Grasshopper wants rules change

Lakes developer Grasshopper Farms (in receivership) is accusing Tauranga City Council of unfairly charging it for development contributions.

The resumption of Ten Year Plan discussions on Tuesday begins with Grasshopper Farms accusing the city council of failing under the Local Government Act to apply its own policy fairly, consistently or equitably in the Pyes Pa Urban Growth Area.


The Lakes.

The issue is costs of capital. Some parts of the urban growth area are subject to costs of capital and some are not.

There's an agreement between Grasshopper and the council for Grasshopper to undertake works in lieu instead of paying subdivision impact fees.

The agreement stipulated the costs of capital, interest costs Grasshopper incurs in relation to the delivery of works in lieu will be paid by Grasshopper.

A few years after the agreement was made, council changed its development contributions policy, introducing inflation and cost of capital into development contribution calculations.

This increased the SIFs payable by Grasshopper for SIF projects in the balance of the land in Pyes Pa West, land not owned by Grasshopper.

Grasshopper delivered works in lieu projects to the value of $19.7m much of

which relates to lead infrastructure like water and wastewater trunk mains from the city boundary, that were required to commence development in Pyes Pa West, plus an extension of Route K to provide access.

Against the $19.7m, $4.1m of impact fees that would have been payable was offset to give a current balance of $15.6m.

The council's business services manager Dean Riley's report states the amounts show Grasshopper is incurring significant interest costs, estimated by council staff to be about $4500 per lot.

'It is also clear that Grasshopper is in a significantly worse financial position than it would have been in if the works in lieu projects were instead delivered through the standard SIF funding approach – ie. developer builds, council reimburses and then recovers costs through charging SIFs with interest costs previously ratepayer funded and now incorporated into the SIFs,” says Dean.

For two years now Grasshopper has been asking council to review the works in lieu agreement to allow it to collect some of the interest costs through SIFs collected from development that occurs in the ‘balance' land within Pyes Pa West.

This is about 30 per cent of the land at The Lakes urban growth area not owned by Grasshopper.

33 comments

blame game

Posted on 23-10-2011 17:24 | By the_fourth_estate

Having fleeced Tauranga ratepayers of roughly 100 million dollars - that is what the cost to Tauranga ratepayers is to build the southern pipeline which has been built to accomodate no wait, subsidise the Lakes development and Grasshopper tries this? I think TCC should ask Grasshopper for the 100 Million to pay for the pipeline so we don't have to. it is afterall Grasshoppers development why are we subsidising their profitability?There's been a lot of corporate welfare in this city by devious councillors and sneaky property developers over the years and enough is enough. it is often said that real business people build empires the wanna bees become property developers. The TCC decision to change the way impact fees were organised in the Pyes Pa area was an effort that was too little too late by many years it should certainly NOT be refunded to Grasshopper.


Blood from Stones

Posted on 24-10-2011 11:06 | By bigted

It seems both parties are stones wanting blood . . .


@ DA 4 estate

Posted on 24-10-2011 13:46 | By ANNA KISSED

It is actually quite a bit worse than you say sir, the Southern Pipeline is completely pointless with or without the Pyes Pa development, to be clear on that I mean even if 'all' the Pyes Pa developments occurred now being all of them! By the way sir the $100 million is a bit out by a lot, the total projected cost in 2008 was $108 million but of course TCC has not told anyone about the changes, now estimted at $170 million and it is years away from completion so who knows where that will end up, the cost will be more for sure. Then add the $200 million odd cost to increase the capacity of Te Munga treatment plant when the pipe gets there. Call that say $400 million odd all up by the time all the consultants have a really good feed off this one. That means double the current debt from now.


What an asset the Lakes is

Posted on 24-10-2011 16:10 | By JenniPea

here we have a TCC staff member outlining how unfair this has been to Grasshopper. And what a great asset the Lakes development is to Tauranga. My family use the area a lot and I know that lots of other people from outside the Lakes area do too and we don't pay a cent for that. So how bout we stop whinging just for a change and say thanks to Grasshopper and their foresight to build us a beautiful subdivision with wonderful community facilities.


EVERYTHING FREE FOR DEVELOPERS?

Posted on 24-10-2011 16:40 | By Crash test dummies

Some want free roundabouts and roads, no tolls on Route K, free traffic lights, 1/2 priced SIF's, no BIF's now another wants free Sewerage and no doubt everything else to. I wonder what will be left after that other than bigger profits for the developers? Some other lot wants a Art Gallery 'community funded' and what that actually means is that it was added to everyone else'e rates, another mob want a Museum and that will be the same kind of "who pays" right! Then there is the Cozzie Club at the Mount, TCC has provided the greens, bar and gambling machines all paid for more or less ex ratepayers cheque book. End result here is they only want change so as to make more profits, what they don't pay someone else must and of course the silent majority/ratepayers end up with all the bills. Does all that sound fair to you?


Grasshopper Wants

Posted on 24-10-2011 17:03 | By Jitter

Grasshopper never wanted the Southern Pipeline from The Lakes development to Te Maunga in the first place. They wanted a separate individual standalone sewage plant for The Lakes at a total cost of around $90 million. This is what is being done in many countries overseas. Each major development has it's own sewage plant. This means if there is a major disaster in an area or in the case of Tauranga the Te Maunga is knocked out of service there is a good chance the independant local plants will remain in service and continue to process sewage. TCC were not interested in this scheme for The Lakes as they had already made up thir minds about the Southern Pipeline on advice from costly consultants. In addition local iwi protested about clean treated purified water from the proposed Lakes sewage scheme plant being drained into "their" river. Anna Kissed is quite correct, another $200 million to upgrade Te Maunga will be required once/when/if the Southern Pipeline is ever completed.


Grasshoppers

Posted on 24-10-2011 19:08 | By onthelevel

Grasshoppers destroy good pastures whereever they land. This bunch of grasshoppers is no exception, greedy blighters. go and get a real job !


PEA BRAINS AND DEVELOPERS

Posted on 24-10-2011 22:43 | By CRUMPY

@ Jenni Pea, Grasshopper did not provide the facilities but all the ratepayers did at least those that pay SIF/BIF's etc do anyway. If Grasshopper paid then they would offset that against what TCC requires them to pay, wipe away the fog my dear, it is getting a bit foggy for you it seems on this one. You got if Anna K and Jitter, yes they did want that separate treatment plant and yes it would have been cheaper to setup by $300 million less borrowed. It would also comply with the TCC "node" policy on reducing risk by having a stand alone plant. Only thing you need to check on is IWI, word has it that no one asked them about the water discharge, anyway that does not have to go into the waterways anyway there are better options than that around.


consent?

Posted on 25-10-2011 11:30 | By shooterm92

I have no sympathy for grasshopper as they completely obliterated a wetlands on the Pyes Pa side of their development without even a thought for the wildlife and WITHOUT consent to do so. These developers just do it then pay a small amount in reperation to the council when they get caught out. I say good job they make millions and pay out bugger all


IF THEY DON'T PAY THEN ...

Posted on 25-10-2011 13:35 | By YOGI

It will be added to the rates bills of us all, no thanks mate. Go pay your own bills, this is all about more profits that is all.


SPOT THEDIFFERENCE, GRASSHOPPERS AND LOCUST's!

Posted on 25-10-2011 17:16 | By WORMTONGUE

Grasshoppers wander around eat a bit here and a bit there, but LOCUST's gather into a 'MOB' and swarm all over everything, take over it all, devour the lot, then move on to the next and nearest green pasture they can find. It is all about greed, money and more money, seems that these developers expect everyone else to maximise their profits by paying all the bills. Of course they have many examples all over the place at TCC to see how it is done time and time again.


Standalone Plants

Posted on 25-10-2011 17:24 | By Jitter

From discussions I was involved in at Grasshopper Developments I understood that local iwi WERE consulted but refused to let the treated, cleaner than river water, drain into "their" waterways. A standalone sewage plant was also suggested and recommended for the Papamoa East development but was rubbished by TCC. This would have cost around $100 million as against 4 to 5 hundred million plus for the the Southern Pipeline and necessary/essential upgrade to Te Maunga will cost. When that development does eventually go ahead all the additional sewage will also be pumped into Te Maunga. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. Brilliant thinking by TCC. Great for their preferred contractors though.


GOT TEH JITTERS BIG TIME

Posted on 25-10-2011 23:02 | By SCOTT NUFFIN4U

You are right there, TCC's own policy is to "reduce risk" having in effect one system is such a obviously bad idea. Not only the contractors but all teh consultants, planners and others wandering around wuill certainly milk this old cow dry.


YES CHANGE IT ALL

Posted on 26-10-2011 04:00 | By PLONKER

But like this, SIF's (Subdivision impact fees) should double and BIF's (Building impact fees) should be $500 per house, that is all that is needed to do the inspections and place a plan on file, issue the compliance certificate. job done all finished and cash flow is better for TCC.


A WIFF OF A SIF, SPOT THE DIFF

Posted on 26-10-2011 14:27 | By SCOTT NUFFIN4U

get rid of BIF's they are just an easy way of not showing all in the rates and so attempting to hide the spending that is going on, if all was above board then we could see the SIF's paying for all that they should at the time of development, that is what should be happening.


MORE COSTS FOR HOME OWNERS

Posted on 27-10-2011 00:06 | By PLONKER

Just another case of the average home owner being slugged for a cost that should not be anything like this, we hear of cases of $20-30,000 for a Building Consent fee, it is so wrong. In the end the land prices are not cheaper for it so all that means is that the developers make bigger profits.


MORE PROFITS FOR WHO?

Posted on 27-10-2011 13:19 | By DRONE

Developers, all this appears to be is a cunning plan to get someone else to pay the bills necessary for development of said land, the developers do not care who pays as long as it is not them. That will mean it will be TCC or new homeowners and as TCC is more or less bankrupt that only leaves the latter. If the developers win this little game that will mean an increase to the building fees, most of which is already palmed off from developers now.


DEVELOPMENT COSTS

Posted on 27-10-2011 17:30 | By ANNA KISSED

Should all be paid by developers. Almost all of what are called building consent fees are really development costs, but without a good reason at all they have been passed on to new home owners to pay when they build a new home, all this is doing is penalising families and adding heaps to the developer profits that are already huge as it is.


AGREE ON SIF's & BIF's

Posted on 28-10-2011 12:50 | By TERMITE

They are all a developers cost, but they have been split so some are to be paid by a new home owner. The only reason to do that is so as developers can make more money then ever before. Proof is in the numbers/; the section prices are still high, a lot more they should be and the more paid by thise wanting a new first home only adds to profits exponentually!


RULE CHANGE = MORE PROFITS

Posted on 28-10-2011 19:01 | By PLONKER

That is all there is to it, need to know anything else?


AGREED PLONKER

Posted on 29-10-2011 14:14 | By ANNA KISSED

To suggest a rule change after the deal is done is a scam that is all, just an attempt to shift even more of the burden to ratepayers. On the TCC stated idea of "GROWTH PAYS FOR GROWTH" why is this even being thought about?


ANOTHER DEAL BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

Posted on 29-10-2011 22:17 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Looks like The Lakes is looking to be "bank rolled" like that other peace of land at Papamoa, TCC provided the funding to purchase that one, can't quite figure out why they did though?


JITTER BUG

Posted on 31-10-2011 18:02 | By WORMTONGUE

I checked it out, IWI have not been asked or advised of the stand alone plant at the lakes etc, the reason is that if IWI were asked and of course agreed then that would mean nothing remained to do the right thing, that of course did not fall into the category of "desired result" for TCC who wanted the full noise Southern Pipeline project for all its contractors to feast on.


NOT ABOUT RULES CHANGE

Posted on 02-11-2011 11:33 | By ANNA KISSED

It is about paying less "for themselves" that is all.


CHANGE THE RULES

Posted on 02-11-2011 17:34 | By BUSH WACKER

So as to make more profits, nothing to do with the rules changing fair and square, if that were the case then the SIF would all be paid by developers upfront and TCC would have a lot less debt, say no more on that.


CHANGIN THE RULES

Posted on 02-11-2011 22:47 | By CRUMPY

Grasshoppers must be woman then as that is what always happens they just randomly change the rules at a whim. This lot are up the creek far enough I woulda thought that a changin the rules would a not helped a bit but I guess it means they can hang on a bit longer and get some other bugger to pay some in to help out.


MORE PROFITS v's CHANGE RULES TO SUIT THAT

Posted on 03-11-2011 12:48 | By BUSH WACKER

At CRUMPY, I am not surprised at all and can only agree, the rules are there for all, and of course the only reason to seek a rule change as is stated is to be able then to pay less, of course they are never going to seek a rule change that will increase the bill now are they. the conclusion is obvious from the start of this.


GRASSHOPPER, WHAT A SHOCKER

Posted on 03-11-2011 20:57 | By SCOTT NUFFIN4U

This is just a scam on all ratepayers all they are trying to do is off load all and everything to the poor and hapless ratepayers, how unfair is that.


SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE PIPER

Posted on 04-11-2011 16:38 | By YOGI

If that is not the developer then it is families trying to build a new home, if not any of them then it will be ratepayers. Councillors always rattle on about "growth pays for growth" well if that were true then the costs would all be paid by the developers at the start and not any and all others since.


DEALS ARE DONE AT THE 19TH

Posted on 05-11-2011 11:42 | By PLONKER

That is about what happens these days, they are all lined up and feeding meanwhile a deal is done to shall we say "aliviate" the fiscal burden of development off themselves and on to anyone else somewhere else for some reason. End result is that the average + developer receives a windfall by not having to pay for what they should.


NEED YOUR NAMES

Posted on 05-11-2011 14:28 | By SCOTT NUFFIN4U

You guys should all stand next election and so sort the place out, looks like we have it all sussed out and can all see the scam before hand and so easy to avoid them right!


GREED MONEY AND GREED

Posted on 06-11-2011 10:48 | By YOGI

.


NOTHING TO DO WITH 'RULES' AT ALL

Posted on 10-11-2011 00:13 | By SCARLET PIMPINEL

The only thing this will be about is the developers making more money from it, that is all.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.