IAWAI Water Services Strategy

The $3 billion investment should be clearly explained in terms of what is genuinely additional versus what was already planned by Hamilton City Council and Waikato District. If IAWAI has enabled increased borrowing capacity, accelerated delivery, or unlocked further projects, those outcomes should be clearly described. If reform was intended to deliver greater capacity and faster progress, those tangible “runs on the board” should be articulated. What work has IAWAI enabled specifically over and above what was previously planned?
On page 12, the rationale for introducing a growth levy - it would be helpful to explain why this mechanism is preferred over adjusting Development Contributions, and how it interacts with existing DCs and any Financial Contributions. From a developer perspective, clarity around the total cost stack is important.
It would also be useful to demonstrate how the proposed growth levy compares with those of other water CCOs in growth areas. Even if modest, such charges are factored into development feasibility, so benchmarking and consistency should be addressed.
The reference to reviewing the DC policy requires clarification. If this refers specifically to the three waters component of the shareholder Council’s existing Development Contributions Policy, that should be explicitly stated. The timing of the review and consultation process should also be clearly signalled, as developers will seek certainty.
Statements about addressing water and wastewater constraints in Hamilton would benefit from greater specificity. Identifying where investments are being made, what constraints are being relieved, and what additional capacity will be unlocked would provide greater confidence and transparency. Perhaps just links for more information? We have good wastewater constraint maps now which I assume are updated.
Consider whether remission or exemption of the growth levy for social and affordable housing developments could be explored. This would align with broader housing affordability objectives.
When discussing resilience, the narrative should explicitly acknowledge the importance of stormwater infrastructure and the need for coordination with shareholder councils to ensure systems are fit for increased climate-related weather events. Stormwater investment will be critical to long-term resilience and should be referenced clearly.
The basis for the 2.5% savings programme should be explained. Providing context on how this figure was determined would strengthen confidence in the target.
Will IAWAI consult on meters for Hamilton or is this a given? If this shift is required by central government, that requirement should be made explicit. Given the likelihood of strong public feedback, clarity and transparency will be essential.
The impact on renters should be addressed directly. While rates rebates assist property owners, they do not support tenants. Communication should acknowledge how renters may be affected and outline that hardship or support mechanisms are being considered. Engagement material should explicitly include renters from the outset, particularly given water charges are eventually likely to be passed through more directly than rates increases have been historically.
It is also important to clearly define who the IAWAI “customer” is — the property owner or the occupier — and who will receive bills. This is fundamental information for the community and should not be ambiguous. Landlords pass on water bills in Auckland so this will happen here too (eventually). We should be upfront about this.
Finally, where differences in projected charge reductions between Hamilton and Waikato are shown, the reasons should be clearly explained. Addressing potential perceptions of cross-subsidisation directly will help prevent misunderstanding.

No, these are my own personal views