Reading Far North's Annual Plan 2026/27 — and how to understand it

Far North District Council's Annual Plan 2026/27 is the district's operating and capital budget for the year beginning 1 July 2026. It sets rates, fees, and spending across every council function. This post walks through the structural line items contained within the detailed financial appendices that sit behind the primary consultation headlines — and where the plan does, or doesn't, explain them.

This Annual Plan sits under Te Pae Tata, FNDC's Long Term Plan 2024–27 — a three-year plan rather than the usual ten. The shorter horizon was allowed under the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Act 2023, enacted after the 2022–2023 storms and Cyclone Gabrielle, which simplified the LTP process for affected councils and permitted an unaudited plan. That three-year window is why this Annual Plan covers 2026/27 — the final year of the recovery-period LTP.

The rates rise is 6.7% — but that's an average, not what most pay

The council describes the 2026/27 rates increase as 6.7%. That is a district-wide weighted average. The council's own funding impact statement includes a table of example properties, and it shows the increase climbing well above 6.7% as land value rises.

For a residential property, the indicative total rates bill rises 4.6% at a $100,000 land value, 7.0% at $250,000, 9.8% at $500,000, and 13.2% at $1,000,000. For a commercial property the same table shows increases from 7.3% at $100,000 up to 17.4% at $1,000,000. Only the lowest-value band sits below the 6.7% headline.

The blended average is held down by targeted rates that rise more slowly. The general rate — the land-value-based portion that most residential ratepayers pay — rises from $68.9 million to $75.9 million in the forecast financial statements, an increase of 10.2%.

RMA fees are rising at multiples of inflation

The plan's stated approach is to increase most council fees by 2.4%, in line with CPI. That applies to building consents, dog registrations, environmental health licences, and dozens of other charges. Resource consent fees, however, are a different story.

The deposit fee for a notified resource consent hearing — the hearing required when an application affects the wider public — rises from $2,028 to $10,000, an increase of 393%. The fee for a combined subdivision and land use consent rises from $5,143 to $8,000 (+55%). A 1-to-4 lot subdivision jumps from $3,044 to $5,000 (+64%). A simple land use consent — defined as a single zone rule breach with no engineering assessment required — rises from $1,575 to $2,500 (+59%). Varying or cancelling a consent condition that requires engineering assessment goes from $1,264 to $2,800 (+121%). Engineering Plan Approvals climb from $385 to $500 (+29.9%), and the vehicle crossing application and inspection fee rises from $308 to $450 (+46%).

These are deposit fees — the starting cost, not the total. Actual processing costs are billed in addition. A $10,000 hearing deposit gets you into the room; it doesn't cover the hearing itself.

On top of every RMA application sits a new flat technology fee of $120, described as recovering the cost of digital consent management systems. The first 30 minutes of pre-application meetings, previously provided free, are removed under the new schedule, with the hourly rate rising to $353.

Four rates that apply to every property — connected or not

The plan continues to levy four targeted rates charged on every rating unit across the entire district. None are new for 2026/27 — they were set in earlier Long Term Plans (the $15 water and $15 sewerage public good rates from 1 July 2021, the $10 stormwater public good rate from 1 July 2024, and the $100 uniform roading rate a long-standing charge) and are carried forward unchanged:

• $100 uniform targeted roading rate — a flat annual charge on all rateable properties to part-fund the roading network, including paved and unsealed roads, bridges, footpaths, cycleways, streetlights, and ferry services.
• $10 stormwater public good rate — a flat annual charge on every rating unit in the district, formalised as a district-wide flat public good rate from 1 July 2024. The LTP 2024–27 states this was introduced because "past severe weather events have significantly impacted our stormwater infrastructure, pushing it to its limits" — the 2022–2023 storms and Cyclone Gabrielle that caused 140 slips across Far North roads. The plan document states this recognises that all properties benefit "directly or indirectly" from a stormwater network that provides protection from flooding, including properties with no physical connection to any stormwater infrastructure.
• $15 district-wide sewerage public good rate — a flat annual charge on every rating unit, including rural and unconnected properties. The plan document states that those not connected to a scheme still benefit from reticulated systems.
• $15 water public good rate — a flat annual charge on every rating unit. The same rationale applies: benefit from public water infrastructure is deemed to exist regardless of whether a property is connected.

A property with no connection to stormwater, sewerage, or water reticulation pays rates for all three networks, plus the roading charge — comprising these four fixed charges, exactly $140 in standing flat targeted-rate charges per property, carried unchanged into 2026/27 before any rate increases are factored in.

The rationale for public-good rates is that infrastructure benefits everyone indirectly: a sewerage network protects public health district-wide, not just for connected properties; a stormwater system protects roads and land that everyone uses. The counterargument — that rural properties with no reticulated service shouldn't pay for services they can't access — is a standing debate in NZ local government, and is why some councils phase such rates in or limit them to serviced areas. FNDC's approach is to charge the whole district.

$9.7 million for a function with no performance measures — by design

The plan allocates $9.735 million in 2026/27 to a function called Strategic Relationships, funded entirely from general rates. The funding impact statement shows the money flowing to staff, suppliers, and internal overheads, recording a surplus of $33,000.

This is not a new function, and it is not the first year it has carried this level of cost. The Long Term Plan 2024–27 records the trajectory:

• 2023/24 (actual): $6.568m total operating funding
• 2024/25 (LTP): $8.468m
• 2025/26 (LTP): $9.330m — the 2025/26 Annual Plan confirmed $9.329m, essentially the same figure
• 2026/27 (LTP): $9.185m projected
• 2026/27 (actual Annual Plan): $9.735m — about $550,000 above what the LTP had projected for this year

So the function has grown from $6.6m to $9.7m over three years — an increase of roughly 48% — and the 2026/27 plan is spending $550k more than the LTP had signalled for this year.

What the money covers

The LTP and Annual Plan both describe what the Strategic Relationships Group does. It comprises four teams:

• Tūhonotanga (Democracy Services) — governance support for elected members, procedural advice for formal meetings, and civic events.
• Te Hono (Māori Relationships) — supporting iwi/hapū partnerships, council Te Ao Māori competency, treaty settlement opportunities, and the Te Pae o Uta framework.
• Tātai Hono (Stakeholder Relationships) — community board support, community grants administration, and community-initiated plans.
• Civic Engagement & Education and Health, Safety and Wellbeing — engagement and risk management across the organisation.

The performance question

Every other activity group in the LTP — Transport, Water Supply, Wastewater, Stormwater, Solid Waste, and the rest — has a "Levels of Service" section with specific performance measures and targets, reported against in the Annual Report. Strategic Relationships is the exception. The LTP 2024–27 states under this group, in plain language:

There are no Levels of Services for this group/activity. [sic]

That is not a gap in the document — it is an explicit council decision that this activity group will not be measured. There is no performance target, no metric, and no Annual Report reporting line for Strategic Relationships. Ratepayers cannot look up whether $9.7m of spending produced outcomes, because the framework to do so was never set.

The important nuance is that the council does describe what the group does and why. The plan documents explain the teams, their scope, and their intended community outcomes (proud, vibrant communities; prosperous communities supported by a sustainable economy; a wisely managed environment; celebrating unique culture and history). What's missing is any measure of whether the money is achieving those outcomes — and the council has formally opted out of providing one.

For scale: at $9.7m, Strategic Relationships is now larger than the council's entire Solid Waste service (approximately $6.7m) and nearly double Stormwater and Drainage ($5.23m). Both of those services carry performance measures — Solid Waste reports on kerbside collection volumes and landfill diversion; Stormwater reports on system performance and flood response times. Strategic Relationships, at a higher cost than both, reports nothing.

This is not unique to FNDC. Many councils carry "governance" or "democracy" functions that are difficult to measure and don't have explicit Levels of Service. The difference is scale — most governance functions are a fraction of this size. A ratepayer asking "what do I get for $9.7m?" will find a description of the teams and their intent in the plan, but no published measure against which to evaluate the return.

A $300,000 Public Safety Camera Network with no published governance

The Capital Works Programme allocates $300,000 for a new Public Safety Camera Network under the Corporate Services group. Camera networks involve decisions about placement, data access, retention periods, and who can query footage. None of those parameters appear in the plan documents.

This is a capital allocation for a new asset — so detailed governance (placement policy, privacy safeguards, footage retention, and who has access) would typically be established in a subsequent policy report or council decision. The plan is a budget document; privacy frameworks for public safety camera infrastructure commonly come through separate deliberations, often under a council policy committee. Whether FNDC has that policy in development is not recorded in the Annual Plan.

Dividend income drops 86% — no explanation in the plan

The plan's Prospective Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense shows dividend income falling from $5.0 million in the 2025/26 Annual Plan to $710,000 in 2026/27 — a reduction of $4.29 million, or 86%. The Long Term Plan 2024–27 had projected dividends at $2.0 million for this year; the actual Annual Plan figure comes in 64% below even that reduced forecast.

FNDC's investment vehicle is Far North Holdings, a council-controlled organisation. The LTP 2024–27 sets out a Group Performance Target for the company: a $5m dividend in 2025/26, dropping to "a minimum of $1.25m" in 2026/27 with any additional amounts "agreed based on the development pipeline." So the reduction from $5m to $0.7m is sharper than what the LTP's own target anticipated — $1.25m was the floor, and the plan came in at roughly half of it.

The consultation documents contain no narrative explanation for why dividend income has declined at this scale or what has changed in the investment vehicle's operations. The company's Statement of Intent suggests the development pipeline is the key variable — but the plan doesn't say whether the reduction reflects a paused project, lower commercial returns, or a decision to reinvest within the company rather than pay a dividend.

What's explained and what isn't

To be clear about what the plan does and doesn't account for, because the distinction matters:

• The rates rise is fully explained: the plan breaks it down by general rate, targeted rates, and the per-property impact table. The difference between the 6.7% headline and higher per-property increases is structural, and the plan documents it.
• The consent fee increases are listed in full, but the plan doesn't explain why one fee category rises 393% while others are held to 2.4%. The increase is real — but the rationale for its scale is not provided.
• The four standing targeted rates are explained in the plan: the rationale (public-good benefit) is stated, the origin dates are in the record, and the amounts are unchanged. A ratepayer who disagrees with the rationale is disagreeing with a council policy position, not a gap in documentation.
• Strategic Relationships is described in the plan — what the teams do, their intended outcomes, and the funding. What's absent is any performance measure, and the LTP records this as a deliberate choice rather than an omission.
• The dividend drop is the largest unexplained number in the plan. The LTP set a target floor that the plan undershoots, and the consultation document provides no narrative for the gap.

If you want to dig further

The plan documents are all linked below. The Infocouncil portal holds agendas and minutes where individual spending decisions are debated. FNDC also publishes annual reports that show actual performance against targets — though, as noted, Strategic Relationships has no targets to report against.

For a ratepayer trying to understand whether $9.7m on strategic relationships is money well spent, the plan's own answer is operational: this is what the teams do, this is what they intend, and measuring outcomes is not part of the framework. The judgment is left to the ratepayer and their elected representatives.

All document links were correct at the time of publication.