Debate Argument in Support of Option 2: Medium Service Cuts and Medium Rates Increases (Council’s Proposal)

Introduction

Option 2, as proposed by the council, seeks to strike a balance between necessary service provision and manageable rate increases. This option has garnered significant support from the community, as evidenced by the comments received. The following points outline the key arguments in favor of adopting Option 2.

Financial Prudence and Community Support

Balanced Approach: Option 2 is seen as the most sensible and balanced approach by many residents. It aims to limit rate increases to a reasonable level while still maintaining essential services and investing in critical infrastructure. This balance is crucial in ensuring that the financial burden on ratepayers is manageable, especially under the current economic pressures.
Community Endorsement: The community's response has been overwhelmingly in favor of Option 2, indicating a broad consensus that this approach aligns with the residents' expectations and financial capabilities. This level of community support is crucial for the successful implementation of any policy.

Service Maintenance and Strategic Investment

Essential Services: Supporters of Option 2 emphasize the importance of continuing to fund critical services, particularly water and wastewater management. These are not just essential for daily living but are crucial for public health and safety.
Strategic Investments: There is a strong call from the community for the council to prioritize investments that promise long-term benefits, such as infrastructure resilience and environmental sustainability. These investments are not only about addressing immediate needs but are also about preparing the city for future challenges.

Economic Diversity and Support: Option 2 allows for continued support of diverse economic activities, including environmental services and community projects that enhance the quality of life in Nelson. This approach helps in fostering a vibrant local economy and supporting low-income and vulnerable groups.
Addressing Cost of Living Pressures: By proposing moderate rate increases, Option 2 acknowledges the current economic strain on households. This consideration is crucial in ensuring that the financial health of the community is not unduly compromised.

Long-term Sustainability

Future-Proofing the Community: The option takes a long-term view by advocating for investments in infrastructure that will serve the community for years to come. This proactive approach is essential in managing future costs and avoiding more significant financial burdens down the line.
Equitable Financial Strategy: There is a recognition that the financial strategy must be equitable. Option 2 proposes a method of spreading the financial load more evenly across the community, which is seen as a fairer approach to handling the economic challenges.

Conclusion

Option 2 represents a thoughtful compromise between maintaining service levels and managing rate increases. It reflects a deep understanding of the community's needs and the economic realities facing the city. The widespread support it has received from residents underscores its viability as a sustainable financial strategy for Nelson. By choosing Option 2, the council can ensure that it continues to provide essential services while also being mindful of the residents' ability to pay, thereby supporting the overall wellbeing and development of the community.

Comments

Option_Selected	Comment
Option 2	I think the council has the best interest of Nelson on the table
Option 2	I agree with the option to support both medium service cuts and rates rises.
Option 2	Use smaller buses at times when no one much is using them?
Option 2	Option 2 seems the only sensible one. Option three is not consistent with what central Government proposed and as the council itself notes in its LTP document, it is hardly likely the new Government will re-negotiate a package which other councils have already adopted.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	Agree with this option.
Option 2	on the proviso that we do not stop investing and maintaining our infrastructure, particularly water
Option 2	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.
Option 2	I would prefer fewer service cuts, but appreciate that this will result in higher rates that will be unaffordable for many.
Option 2	We need to prioritise funding critical infrastructure. Cuts should be made to the nice to have. Water and wastewater are not 'nice to haves' they are critical and must be properly funded.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	My concerns answered in line with the Nelson paper format .RATE AFFORDABILITY.
Option 2	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
Option 2	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.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	More infrastructure investment is needed
Option 2	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.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	I acknowledge costs continue to rise and there is much to be achieved to keep Nelson a healthy, connected community.Thank you for the opportunity to submit my responses to your LTP. I also wish to thank the Council Community Partnership staff who have provided advice and support to the For Purpose sector in an inclusive, collaborative way.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	Rather than spending a lot of money on cycling options through the city, Council should prioritize supporting recreational cycling with the building and maintenance of the cycle trails in the Maitai valley and all the trails in Sharlands and Codgers
Option 2	Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment:
Option 2	We the people of Nelson wish to review contracts with Nelmec as they don't have our best interests at heart
Option 2	I think you should offer cheaper refuse to rate payers. I also think you should increase commercial rates more than private homes.
Option 2	It seems you have a reasonably good balance.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	depending on which services we are talking about for cuts! Services like an extension of the existing marina is frivolous unnecessary in the climate change uncertain weather events to accommodate more rich exclusive people's ever growing demands. This city has limited resources space money for that kind of unsustainable "growth" .
Option 2	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.
Option 2	Rates
Option 2	would like NCC to continue their support for all environmental services, particularly Nelson’s compost club.
Option 2	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!.
Option 2	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.
Option 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.
Option 2	spend the rates on essential infrastructure and not frills.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	Property owners are feeling it, however, the city needs to continue to invest in strategic infrastructure and supporting the future of our community.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	Things like deferred maintenance will never be less expensive than if done straight away
Option 2	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
Option 2	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.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	Don't want to loose the services but appreciate hugh increases will impact thoe struggling too much so this is the happy medium
Option 2	I do not support spending rates on supporting the private land development in the Kaka valley, Mahitahi.
Option 2	Support for modest rate and expenditure increases to cover exiting forestry and replanting for recreational purposes
Option 2	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.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	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.