blasters” brought in to try to combat the stink are making things worse.  As well as the smell of s***, the blasters added a very unpleasant chemical tang, they said.

While the neutralisers are considered ‘industry best practice’, it was agreed at the meeting there should be trials – with plenty of community warning and monitoring – of switching off the blasters, and gauging the community’s reaction.

What’s going wrong?

A project to replace media in six biofilter cells turned out to be much more complicated and fraught than envisaged.  They had to be done all at once because no system was in place to allow them to be done one by one.

There is now a new air distribution system associated with the biofilter cells, and new isolation valves.

Next planned stages are to improve the capture of odours not currently reaching the biofilter for treatment.  So that’s new odour treatment in the milliscreening building, replacing the milliscreen ducting, and fixing external leaks in external odour ducting at the plant.

Further disruption – and stench – resulted from two small fires in the plant’s sludge dryer – incidents Wellington Water admitted at this month’s meeting occurred because plant staff did not follow process guidelines.  The dryer was offline for nine days, but was then taken out again by a component failure. 

There was also a failure in a primary settling tank.

Tens of thousands of tonnes of de-watered sludge have had to be trucked to Silverstream landfill while the dryer was fixed.  It added to odour issues.

Full descriptions of planned upgrades can be found here.  

Too slow

Pat Dougherty, Wellington Water’s (WWL) new chief executive, told the meeting maximum focus is being given to getting the plant’s processes back in balance.

He admitted WWL and Veolia had been too slow to detect that various components at the plant were wearing out faster than anticipated. 

WWL is building its asset management capacity and there is much closer scrutiny of components.

He spoke of changing the relationship between WWL and Veolia (an international company that runs all of Wellington region’s sewage treatment plants) as one of emphasising preservation of a good working relationship to one with “more tension” over contracts.

Mr Dougherty didn’t say it, but reading between the lines that could be translated as Veolia has been given a rocket to lift their game.  Additional experience staff are being brought in;  others are being upskilled.

As upgrading work continues around the plant, there were repeated assurances a key consideration at each stage would be the impact on odours beyond the plant boundaries.

One large upcoming expense is a new sludge dryer, with a price tag of around $92m.  It’s to be built on adjacent land currently used as a car lot, and with sea level rise in mind.  Upgrades to at least one sub-station will be needed so that it can operate on electricity, rather than expensive – and climate emissions-unfriendly – gas.

While Mr Dougherty said money was not the issue – the Hutt and Upper Hutt councils were fronting with the funding that’s needed – there is significant concern about the workforce.  There is a global shortage of specialist expertise in the wastewater sector.

His final word at the public meeting was to implore councils and the Government to get on with the move to new 3 waters infrastructure companies under Local Water Done Well.

“We need to make decisions fast or we’ll lose workforce.”

Are the ways we’ve done things in the past, and the facilities we maintain, fit for purpose and cost-effective going forward?

That’s a question Hutt City Council is asking itself on a number of fronts in an effort to keep a lid on rates rises. 

Everyone, including councillors, winced at the eye-watering 16.9% rates increase this year.  The cost pressures forcing that – failing infrastructure, debt interest, rising contractor/staff, insurance and material costs – haven’t gone away.

To try and lighten the rates burden on households and businesses, and squeeze maximum bang for buck, we need to look at doing things differently – maybe even reducing service expectations.

That’s why we teamed up with Maungaraki School to run a joint school/community library.  In Eastbourne, volunteers have come on board to enable us to extend the season of the Bays’ summer pool.

Other examples that illustrate some of the thinking going on are a reassessment of council’s ‘built assets’ – halls (5), buildings leased to community groups (14), community houses (6), hubs/libraries (8), toilets and changing rooms (40), wharves/jetties and boat ramps (7), pool complexes (6) and 60-70 other buildings/facilities – and the option of “low mow” reserves.

For built assets, a review of asset management plans shows $81.3 million of maintenance and renewal costs in the next decade, but only $50.1m budgeted.  (Note, the figures include $24m for Petone Wharf, when we’re now aiming to tackle that for a maximum of $12m.)

In short, we can’t afford to keep and maintain all that we have.

Councillors have resolved to open up discussions with residents on what should be the priorities, guided by such things as equity of access, existing rates of use, future need, etc.

There is demand from new groups and new activities, but we can’t build more facilities, so we want to optimise the ones we have by encouraging sharing and hubbing (this might mean revisiting some historic arrangements). 

We are increasing fees for using them so it’s a fair balance between ratepayers and the people getting the benefit from them; and we are open to conversations on divestment to community groups, where groups can show they can manage the cost.

Divestment consultations are already underway over Belmont’s Hardwick-Smith Lounge and the Gibbes Watson and Tutukiwi conservatories in the civic gardens.

These are difficult conversations to have, but as we’ve learned with our water pipes, kicking the can down the road just makes the costs and consequences worse.

Easing pressure on rates should also come from ‘low mow’. 

Low-mow meadows are a lower cost way to manage green spaces that are insect-friendly, have environmental benefits, and provide a more natural feel.

Instead of mowing on a fortnightly rotation the grass is left to grow over spring and summer.

Other councils have used this approach with success and we’re going to trial it from November on a 700m2 area of grass near Waione Bridge.

Mowing this area currently costs ratepayers around $1,000 per month but low mow will reduce the area that needs mowing by about 75%.  

If it’s successful, council will extend low mow to other locations in 2025, cutting the cost of Parks & Reserves maintenance contracts in the future.

RFID technology could help Hutt City Council cut down on the more than $1 million a year that contamination of the yellow-lid recycling bins is costing ratepayers.

HCC wants to help people who don’t understand what can be recycled, and to intervene if the reason for contamination is because a landlord refuses to order a big enough red-lid rubbish bin for a tenant.

But if the reason for putting the likes of food, takeaway cups, polystyrene, dirty nappies, old clothing and soft plastics in the recycling bin is essentially because the person/household couldn’t give a stuff that they’re costing fellow ratepayers, we’ll take away the yellow bin.  But the serial offender will continue to pay for the service regardless.

Recycling is all about better use of resources and diverting waste from filling up Silverstream landfill. 

When a load of recyclables collected kerbside has more than 10% of material that isn’t paper, cardboard, aluminium, tin cans and plastics number 1, 2, and 5, it’s considered contaminated – and goes to the dump anyway.  (Glass is recycled separately in the blue bins, of course.)

What’s more, Waste Management charges the council a penalty to cover the landfill fee. 

Average annual contamination rates in the Hutt have been:  17.9% (in 2021/22), 15.5% (2022/23) and 14.6% (2023/24).

So they’re coming down – but while there continues to be contamination, penalty fees that come out of your rates money still range from $13,500 to $30,000 a month.

Put on top of that the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on campaigns trying to educate  people about what can be put in the recycling bins, and the four ‘bin ambassadors’ that rove the streets inspecting recycling bin contents to head off contamination penalties, then the overall cost to ratepayers was $1.05m last financial year.

We have taken action against households that continue to put the wrong things in the recycling bins after three warnings (orange and red stickers on bins).  Since the new rubbish/recycling scheme began in late 2022, we’ve taken away 390 recycling bins.  (People can apply to re-join recycling collection after six months.)

The Hutt is not unusual in recycling contamination rates.  We’re at 14.6% contamination – Auckland is at 25%, Rotorua Lakes 23%, Porirua 21%.  But Christchurch achieves 9.9% and Selwyn District 3%.

At a councillor briefing and at the Climate Change Committee meeting this month, a series of options for how to cut contamination and the cost to ratepayers were debated.

One option to be investigated is council intervening in landlord-tenant relationships when we find out tenants end up putting rubbish in the recycling bin because their landlord has ordered a too-small red-lid rubbish bin (80-litre or even 120-litre for a large family).  We’re checking on the legality of council compulsorily replacing a small rubbish bin with a larger one. 

Landlords recoup rates costs through rent and councillors agree that an appropriate-sized rubbish bin is a fundamental tenant right (in the same way as working smoke alarms, adequate locks, insulation, etc).  HCC intends advocating to central government about this.

While the bin ambassadors have been a good way to cut back contamination, and meet with households to find out the reasons why the wrong things are going into recycling bins, technology may offer another/better solution.

The rubbish and recycling bins used in Hutt City are tagged with RFID (radio frequency identification), so that we know whose bin belongs to which property.

Collection trucks are also equipped with cameras, monitoring what material from a bin is going into the hopper.

An option being investigated is to ‘flag’, using RFID, a property that previously has put out a ‘contaminated’ recycling bin.  When the collection truck pulls up to such properties the next time, the driver will check whether there are incorrect items in the bin.   If there is, the bin and contents will be left, along with a message to the household to contact the council.

We then have a starting point to find out why wrong items are being put out for recycling – perhaps it’s helping people understand what can and can’t be recycled, talking to the landlord, etc. 

Ultimately, this should stop penalty fees, increase recycling rates, and reduce spending on education campaigns (though there will always be a need for some level of that).

• If you want to find out what can and can’t be recycled, or indeed anything about Hutt City’s rubbish and recycling – go to https://www.toogoodtowaste.co.nz/

There will be high interest in Hutt City Council’s draft Parking Strategy when it’s released in September.

There are plenty of challenges. We know we’ll lose around 700 carparks in the central city with Riverlink’s floodway improvements. Some suburban streets are choked with parked vehicles because – with the blessing of central Government legislation – developers of many of the new townhouses springing up everywhere have provided insufficient, or no, off-street parking.

Decades of policy and habit have turned us into a car-centric society. But 98% of the national fleet burns fossil fuels, and greenhouse gas emission reduction imperatives grow ever-more urgent – if for nothing else because we’ll have to buy billions of dollars’ of overseas carbon credits if we fail to meet our international climate change commitments.

More people are using public transport but there are big gaps in services. Mentioning cycleways triggers extreme reactions from a disappointingly high number of people.

Electric vehicles will be a big part of the solution in the future, as will shared vehicle schemes like MEVO. Parking arrangements – on and off-street – will have to accommodate this.

Councillors, reluctantly, agreed to an increase in paid parking fees, 9am-5pm 7-days, and from October to meter 300 parking spaces on Jackson St and the Peel St carpark (with some free spaces for library users in the latter).

That’s gone down like a cup of cold sick with families and businesses struggling with the cost of living crisis, but the alternative was another 1% on the already-too-high rates increase. The principle that car users (not every ratepayer/renter drives) should pay a share of the tens of millions of dollars of council’s annual transport operating and capital costs through parking fees weighed in.

There will be consultation on the wider parking strategy. It will look at everything from whether we should have ‘residents’ only’ parking like Wellington; business and delivery needs; how to better cater for those with mobility issues, even graduated/demand-responsive parking pricing.

There are reasons why the Government brought in rules blocking councils’ ability to require new housing developments to have off-street parking. It reduces housing costs and helps with transport mode shift. But in the Hutt, it has left ratepayers with a huge bill.

Biddle and Milne Cres., Johnston and Marina Gr., and more than 90 other streets need kerb and channel changes and other traffic management interventions to deal with parking, and rubbish truck and emergency vehicle access. The cost is $39m over the next decade, and there may not be an NZTA subsidy.

The new Government has not changed Labour’s rules on off-street parking, ostensibly buying into the mode-shift argument. Yet their new policy on transport prioritises building new roads.

Many residents consider the public road parking space outside their house is ‘theirs’, even when they have garages and driveways. But if we’re to have better/more buses, and to make it safer to cycle for kids and others, we may need that road space – at least on one side of the road.

Lots to think about.

Do we have too many bottle stores in Lower Hutt?  What hours should supermarkets and other ‘off-licensed’ retail outlets be able to sell alcoholic drinks?

Hutt City Council is reviewing its Local Alcohol Policy (the LAP) are we’re keen to hear from residents, business operators, health and community agencies and hospitality industry stakeholders.

The deadline to have your say is this Friday, 25 August.

Lower Hutt’s LAP is about trying to minimise alcohol-related harm in our city, while balancing fair and reasonable requirements for businesses selling what is a legal product, and one that many people enjoy. 

Our hospitality industry employs a lot of people.

HCC was one of the first local authorities in New Zealand to bring in an LAP.  It came into force in 2018.

Key features include:

• A cap on the number of off-licensed retailers in six defined parts of the city where police data, hospital admission statistics and other evidence indicated a higher level of alcohol-related harm (Naenae – 4 outlets, Stokes Valley – 3, Taita – 3, Avalon – 1, Hutt Central – 11, Wainuiomata – 6)
• Off-licence trading hours for sale of alcoholic drinks limited to 7am-10pm, Monday-Sunday.

The LAP has other provisions, too, around on-licence (pub, restaurant, etc) premises hours, ‘one-way door’ policies during late night hours, provisions around sports club licences, etc.  (Read the current LAP, and all review-related information here – https://www.huttcity.govt.nz/people-and-communities/news/2024/have-your-say-on-lower-hutts-alcohol-rules )

No changes to the geographic spread or number of off-licences subject to the cap are proposed, nor to trading hours.

But have we got that about right? 

Would further limiting the number of retail outlets or the hours of off- and on-licences lead to less problem drinking?  What do you think?

There’s been publicity recently over Auckland Council’s provisional LAP looking set to come into force, after eight years of protracted legal battles with supermarkets.  That LAP proposes supermarkets and bottles stores not be allowed to sell alcohol after 9pm (our LAP allows 10pm).

Auckland is also proposing a two-year freeze on new off-licences in 23 defined areas, and a permanent presumption of granting new off-licences after that.

We’ve also just seen a new report from Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora and University of Otago (based on 2018 data) showing alcohol causes a significant preventable health burden through a range of disease and injury conditions, especially for Māori and males.  https://www.hpa.org.nz/research-library/research-publications/estimated-alcohol-attributable-health-burden-in-aotearoa-new-zealand

Key findings are summarised in the image below.

We’re also consulting on lifting the level of fees charged to alcohol sales outlets for administering controls in the city to 100% (i.e. from 90%, the other 10% picked up by general ratepayers), and where we should have alcohol-free zones (beaches, shopping centres, etc).

Find out more: https://www.huttcity.govt.nz/people-and-communities/news/2024/have-your-say-on-lower-hutts-alcohol-rules

• Simon Edwards is the chair of Lower Hutt’s District Licensing Committee and will chair the LAP hearing of submissions.

It’s a shame that enjoyment of a great run of summer sunshine is being shaded by the prospect of tougher water restrictions.  But hats off to those who are leaving the car unwashed, taking shorter showers, leaving frugal hosing of plants until the cool of early morning or evening, and other measures to conserve what’s in the storage lakes. 

Hardly surprising people’s hackles are up over pleas for restraint when everyone can see water leaking across footpaths from broken council pipes and faulty tobies.  But recognition is growing that resource and workforce limits mean leaks need to be triaged and priority given to the worst of them – not always the ones that are most visible. 

In Hutt City alone, 1545 leaks were fixed in the last six months of 2023. HCC is forecasting a $6.5 million spend this financial year for Wellington Water to tackle leaks but it’s a bit like whack-a-mole.  No sooner is one leak fixed that another, quite often nearby, pops up. 

So renewal of aged pipes is also vital.  In 2022/23 HCC invested $72m on this, compared to $28m the year before. For the coming Long-Term (10-year) Plan, it’s proposed $300m be spent on water, sewage and stormwater upgrades in the first three years. 

Trouble is, in large parts of the city (e.g. Naenae, Wainuiomata) pipe networks were all developed around the same time in the 1950s and ’60s, so a significant bow wave of works is upon us. This is amplified by asbestos cement pipes used widely in the 1960’s and ’70s failing earlier than their design life. 

You as ratepayers have stepped up. In each of the past two years around 15km of pipelines have been renewed in our city, compared to an average of 4km for the previous five years. 

Unfortunately, renewals need to increase to around 30kms for each of the next 30 years to address the backlog and deal with those parts of the network coming to the end of their useful life. Ratepayers simply can’t afford this on their own when there are also transport, climate change and other challenges. 

We’re staring at a potential rates increase of 15.9% in the year starting July 1 – 40% of it relating to three waters.  Labour’s 3 Waters restructure was rejected by a majority of voters; now we need to know from National how its alternative solutions will work, given council debt ceilings.  One useful step would be for central government to return to local government the GST paid on rates (a tax on a tax!). 

There’s no doubt in my mind water meters will have to be part of the mix going forward if we’re to avoid eking out future summers on water supply tenterhooks. 

I’ve seen in social media some people suggest that because infrastructure is struggling HCC shouldn’t allow new housing, as if we could somehow put gates on city entrances and tell developers “we’re full up”.  

Fact is, owners of those new units have paid a development contribution of anything from $6,500 to $22,000 to offset the growth component we build into new infrastructure.   The houses must have tanks to hold and slowly release stormwater, and for future-proofing the draft District Plan requires new-builds to incorporate rainwater and greywater capture and use systems.