Rates affordability Debate

Community Wellbeing - Cost of Living

Option 2

Residents supporting Option 2 generally appreciate its balance between maintaining essential services and managing rate increases, recognizing it as a practical approach under current financial pressures. Many express concerns about affordability, particularly for low-income households, and suggest that while the option is a compromise, further financial relief measures or adjustments to spending plans may be necessary to alleviate burdens. There is a consensus that this option, despite its challenges, represents a middle ground that attempts to sustain community wellbeing and service levels without imposing excessive financial strain on ratepayers.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
12.1	I agree with the option to support both medium service cuts and rates rises.
114.1	Agree with this option.
171.1	I support the medium cuts and rates increases approach as it best balances the need to continue to maintain services alongside the need to increase rates to cover future spending requirements.  However I submit that some additional tweaks to the spending plans be considered especially in terms of the buy-out of private properties and the options for homeowners obtaining rates relief.
171.1	I support the medium cuts and rates increases approach as it best balances the need to continue to maintain services alongside the need to increase rates to cover future spending requirements.  However I submit that some additional tweaks to the spending plans be considered especially in terms of the buy-out of private properties and the options for homeowners obtaining rates relief.
184.1	I would prefer fewer service cuts, but appreciate that this will result in higher rates that will be unaffordable for many.
330.1	I think the liability per property should be just that and not on each individual unit because for example a property that has a couple of two bedroom flats on it compared with the neighbor that is a 3 bedroom stand alone house both have about the same risk to the ratepayer in terms of the slip coming down behind so why should one property pay twice the amount.? It is those lower income households that are going to be disproportionately affected and unaffected subsidising the more expensive housing.
346.2	My concerns answered in line  with the Nelson paper format .RATE AFFORDABILITY.
353.1	Rates have to be affordable and with inflation, higher mortgages and insurance its impt to keep rates increases at medium level whilst still providing essential services
559.1	This is an affordable option for home owners, landlords and their tenants which will also ensure the future growth and development can be achieved in a sustainable way. There are too many disadvantages associated with the other options.
675.1	I suggest that the council appeal to the central government to keep the GST that it generates.  The Future of Local Government report states a number of ways that Councils can get more funding from central government rather than through rates.
684.1	NCC needs to unite with other councils to negotiate with central Government for the latter to fund water infrastructure and insodoing, remove this cost from ratepayers and invest in a systematic long term upgrade of Nelson's water infrastructure.
786.1	I think you should offer cheaper refuse to rate payers. I also think you should increase commercial rates more than private homes.
851.1	It seems you have a reasonably good balance.
864.1	Option Two strikes a balance between financial responsibility and maintaining services; however, the proposed rate increases are likely to impact low-income households. This demands further consideration of targeted relief measures for lower-socioeconomic communities.Given significant job losses and worsening unemployment, NCC needs to provide rates relief or other options for those in financial hardship.
952.4	Rates
978.1	Frequency of Extreme Weather Events (Climate change induced) means Council will have greater costs - building resilience, adaptation and also in reparation. Further rates increases will be necessary, but we're aware of many doing it hard. If it could be means tested, we'd support Option 1!.
987.1	Option Two strikes a balance between financial responsibility and maintaining services; however, the proposed rate increases are likely to impact low-income households. This demands further consideration of targeted relief measures for lower socioeconomic communities, such as the Victory community.  We need more information about which services the council is suggesting to reduce under option two. Some services, such as public libraries, are significantly more important to those on low incomes and need to be preserved as a priority. Essential services need to be identified and made accessible and equitable for all diverse communities, especially for those who rely on community resources.  Given significant job losses and worsening unemployment, NCC will need to provide rates relief or other options for those in financial hardship. We encourage the prioritisation of new services that support job creation and provide opportunities for those on low incomes or seeking work, as well as those projects that benefit our diverse communities. Projects could focus on affordable housing, access to education, social services, financial relief measures, sustainable kai measures, climate resilience etc. In the 2018 Census statistics, 53.2% of Victory Village residents either owned or partly owned their homes. Increasing rates have a flow-on effect to the already high costs of rental housing, how will the council offset the impacts for low and middle-income whanau.
1034.1	I am retired with a limited fixed income and rates payment are challenging as it is. However I value and appreciate the services that make Nelson a beautiful and special place so I will go for option 2 and try and find ways to subsidise my rates even with the rates rebate.
1085.1	I am a new comer to Nelson. I feel my taxes are an investment in the future for this city and the future for the next generation. I support option 2 as a good balance.
1212.1	I know a lot of work has gone into putting this together; thank you.  I generally support the Council recommended plans since you have the greatest insight and research on the subject. Rates are the cost of maintaining the lifestyle we all want for ourselves and each other.
1313.1	Our rates will be pushing $4k after the proposed increase and storm recovery, which i‘m not thrilled with as these are well higher than what we payed in Australia, but i suppose there isnt much we can do about it
1338.1	While I support the theory behind this option in principle, Council must acknowledge that it is simply not possible to maintain rates increases every year for the next 10 years, even if they are simply at the rate of inflation, and expect the population of Nelson to be able to shoulder that burden. It will simply not be affordable for anyone -- not single-income families, not dual income families, and certainly not people who live on their own or who have disabilities or live off a pension. You MUST reach a point where a maximum cap is placed on rates for residential properties at least. E.g., once the rates on a property hit (for example) $4,000/year (as they well could do given the proposed increases this option still has) they can't rise anymore. I recognise that rates are one of the only levers Council has to fund local projects, but it is simply not sustainable and I implore the Mayor, LGNZ and NCC overall to protest this necessity vehemently with central Government. Otherwise, it will simply not be possible or desirable to live in Nelson at all in 5-10 years' time. Council must also realise that with these increases, money better be EXCEPTIONIALLY well-budgeted and well-spent. Even desirable projects become wasteful when they go over cost for foreseeable reasons, such as with the busses.
1367.1	Don't want to loose the services but appreciate hugh increases will impact thoe struggling too much so this is the happy medium
1433.1	Rates affordabilityTBCA supports Option 2 – medium service cuts and medium rates increases. Tahunanui property owners have absorbed significant rates increases in recent years. This comes on top of adverse natural processes affecting much of the Tahunanui area such as erosion, slope instability, inundation and sea level rise. This has affected LIM reports and insurance, leaving landowners concerned about Council’s seeming lack of action on resilience and clarity around the way “managed retreat” will affect the value of their properties.