Summary of Arguments for 'None of the Above'

The comments submitted by citizens who selected 'None of the Above' for the issue of 'Rates affordability' reflect a diverse range of concerns and suggestions that do not align neatly with any of the proposed options (Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3). Here is a summary of the key arguments presented in these comments:

1. Alternative Funding and Efficiency: Many residents suggest investigating alternative funding sources other than increasing rates or cutting services. There is a strong call for the council to improve efficiency, particularly by reducing management costs, minimizing wasteful spending on perceived non-essential projects, and enhancing the accountability of spending.

2. Focus on Core Services: Several comments emphasize the need for the council to prioritize core services and infrastructure, especially in light of recent natural disasters and ongoing infrastructure challenges. Citizens express a desire for the council to avoid spending on aesthetic enhancements and non-essential projects.

3. Equitable Financial Strategy: Some residents argue for a more equitable approach to financial planning, suggesting that the burden of cost should not fall disproportionately on current ratepayers or future generations. This includes ideas like more significant contributions from property developers or more targeted use of rates to benefit the areas from which they are collected.

4. Opposition to Specific Projects: There is specific opposition to certain council projects, which residents feel are not justified or are too costly given the current economic climate. These projects are viewed as not aligning with the community's primary needs or as examples of poor financial management.

5. General Dissatisfaction with Council Management: A recurring theme is a general dissatisfaction with how the council manages projects and funds. Residents express frustration over perceived inefficiencies, lack of transparency, and the high cost of council operations that do not seem to deliver proportional benefits to the community.

Debate Argument in Support of 'None of the Above'

Ladies and gentlemen, the feedback from our community clearly indicates a significant disconnect between the proposed options for addressing 'Rates affordability' and the actual desires and concerns of our residents. The choice of 'None of the Above' by a substantial segment of our community is not just a passive rejection but a proactive call for a reevaluation of how our council approaches financial management and community service delivery.

Firstly, our citizens are advocating for a shift towards more sustainable and alternative funding mechanisms that do not overly rely on rate increases or service cuts. This includes a more strategic approach to managing existing resources, reducing inefficiencies, and ensuring that expenditures are truly necessary and beneficial to the community.

Secondly, there is a strong desire for the council to refocus on core services and essential infrastructure, particularly those that directly impact the safety and well-being of our residents. The council must prioritize these fundamental services above aesthetic or non-essential projects, especially in times of financial constraint.

Moreover, our community members are calling for greater equity in financial decisions. This includes fairer distribution of costs and benefits and ensuring that future generations are not unduly burdened by the financial decisions made today.

In conclusion, the support for 'None of the Above' is a clear mandate from our citizens for the council to revisit and realign its strategies with the community's needs. It is a call for transparency, accountability, and a more thoughtful approach to managing the community's resources. As representatives of the people, it is our duty to heed this call and work towards a financial and operational strategy that is both sustainable and reflective of our community's values and priorities.

Comments

ID	Comment
126.1	Investigate alternative funding options to rate payers, to avoid cutting services or increasing rates.
270.1	same rates, same service
282.1	Restructure council to make it a more efficient bussiness. Reduce excessive middle managment costs , co-laberate with private sector to generate more income for council
306.1	i would like council to spend less money on frivolous vanity projects and invest more on key infrastructure such as stormwater upgrades.
359.1	Focus on efficiency
419.1	How about being more efficient with council projects and management. We have all seen the poor use of rate funded facilities such as Miller acre, the new library, Rocks road talkfest and the Green meadows fiasco just to mention a few. Stop shafting us rate payers and run this city our rates money efficiently.
420.1	no service cuts
469.1	Better use of rates paid to keep services but efficiently, less bloat
472.1	For rates affordability I believe medium service cuts and higher rates.  We have to accept that we need to pay as we go more not borrow against future generations.   A way forward is stay with Option 2 but telegraph to everyone that rates will average out at 5% to 8% for the next 10 years.  Need
475.1	keep the services but reduce spending on less needed acquisitions such as outdoor art and uneccessary beautifying.
538.1	no rates increases at all please
614.1	Compensation for red stickered house
651.1	Fewer service cuts and no increase to rates
724.1	You as the Council have a responsibility to act honourably towards these folk that gave been waiting fir reslition from you for more than 18months. Do the right thing like other Councils in NZ and stop this dragging it out, your lack of response is unacceptable.
728.1	Are we focused on the right services?  Provide the core services that we need and get these working efficiently and effectively.  Make them affordable.  In this current cost of living crisis we all need to get back to basics and stop rate increases
729.1	The real issue is WHAT services are being provided and NCC must focus on essential services only and not get side tracked with non-essential nice to have services period.
747.1	Large increase in rates, no service cuts, reduce debt.
750.1	You do not need to cut a thing you just a different approach on solving problems or making things better or more securely.The council have more than enough money already, it's the way the money is spent the problem. Sometime I see roadworks that cost huge amount of money and cause great disruption that do not make any sense.One example is the Motueka st crossing.I do not know how much that job costed to the community.I only know that a zebra crossing made of paint and a plastic bollard would have achieved the same result saving tens of thousands?Also the approach of maintaining parks and all Council green patch of land across the city could be done in a different way.You can cut nonsense plans like the revision of the city speed limits. This city is perfectly safe we do not need to spend millions on make it more secure, as it is already one of the safer small city in the entire planet.We call our city the " smart little city " but sorry what do we do really different from any dumb small, little or big city again?
765.1	I have no idea about the type of services and rate increase
775.1	I am writing to state my opposition to the council’s plan to allocate $24 million to build water and sewerage services for the Mahitahi Bayview plan.  I am against the whole plan for the following reasons: 1          No flood modelling has been done to assess the risk of increased flooding to downstream areas.  I live downstream, very close to the river, in an area that was badly affected by flooding in August 2022.  The council could become liable for compensation should these flood risks be realised.  2          Increased sedimentation of the river is likely to occur when the construction work is started, causing harm to the aquatic life, on which large sums of money have recently been spent on rehabilitation.  3          The quality of the water in the river is likely to be spoiled by pollutants.4          The only road access to the new development will be via Nile St, so there will be a vast increase in the amount of traffic along this road, both during and after the building.  There has been no public consultation regarding this. It seems to me that asking local residents to not only accept the building of the subdivision but also to subsidise it via rates is adding insult to likely injury.
808.1	i am young and this is an issue whaich i ahve not researched thouroughly enough to have an infromed opinion on
853.1	a goal towards inflationary rate increases
874.1	Stick to the core services. We are all struggling to cover household costs without adding big rates increases. Increases should be no more than inflation as that is what most people get in pay increases. Cut jobs at NCC back to what is needed and use less consultants. Make all contractors accountable and also make them stick to quotes as every other business has to.
879.1	I support "Option 4"; property developers paying a greater share of infrastructure costs. They are after all the ones to reap the greatest benefit so why should the rest of us be footing the bill.
888.1	Until the Marina has a "Traffic Plan" for any Development of the Marina it only wastes Rate Payers Money engaging Consultants to create castle in the air.Port Noise and Wood Dust remains a Major Issues, unilateral decreed acceptable levels of both are clearly disingenuous arguments put by th ecombine owners of the Port Nelson Stucture.  Build a baffel Wall to reflect the Port Noise out to sea, to stop the Port noise negatively on the quiet amenity of the area from Tahunianui to the far north of Atawhai .  NOise travels over water, in case you are unaware. Dust requires the wood staks to be spray so mist can reduce the airborn pollution of the area.Argentine Ants have already damaged the properties in Nelson,this is the direct cause of poor ability to control our environment.Other "Developments"  must consider Rate Payers as Councils and Councillors must serve the Local Public not overseas owners.
985.1	Funding/Rates Rises
1116.1	Wow, what a loaded set of options. Where is the option of no rates increases beyond inflation? Or how about more efficiency, a leaner smarter Council so no service cuts and inflation linked rises.
1203.1	more serives and a rates increase
1219.1	I do not believe the current 10 year plan supports what the majority of the North Nelson community want or need but are contributing towards.I'd like to suggest a rating system that allowed for a portion of rates to be allocated back to the area that they were generated from, that supported the wants and needs of that community which could then fund activities/projects that benefit the 'whole district' not just Nelson City - Richmond.  I strongly believe that if we are to retain and grow Nelson City back to a lively town more investment needs to happen in Atawhai - Hira area to counter the Tasman pendulum swing that is destroying Nelson City. Families are crying out for better, safer access to local schools (walking/biking and bus services), retail development opportunities, recreation facilities,  better parks/playareas/sporting areas for everyone.
1221.1	These options do not achieve a balance between intergenerational equity and the level of impost on current residents because they leave future generations with both more debt and greater crises to deal with as the climate worsens.  I therefore support less debt and somewhere in between medium and big service cuts.  Rates should rise accordingly.
1225.1	My Comments include- the above Submissions; and- Council is wrong to look only at the residential rates (and percentage increases of that rate), and instead should consider the whole rating policies, and the effect of differential rating on the commercial operators in the CBD- Although the percentage increase for the immediate forthcoming year is reasonably large (on account of the $300 item re the 2022 storm recovery) Council should be following other local authorities, and should levy even greater rates increases - if in fact Council is not prepared to operate more efficiently and at lower cost for the same services
1250.1	We already pay a significant amount of money for sub standard returns in value. There should be lower rates and better service.
1254.1	the aim should be rates DECREASE. It should be automatic increases every year. Trim unnecessary projects and hold ALL staff and projects accountable for budgets.
1302.1	rates increases on top of the current fiscal environment (extremely inflated mortgage rates and rising cost of living) are unsustainable for most households, currently barely getting by as it is. Council needs to be more controlled and responsible with planned spending, do not punish residents for pevious failed budgets.
1315.1	I do not believe any of the 3 options outlined actually cover my submission.
1343.1	I do not support the extra $300 for 10 years proposal recovery rate.  Even though it will mean an increase in rates, I would prefer that to the precedent which would be set by levying a special payment.
1423.1	Cut spending on exspensive non urgent things(think buses and other such vanity projects)
1451.1	Rate increases have already been higher than average and its been hard to see what those increases have gone to, the public can't afford any increases so the council need to manage their projects better and control contractors overspending
1463.1	These options are too simplistic.
1468.1	The council needs to take a long hard look at how it operates. My dealings and friends dealings over the years have shown just how inefficient and unprofessional the council can be. Costs are ridiculous, time frames are too long, If you disagree with the councils approach you can do nothing - they lay down the law and that's that. The council does not have to be fair or just.Rates keep on increasing at an unprecedented speed. The council comes up with plans to build 40 million dollar libraries that we don't need  or spend millions on a marina that is perfectly fine for the small number of people that use it.
1489.1	the rates are an absolute farce being multiple increases after the poor planing of the council and now we are being charged for the pure incompetence of the council , there are certain / services that the council owns and operates that are just plan taking the piss - the council should put the services out to contractors eg- mowing and garden maintenance to contractors that actually complete the work - not having 6-8 people turn up to sit  there cars or utes and sleep - the way Nelmac operates is plain crazy there is no way they are actually profitable and or effective in providing the service that the rate payers are coping - there would be a cost saving to rate payers if the council actually understood or compeleted audits on the council contracts and actioned them if they underperformed
1492.2	Only essential expenditure to be considered next 3-4 years.