Debate Argument in Support of Option 1: Fewer Service Cuts and Higher Rates Increases

Introduction

The debate on how to address the financial challenges faced by our council is critical. Option 1, which proposes fewer service cuts and higher rates increases, has garnered significant support from the community. This option is seen as a proactive approach to maintaining and enhancing the services and infrastructure that are vital to Nelson's future.

Argument Points

Investment in Infrastructure and Services
Many residents recognize that past underinvestment in infrastructure is now "coming back to bite" the community. There is a strong sentiment that increasing rates is necessary to address this infrastructure deficit and to future-proof the city.
Comments highlight the importance of maintaining high standards in service and infrastructure to avoid future costs and problems. The community is willing to accept higher rates to ensure that essential services such as environmental monitoring, public transport, and community facilities are not only maintained but improved.
Sustainability and Long-term Planning
Supporters of Option 1 emphasize the need for an environmentally sustainable long-term plan. There is a call for increased funding for climate change strategic planning and other sustainability initiatives, recognizing that these are investments in the city’s future health and resilience.
The community shows a readiness to invest in projects that will enhance Nelson’s livability and sustainability, understanding that these efforts will benefit current and future generations.
Community Wellbeing and Economic Development
The feedback indicates a strong desire to support community wellbeing through continued investment in public services. This includes maintaining funding for economic development services which are seen as crucial for attracting and supporting businesses in the region.
There is also a significant push for maintaining funding for community projects like composting, which not only contribute to sustainability but also to community resilience and wellbeing.
Equitable Financial Contributions
Some residents suggest more creative financial solutions, such as higher rates for those who are more financially able, to ensure that the financial burden is shared more equitably across the community.
This approach is seen as a way to manage the financial impact on the broader community while still ensuring necessary funds for critical services and infrastructure.

Conclusion

The support for Option 1 reflects a community that values foresight and responsibility. Residents recognize the importance of adequately funding services and infrastructure now to avoid greater costs in the future. There is a clear willingness to accept higher rates if it means securing a more sustainable, resilient, and thriving Nelson. This option aligns with the community's desire to not only maintain but enhance the quality of life in the city, ensuring that Nelson remains a vibrant and attractive place to live for generations to come.

Comments

Option_Selected	Comment
Option 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.
Option 1	There is no pride in having one of the lower rates increases in NZ- it just means that Council has less opportunity to provide services. Given that during COVID, Nelson had a zero rate increase, I believe that NCC is behind the ball in terms of its rates take, given the services it needs to deliver its community.
Option 1	Investing in the growth and development of Nelson is important. People will complain about rates no matter what they are. Just increase them and take it on the chin, people will deal with it. If they can afford a house in Nelson, they can afford a rates increase.
Option 1	dont have a problem with rates increases as long as the money is spent appropriately with an environmentally sustainable long term plan
Option 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.
Option 1	also more user pays
Option 1	Within reason I support the Council to make the right decisions when it comes to investing in our community so it can be safe, healthy, resilient and thrive. I am interested in leaving a positive legacy for Nelson and understand that this will need me to invest. I don't have the knowledge or experience to dictate what activity is required to meet these goals and trust council staff and elected members to make the right decisions on my behalf.
Option 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
Option 1	I particulary support increased environmental monitoring and maintenance of key infrastructure, maintainance and increase of public transport and cycling network and investment in arts and community facilities
Option 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.
Option 1	I do not support an austerity strategy to catch up with deferred core infrastructure upgrades.
Option 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.
Option 1	With a city at the crossroads of an aging population, aging infrastructure and the need to foster the spark of investment in the next generation of Nelsonian's, now seems like the time invest and prepare for a thriving city. not just keep the lights on.
Option 1	There is a danger in cutting back infrastructure provision and maintenance. Eventually this will catch up on the city and future generations will have to deal with a broken system. This is particularily relevant as the city continues to increase in population.
Option 1	Community Compost is actively work to divert food and garden waste from landfills to sequester carbon through healthy soils. In addition, they create living compost to feed into regenerative food systems that promote local and regenerative food production, cultivate community resilience and food security, and support people's physical and mental well-being. Community Compost and Compost Club have been collecting food waste from homes and businesses for the past seven years, and they don't want to stop just because of the newly elected official's legislation changes. I believe that fewer service cuts, like compost, is the best decision for the council to make. Composting will also not increase rates for households and individuals so this is just not true. Please save composting.
Option 1	I want our services to stay intact as we all benefit from them.
Option 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?...
Option 1	I'm concerned we are deferring investment & maintenance which will end up costing us more in the long run.
Option 1	Use the money to keep composting
Option 1	Keep composting on the long-term plan and use these issues to save money and put it towards environmental initiatives instead!
Option 1	Save Compostin!
Option 1	Maintaining essential infrastructure that supports urban intensification, climate action and environmental projects, community organisations and facilities is essential to the health and wellbeing of current and future generations.
Option 1	Specifically not cutting community compost’s funding from the LTP (See more info/thoughts in last section) However, things like the infrastructure cost contribution to the mahitahi bayview subdivision could be cut as it shows councils support of said subdivision when that money could be used for other more future focused and thought out projects like composting and many others which won’t be a ticking time bomb waiting to cost much more in future flood events which as i’m sure you are aware we are currently still recovering from financially with this 300$ storm recovery per household on top of rates which I understand the cost is too big for council to pull out of thin air and make more debt. But, we don’t want to support projects that will set us up for more events like this. We need well thought out options like higher density housing in non-flood prone places as is now allowed for as of the last long term plan in some areas, not a money driven subdivision in a recently flooded area because no matter how much money is spent on drainage systems the mighty maitai will have the final say lets be real. The evidence can be seen from around the motu here in aotearoa and overseas like we have just seen in dubai. Also not only flood prone but of great recreational, cultural and ecological value the maitai valley would be forever changed by a whole subdivision. So I would support the mahitahi subdivision infrastructure cost being removed from the long term plan irrelevant of if the developers would likely pay it back. I would also hope NCC would do everything in their power to stop this subdivision as it will be NCC that would have to cover the costs of future flooding that would be much higher if said subdivision goes ahead, even if current councillors will have passed away or be out of council when the next flood happens. Also if possible i would love to see higher rates increases on people who have payed off their mortage for the property the rates are for, rather than the same for a first home buyer with a large mortgage and a 5+ properties investor with no mortages and lots of rental income
Option 1	I think some of the options for cutting the budgets are sensible, e.g. road marking, etc. However I strongly support retaining the current provisions for weed control, all biodiversity work, and action on climate change. Infrastructure can be fixed later, and markings on roads can as well. But weeds grow, biodiversity continues to decline, and we face both a biodiversity and climate crisis. We can't pause action on those as we pass the costs of them onto future generations otherwise, and face losing critical ecosystems, habitats, and potentially irreversible outcomes result.
Option 1	Keep composting on the long term plan and use the higher rates to pay for it
Option 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.
Option 1	we need to protect our heritage collections need to have), but we dont need more civic art (nice to have)projects .
Option 1	As mentioned above it is presumed that the Eco Design Advisor service is proposed as a service cut under Option 2 to maintain rates affordability. We agree that affordability is a key issue and critical to get right to ensure households in Nelson City are not pushed into financial hardship especially during a cost-of-living crisis. Financial hardship is often linked with a sacrifice of winter heating resulting in unhealthy indoor environments which can lead to poor health outcomes (particularly respiratory illness).Removing the FREE Eco Design Advisor service removes a key support function for households to understand and reduce their energy consumption and alleviate household energy costs. Most Eco Design Advisors also provide advice to support households to reduce their water consumption and in turn reduce water costs. Eco Design Advisors can be empowered with meter data to support their visits and target water efficiency advice where water consumption flags exist.By removing this service, the Council removes a key support function for households to reduce their operational costs exacerbating affordability.Eco Design Advice provided for new build projects supports residents and developers to achieve more energy efficient housing which is resilient to a changing climate. Improved energy efficiency outcomes result in less energy and emissions over the life of the asset. This has the potential to mitigate affordability issues for future generations.
Option 1	Fewer cuts specifically to community compost. See their submission for why.
Option 1	Options 2,3 & 4 all are the start of going backwards - the last thing Nelson needs
Option 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.
Option 1	RATES AFFORDABILITYWhile no one likes higher
Option 1	It is absolutely vital for the region that we see increased funding for Economic Development services via the team at NRDA. They provide an essential service to the region and to see this removed would be catastrophic for current and future businesses looking to be established here or move here. Fiona and the team are one of our big draw cards to investment into our business sector and seeing the region grow. As a business that has worked with the NRDA team over many years and winner of the Nelson Tasman Chamber Supreme Business award last year I can not over state how significant the NRDA has been for us.The work done in Blue Economy by the NRDA with Moananui and the work done assisting Nelson business to utilise govt funding such as Callaghan innovation and advocacy into Callaghan and other funding options with a Nelson/Tasman voice has been beyond valuable for Snap and many other companies I interact with. The work in advocacy for businesses to reloate to Nelson and the economic insight work has also been invaluable. I advocate for increased funding and to hear that there may be a reducting in funding for this essential purpose is frankly disappointing. I urge you to consider an increase to see Nelson lift it's ranking in economic development and grow with a long term vision.
Option 1	I would prefer no service cuts and in fact an increase to public services, particularly support for public transport. It would be best if the rates could be further bracketed to take larger fees from wealthier land-owners, if this is within the council's power.
Option 1	I would in fact very much prefer an increase to public services - particularly that for public transport. It would also be best if the rates could be further bracketed to take larger amounts from our wealthier residents - if it would be possible for the council to do so.
Option 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.
Option 1	Thank you for maintaining your investment in sport and recreation across many areas during
Option 1	Although many Nelsonians are currently grappling with the cost of living crisis, I worry that lowering services will derail Nelson's long term goals and objectives. We have a lot of work to do before we can really call ourselves: 'The Smartest Little City,' we have a CBD that lacks vibrancy and we're losing businesses to the Tasman region. Revitalising the CBD is going to take a lot of resources before we can have a bustling city centre. We do not have a curbside composting solution, diverting food waste is one of the easiest and most effective way to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Becoming a more sustainable community, with a more developed CBD will make Nelson a more desirable place to live, but will require investment.
Option 1	Prefer not to double council debt over the space of 10 years
Option 1	I am very sympathetic to the challenges the Council are facing and respect that difficult choices need to be made.At the same time, I am concerned about the cost of inaction that continues to impact our city. The opportunity cost of historical under investment in civic infrastructure is enormous and I am particularly keen to see us tackle that deficit to ensure we stay relevant and arrests the decline in the appeal of our city for young people.
Option 1	make this city epic!! And I'll pay
Option 1	lets get Nelson pumping again.
Option 1	I would be happy to see some cuts in services, but I support keeping rates high enough to comfortably cover our environmental needs, for example environmental monitoring and activity such as weed control, environmental restoration, bike paths, etc.
Option 1	squeeze the mega wealthy if possible, lobby central government. Ratepayers are not all wealthy, however winding down society is not a solution. I'd rather we crashed at full speed than wound down - easier to keep momentum that way.
Option 1	I am disappointed to see that you are removing public rubbish bins. I think this is short-sighted and will lead to more rubbish around the city. We do need rubbish bins that rubbish cant blow out of. Happy however to finally see some recycling bins around town. (Good to see that we are finally realising that we are now in the 21st century. Now we just need to recycle it instead of people wasting precious time to sort and wash rubbish only for it to end up in landfill !!!)
Option 1	Infrastructure needs investment
Option 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.
Option 1	Ensuring that we have enough money to maintain our infrastructure and continue to move towards achieving climate change emission targets will pay off in the long run.
Option 1	The city needs to be maintained to a certain standard to ensure the community feels proud and respectful towards their environment. If council doesn't respect the environment then the community won't
Option 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.
Option 1	Comment:
Option 1	There is a lot to do in and around Nelson to keep our region smart, viable, safe and attractive. This require funding.
Option 1	Allow tiny houses as rentals on rural land.
Option 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
Option 1	I support Option 01 (fewer service cuts and higher rates increases). Although the idea