Argument in Support of Option 3: Big Service Cuts and Lower Rates Increases
Introduction: The local council faces a challenging financial landscape marked by rising costs due to inflation, high interest rates, and increased insurance costs. In response, three options have been proposed to manage the financial pressures while considering the impact on the community. Option 3, which advocates for significant service cuts with lower rates increases, has garnered substantial support from the community, as evidenced by the comments received. This argument will outline the reasons why Option 3 is the preferred choice for many residents.
1. Financial Sustainability and Affordability: Many residents express concerns about the rising cost of living, which includes increased expenses for essentials such as food, petrol, and insurance. The sentiment is clear: the community is reaching a financial breaking point. Option 3 addresses these concerns by proposing lower rates increases, which would alleviate some of the financial burdens on households. As one resident pointed out, "Rates have already increased exponentially. The council has no business increasing them again, especially with the cost of living."
2. Prioritization of Essential Services: Comments strongly suggest a desire for the council to focus on core services and infrastructure, rather than non-essential projects. Residents are calling for a reduction in spending on "nice-to-haves" like cycleways, entertainment, and arts, and instead prioritizing essential services such as roads, waste management, and public grounds. This reflects a pragmatic approach to budgeting, where essential needs are met without overextending financial resources on less critical projects.
3. Efficient Use of Resources: There is a notable call for increased efficiency within council operations. Suggestions include more competitive tendering processes, reducing staff numbers, and cutting salaries for staff and councillors to reflect the economic realities faced by constituents. By focusing on efficiency and cutting unnecessary expenditures, the council can better manage its finances and reduce the need for higher rates.
4. Community Involvement and Transparency: Residents are advocating for more involvement in decision-making processes and greater transparency in how funds are allocated. This includes suggestions for community participation in maintenance activities and a thorough review of council spending. By engaging the community and enhancing transparency, the council can build trust and ensure that expenditures align with the public's priorities.
5. Long-term Financial Health: Supporters of Option 3 recognize the importance of not burdening future generations with unsustainable debt. By making tough decisions now, such as cutting non-essential services and focusing on financial sustainability, the council can ensure a stable financial future. This approach is seen as necessary to prevent long-term financial crises that could arise from continued high spending.
Conclusion: Option 3, which proposes significant service cuts coupled with lower rates increases, aligns with the community's urgent calls for financial prudence, prioritization of essential services, and increased efficiency in council operations. It offers a balanced approach that addresses immediate financial pressures while ensuring the long-term sustainability of council finances. This option not only reflects the community's current economic realities but also respects their desire for a governance approach that is both responsible and responsive to their needs.
Comments
| Option_Selected | Comment |
|---|---|
| Option 3 | Staff numbers need to be reduced, with a 15% pay cut for staff and councillors. |
| Option 3 | Council was given a way to keep our rates reasonable and for us to have the three waters taken care of to keep us all safe and to ensure a clear process to affordability. Our council let us down. However, Simeon Brown has stated that the three water management which is now council's responsibility will not increase rates. |
| Option 3 | Council is not unique in being affected by inflation and recession. You need to tackle this like the rest of us do, not pass the buck by increasing the rates.I urge zero rates increase.Cuts such as less lawnmowing should be understood also as contributing |
| Option 3 | Make council works more efficient, stop workers standing around leaning on shovels and only provide services that are absolutely necessary |
| Option 3 | The cost of living is far to high to be able to afford much at all. Contractors need to be held accountable for their budgets and increases! |
| Option 3 | The cost of everything has risen so much lately, the option 1 or 2 increases don't sound like a huge amount on their own but I'm already paying over $100/month MORE in insurances compared to last year and I just don't know where I'm expected to find the extra money required. I'm at the point now I often skip evening meals because it's too expensive. |
| Option 3 | Residents cannot afford higher rates |
| Option 3 | There has been a large amount of unnecessary work carried out by the council over the last few years. There needs to be a way of monitoring this more effectively, as currently the way the council spends money is not in the best interests of the majority of Nelson residents. |
| Option 3 | There is a recession - pension cannot service any rate rise. Surely one trims one's budget and dreams. |
| Option 3 | people are struggling so much now with high costs of food, petrol, insurance etc and many are at breaking point. Reduce your spending and only put funds into necessary things. |
| Option 3 | Make Cuts - Reduce spending on uneeded cycle ways/speed bumps - I respect some of this is central government but stop adding costs for things that arent needed |
| Option 3 | Big service cuts need to be made only to specific areas - 'nice-to-haves' -e.g. cycleways, entertainment, arts, consultants; not to essentials such as roading, housing. |
| Option 3 | Spendings should reflect everyone in the community, also middle class adults without kids (but maybe animals). |
| Option 3 | concentrate on infrastructure not cosmetics |
| Option 3 | rates are unaffordable for the average household |
| Option 3 | the ncc offer minimal services as it is, so less isnt going to make much difference |
| Option 3 | Our rates have gotten out of control.....Im not happy to see that Nelson Council plans to spend 24 million of our rate payers money on the Mahitahi Bayview subdivision.... |
| Option 3 | I would like to see my rates spent on infrastructure ahead of anything else! |
| Option 3 | Slash non necessary expenditure such as spending 1.7m on an arts hub,subsidising outside businesses such as N Z cricket to operate in Nelson,running concerts which should be run by promoters not paid for by ratepayers |
| Option 3 | I would like to see the role of the Council return to basics of infrastructure spending first. To let businesses promote themselves rather than the rate payers promote businesses through their rates |
| Option 3 | Looking at our estimated rates online for the following year, which includes the $300. It would mean a 16.6% increase. Its almost becoming unaffordable. In the middle of the cost of living crises you are proposing the biggest increase. Just like we all having reduce our wants, the council should be doing the same. |
| Option 3 | Rates have already increased exponentially. The council has no business increasing them again, especially with the cost of living. |
| Option 3 | Option 3 is my preferred option, not necessarily cutting back work programs, as those that you quote but withdrawing some of the more "major" projects that cost in the millions which I will cover later in the appropriate section You have to cut down somewhere as there are a lot of us residents who may not necessarily be struggling but are finding it difficult to get by. (and what about the "Postponement of rates on Maori Freehold land) What is this all about ?? |
| Option 3 | rates are already high, and everything is expensive. Reducing service costs to keep rates down means I can pay bills, mortgage, feed my whānau, etc. |
| Option 3 | Council should focus on the needs and not the wants. Rate payers should pay for what they use - we should not have to pay for the repair of roads and damage to infrastructure caused by heavy trucks and forestry slash. Charge the commercial operators / industries causing the damage. Ratepayers are paying 3 times - once in additional rates, in additional taxes (being diverted from other areas), and again in insurance premiums. Encourage rather than discourage the community to keep their city clean. Allow people to participate by way of community work - the Council cannot do everything on their own. As an example, the trail around Banford Park has been cordoned off for well over a year. People are willing and able to repair it - let them! Just put up a sign advising people to be cautious. Its dragconian and arrogant to stop people from wanting to help make Nelson a better place. |
| Option 3 | Option 3 … which requires cutting the cloth to fit must be the one agreed to. |
| Option 3 | the comercial ratepayers ar beg charged too much at 22.6% of the total rates take. The CBD rates at around 3 times the residential rate is far to high particularly as it was primarily set to pay for parking which is getting taken away over timeThere should be a reduction for those properties affected by the Market in Montgomery Square.THE FLOOD RECOVERY LEVEY SHOULD ONLY BE APPLIED TO THE RESIDENTIAL RATEPAYERS. NOT COMERCIAL. |
| Option 3 | Lets keep the current library. It works. Place a hold on all building projects. There are more empty buildings around Nelson with a drop in retail, can we not utilize these in some way if there is a need? |
| Option 3 | Focus on core activities - Roads / Waste / Public grounds / buildings in their maintenance. |
| Option 3 | I believe councils should focus on code infrastructure services and work within inflation rate increases only |
| Option 3 | People are at risk of having to leave their homes because of the unaffordability of rates. |
| Option 3 | I would like the Mayor to initiate a line by line investigation into council expenditure with a view to reducing waste and non productive expenditure. It is clear from the Annual Report that there have been funding provisions that are wasteful and not resulting in productivity improvements for the region. |
| Option 3 | Start with a full open and transparent review of all council spending and staff numbers. |
| Option 3 | Everyone wants value for money. inflation is hitting hard, in hard times the focus must remain on core services versus the nice to haves on the peripheral of council responsibilities. That said granted Nelson/Tasman region is growing at a rapid rate of knots, with ageing infrastructure, more cost for infrastructure upgrades, roading, schools etc onto the developers not the rate payer to fix long after the developer exited and the problems arise . |
| Option 3 | I feel that it is extremely unfair and unjustified to add the additional $300 per year for the next 10 years for storm recovery charges on us. The rates are already going up and so are the other expenses for us like insurance, mortgage, food prices, etc. whereas the salaries have not increased. Given the weather changes and chances of similar rain events in the future, would mean adding these recovery charges every time such an event happens which would be unfair. The funding for such weather events should come from the Central Government as is the norm in most other countries. On the other hand, the Council must cut wasteful expenditures like flower baskets in the city and spending over $100,000 per year on these. These are not essential at this stage and the Council must look at doing away with these expenses whilst there are much more important issues and expenses to deal with. Furthermore, the council should look at earning revenue from other sources like advertising, etc. to supplement the income |
| Option 3 | Core service need to be maintained, and we need to have a plan in place for how the city is going to survive with the expected sea level rise and increased floods. This needs to happen before plans are developed for revitalising the city. What land will we have available, what areas will we need to retreat from? Locking current and future ratepayers into the need to build bigger and better sea wall/defences is not the answer, and ignoring this issue until the future is also not acceptable. This needs to be done with the community onside, and not just those that have more money or shout louder. |
| Option 3 | We have to live within our means effectively you are taking out loans to keep lights on. |
| Option 3 | I would like a review of the spending, identify wastefulness and cut out those expenses |
| Option 3 | NCC Councillors are like Board of Directors and are responsible for balancing expenditure with income and the measure of efficiency is by holding rates down for its stakeholders (the Ratepayer )A quote I use.It is much easier to become distracted by unimportant matters than it is to deal with important ones. Important matters require effort, time and thought . If you don't focus on the right issues with the right order of priority you end when the original issue you were meant to fix reaches breaking point . All about over spending .Council needs to cut cost by being more aggressive on supply of services and more tendering versus preferred contactors . Tender everything . Look closely at its costing from Nelmac. Look at the cost of Traffic Management and approach Govt to review the ridiculous requirements. Room does not allow me to list . Council needs to concentrate on the 4 main services of providing water, wastewater, stormwater and roads .Long term plans give staff a false guide as to what they can spend not concentrating on how they can save it or do without .The excuse is its in the plan .I have had this many times quoted to me . No incentive to reduce cost . |
| Option 3 | Keep to core services. |
| Option 3 | For those homeowners on a fixed income the current rates increases are unsustainable. Getting to the stage where selling up is the only option. Anything over the current inflation rate is out of the question. |