Rates affordability Debate

Economic Benefits - Costs

Option 2

Residents supporting Option 2 generally acknowledge the necessity of moderate rate increases to maintain essential services and infrastructure, recognizing that such investments are crucial for the city's long-term sustainability and attractiveness. Many comments emphasize the importance of efficient and justified allocation of funds, particularly advocating for prioritizing essential infrastructure over non-essential expenditures like art installations or private land developments. There is also a strong sentiment that while rate increases are necessary, they should be managed carefully to avoid placing undue financial burdens on the community, suggesting strategic, long-term financial planning to balance current needs with future obligations.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
54.1	Use smaller buses at times when no one much is using them?
87.1	I am not opposed to rate increases to cover costs but I feel the money shouldn't be spent on projects such as art installations.
550.1	I'm not sure of the current situation with rates on different land use but in my opinion land use or business (ie forestry) that has a high risk of causing damage to council infrastructure should pay higher rates to cover the damage rather than lumping that into general rates rises.
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.
659.1	This is a tough one. My gut feel is we should not be "kicking he can down the road" and delay / cut spending on infrastructure and services.However I'm also aware that I'm probably more comfortable than many, with a good income and no dependents. Hence deciding on option two.
682.1	Also seems to be a lot of wasted spending on various proposals that don't lead to actions.  I'm sure this is an area that money could be saved.
932.1	As a resident of Nelson, I believe that implementing modest rate increases is essential for maintaining the high-quality services we currently enjoy and investing in the long-term future of our city. While rate increases may not be popular, it is important to consider the bigger picture and the potential consequences of failing to make necessary investments.Investing in our infrastructure now is crucial for attracting new residents and retaining our most productive talent. By making these investments, we can create a vibrant and appealing environment that encourages people to choose Nelson as their home. Additionally, delaying infrastructure investments may lead to higher costs in the future, as repairs and replacements become more expensive over time.Implementing modest rate increases is not about unnecessary spending, but rather taking a long-term, fiscally responsible approach to managing our city's resources. By incrementally adjusting rates to keep pace with rising costs, we can avoid sudden, drastic increases in the future that would be more challenging for residents to manage.Ultimately, investing in our city's future creates a stronger foundation for economic growth and prosperity. A well-maintained, attractive city with high-quality services will attract businesses, investors, and residents, generating more revenue and opportunities for our community.
1001.2	1Rates: I support option 2, however, I believe that the timespan of this plan needs to see a comprehensive remodelling of Council funding, in particular regarding fixed infrastructure that is essential. I mentioned this in my submission to Council's last Annual Plan, and still believe that within the term of this government, that change needs to happen. I recommend that Councils talk seriously to the government about this and keep pushing them to act.
1023.1	spend the rates on essential infrastructure and not frills.
1081.1	Within the proposed cuts the halting of the collections inventory / "Re-org" project at Founders'  Park is a false economy. Long term there would be more benefit to completing the project. Completing the project would result in less long term expenditure on remediating damage to the collection from inadequate storage.  Completing the project before the proposed later re evaluation of the direction, name etc of the park would provide better data on what was held in the Council's collection and how it could support any new direction or refresh of exhibitions.
1286.1	Things like deferred maintenance will never be less expensive than if done straight away
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.
1345.1	I question the proposal to allocate $24 million to the Maitai development. The exposure to environmental risk and impacts on infrastructure through Nile Street makes that proposal untenable and a negative impact on community wellbeing.  I do not support the $300 levy for storm damage. This needs a strategic approach that looks beyond the on event the levy supposedly addresses.
1404.1	I do not support spending rates on supporting the private land development in the Kaka valley, Mahitahi.
1479.1	Obviously the focus of investment is a critical variable here. But expenditure increases should be thoroughly justified and the the nature of the mayor's "unrealistic projects" defined and waste of funds minimized.
1482.1	We acknowledge the need for an increase in rates and support the approach of seeking equity in rates, both to reduce disproportionate burdens on low-income families and to minimise deferring major costs to future generations. We also note the impending “bow wave” of renewals applaud Council’s exploration and explanation of the various issues.