Rates affordability Debate
Economic Benefits - Costs
Option 1
Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the necessity of increasing rates to adequately fund infrastructure and services, thereby preventing future financial burdens due to underinvestment. They argue that maintaining and enhancing current service levels is essential for the city's livability and economic growth, highlighting the potential long-term cost savings from proactive investment. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that reducing expenditure now could negatively impact Nelson's economic performance and quality of life, making future remedial actions more costly.
Table of comments:
| Point No | Comment |
|---|---|
| 40.1 | Maybe we have been paying too low rates for too long and that has led to the lack of investment in infrastructure that is now coming back to bite Nelson. |
| 352.1 | Rates must increase to reduce our infrastructure deficit. The time for future proofing is now, lest our children inherit even larger problems to deal with. |
| 427.1 | Costs of investing, painting and operating council services have demonstrably increased in recent years, this needs to equate to increased rates. While I agree their should be a focus on core council services, particularly infrastructure related, there is a risk we let key infrastructure depreciate and miss council services that increase the livability of Nelson. Reducing rates below a level which can effectively manage current infrastructure, is kicking the can down the road and placing more financial burden on future generations |
| 534.1 | Support option 1 - maintaining and improving current services and standards. Noone wants a rates increase, however it's critical we appropriately fund infrastructure and invest in the thriving region we all desire. It's not acceptable or responsible to defer and pass on costs to the next generation. Support the recommendations which emerged from the Review into the Future of Local Government (Future for Local Government Review - dia.govt.nz), particularly those pertaining to funding. Would like to see NCC advocate for the implementation of these recommendations, including increasing central government funding. This will relieve pressure on rate payers. |
| 733.1 | There are a number of very important projects that require Nelson city to make bold moves with expenditure in order to significantly improve the local economy and living quality of the city. In particular I am talking about the "Right Tree Right Place" Project, which provides an opportunity to reduce the negative impacts of clear felling close to the city while also bolstering the long term recreational resources in the NCC owned forests, which in turn dovetails nicely with investing in a significant long term contact with Ngati Koata for recreational access to the treasure trove of mountain biking and walking trails in the region. The ongoing economic and social benefits from further bolstering this incredible recreational asset which attracts high quality residents and visitors from around the World will further bolster the local economy as highlighted in the recent BERL report update. Although not a significant option presented in the LTP, the combination of these two initiatives also necessitates a significant increase in the investment in mountain biking, walking and cycling infrastructure and trails across the region to further multiply the economic and social benefits of the existing world-class facilities. Focusing too heavily on reducing expenditure could seriously negatively impact the local economy which already is reported as one of the worst in the country in regular regional economic comparisons, not investing in tourism and hospitality supporting initiatives would be short sighted, especially with the current very low economic value of export pine at the moment. Ultimately investing in the future economic growth of the region through intiatives such as the Right Tree Right Place project and negotiating long term access to the Ngati Koata owned mountain bike and recreational areas will help grow the local economy and eventually provide greater prosperity which can potentially offset rates increases. |
| 841.1 | The services council provides are important. We also need to keep investing in infrastructure and ramping this up more.I also want to see more money spent on sustainability initiatives such as our public and active transport infrastructure.Rates decreases will also end up favouring those who already have money (own property), not those who really need the extra money the most. That said, I think we also need to be more creative with how we spend money and use resources. e.g Could there be more community involvement/volunteering to save council spending money on labour?... |
| 883.1 | I'm concerned we are deferring investment & maintenance which will end up costing us more in the long run. |
| 933.1 | Rates have been kept too long in the past, resulting in insufficient investment in the infrastructure and services that we need. If rates aren't increased sufficiently now, that will result in problems down the track when the effects of the underinvestment are felt. |
| 940.1 | we need to protect our heritage collections need to have), but we dont need more civic art (nice to have)projects . |
| 977.1 | Caping maintenance at current rates for three waters especially for stormwater management is unwise as ongoing maintenance is essential to prevent future more costly problems.Caping maintenance for serious weeds is also pragmatic if it allows them to seed and spread increasing future costs. |
| 977.1 | Caping maintenance at current rates for three waters especially for stormwater management is unwise as ongoing maintenance is essential to prevent future more costly problems.Caping maintenance for serious weeds is also pragmatic if it allows them to seed and spread increasing future costs. |
| 1017.1 | Support fewer service cuts and higher rates. An example of not increasing parks contracts for inflation is delayed service. If a water tap leaks and requires a plumber and that plumber is delayed due to after hours or weekend non availability, the cost to City Council would also include 1000s of litres of wasted running water, and the cost to fix the tap when the plumber is available.Also, rates haven't got to the degree of separation: residential, commercal, industrial. |
| 1074.1 | Prefer not to double council debt over the space of 10 years |
| 1208.1 | While I acknowledge that recent financial pressures are difficult they will not be permanent and with the nature of financial cycles and Nelson being a reliable and consistent producer in many different sectors I believe that less money and effort put in now will needlessly hamper progress and quality of living in Nelson within the next 10 years. A dollar not gathered a spent now will be multitudes more expensive to catch up to later. |
| 1299.1 | Firstly, I am concerned that cutting important maintenance and infrastructure services and upgrades could lead to even higher costs in the future. We still need to spend the money now if required. I support rates increases when the money is used wisely. I also support the council to push back when the government makes changes to legislation that create unrealistic and inefficient use of finances.I value access to our reserves and parks and would like to see the current services retained. Nelson has a beautiful natural landscape. In relation to road services, I support the most efficient use of funds including reducing frequency of road marking and resealing projects which cause no harm and do not need to be done. For example, Seaton Street, where I live was resealed last year even though there was nothing wrong with it. |
| 1466.1 | The most affordable time to act is now, we can't delay projects or cut maintenance and services. It will cost more in the long-run |