Short Summary: Rates Affordability
Issue Overview:
- Nelson City Council faces significant financial challenges, including rising costs due to inflation, high interest rates, and expensive insurance. The council is considering how to adjust financial 'levers'—rates, debt, and capital spending—to manage a $170 million annual service budget and $2.4 billion in assets, while ensuring costs are not unfairly passed to future residents.
Options:
-
Option 1: Fewer service cuts and higher rates increases. This option focuses on maintaining and enhancing current service levels to support community well-being and economic growth, despite having the highest immediate cost to ratepayers.
-
Option 2: Medium service cuts and medium rates increases. This balanced approach aims to maintain essential services and community investments while managing financial pressures and providing some relief to ratepayers.
-
Option 3: Big service cuts and lower rates increases. This option involves significant reductions in council services and projects to minimize rate increases, addressing the high cost of living and financial strain on ratepayers.
Public Opinion:
-
Option 1: Supporters argue for maintaining high service standards to avoid future costs and promote economic growth. They suggest proactive investment in infrastructure and exploring alternative revenue sources to reduce the burden on ratepayers.
-
Option 2: This option has considerable support for its balanced approach. Advocates appreciate the maintenance of essential services and community assets, recognizing the need for strategic financial planning to ensure long-term sustainability without excessive rate increases.
-
Option 3: Proponents emphasize the need for stringent financial management and prioritization of essential services. They advocate for significant cuts to non-essential spending and suggest the council adopt more rigorous budgeting practices similar to those used by residents during economic downturns.
Recommendation:
Given the diverse opinions and the need to balance service maintenance with financial sustainability, Option 2 is recommended. It offers a pragmatic approach that maintains essential services and community investments while managing financial pressures. This option also aligns with the council's strategic goals of ensuring community well-being and long-term financial health. Continuous engagement with the community and transparent financial management will be crucial in implementing this option effectively.
Comments
| Comment | Point ID |
|---|---|
| I think the council has the best interest of Nelson on the table | 7.1 |
| I agree with the option to support both medium service cuts and rates rises. | 12.1 |
| Staff numbers need to be reduced, with a 15% pay cut for staff and councillors. | 28.1 |
| 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. | 35.1 |
| 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. | 40.1 |
| Use smaller buses at times when no one much is using them? | 54.1 |
| 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 | 56.1 |
| 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. | 64.1 |
| Make council works more efficient, stop workers standing around leaning on shovels and only provide services that are absolutely necessary | 77.1 |
| 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! | 81.1 |
| 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. | 87.1 |
| Agree with this option. | 114.1 |
| 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. | 122.1 |
| Investigate alternative funding options to rate payers, to avoid cutting services or increasing rates. | 126.1 |
| Residents cannot afford higher rates | 142.1 |
| on the proviso that we do not stop investing and maintaining our infrastructure, particularly water | 147.1 |
| 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. | 153.1 |
| There is a recession - pension cannot service any rate rise. Surely one trims one's budget and dreams. | 155.1 |
| 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. | 156.1 |
| 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 | 158.1 |
| 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. | 171.1 |
| 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. | 172.1 |
| 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. | 175.1 |
| 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. | 181.1 |
| I would prefer fewer service cuts, but appreciate that this will result in higher rates that will be unaffordable for many. | 184.1 |
| Spendings should reflect everyone in the community, also middle class adults without kids (but maybe animals). | 230.13 |
| 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. | 249.1 |
| same rates, same service | 270.1 |
| dont have a problem with rates increases as long as the money is spent appropriately with an environmentally sustainable long term plan | 275.1 |
| 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 | 282.1 |
| concentrate on infrastructure not cosmetics | 294.1 |
| i would like council to spend less money on frivolous vanity projects and invest more on key infrastructure such as stormwater upgrades. | 306.1 |
| rates are unaffordable for the average household | 326.1 |
| 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. | 330.1 |
| My concerns answered in line with the Nelson paper format .RATE AFFORDABILITY. | 346.2 |
| 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. | 352.1 |
| 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 | 353.1 |
| Focus on efficiency | 359.1 |
| also more user pays | 371.1 |
| 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. | 412.1 |
| 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. | 419.1 |
| no service cuts | 420.1 |
| 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 | 427.1 |
| the ncc offer minimal services as it is, so less isnt going to make much difference | 450.1 |
| Better use of rates paid to keep services but efficiently, less bloat | 469.1 |
| 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 | 472.1 |
| keep the services but reduce spending on less needed acquisitions such as outdoor art and uneccessary beautifying. | 475.1 |
| 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 | 500.1 |
| 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.... | 504.1 |
| I would like to see my rates spent on infrastructure ahead of anything else! | 529.1 |
| 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. | 534.1 |
| no rates increases at all please | 538.1 |
| 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 | 541.1 |
| 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. | 550.1 |
| 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. | 559.1 |
| I do not support an austerity strategy to catch up with deferred core infrastructure upgrades. | 599.1 |
| 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 | 610.1 |
| Compensation for red stickered house | 614.1 |
| More infrastructure investment is needed | 629.1 |
| Fewer service cuts and no increase to rates | 651.1 |
| 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. | 659.1 |
| 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. | 675.1 |
| 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. | 677.1 |
| 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. | 682.1 |
| 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. | 684.1 |
| 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. | 688.1 |
| 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 | 697.1 |
| 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. | 724.1 |
| 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 | 728.1 |
| 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. | 729.1 |
| 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. | 733.1 |
| Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: Comment: | 736.1 |
| Large increase in rates, no service cuts, reduce debt. | 747.1 |
| We the people of Nelson wish to review contracts with Nelmec as they don't have our best interests at heart | 749.1 |
| 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? | 750.1 |
| I have no idea about the type of services and rate increase | 765.1 |
| 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. | 773.1 |
| 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. | 774.1 |
| 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. | 775.1 |
| Rates have already increased exponentially. The council has no business increasing them again, especially with the cost of living. | 778.1 |
| 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. | 785.1 |
| I think you should offer cheaper refuse to rate payers. I also think you should increase commercial rates more than private homes. | 786.1 |
| I want our services to stay intact as we all benefit from them. | 807.1 |
| i am young and this is an issue whaich i ahve not researched thouroughly enough to have an infromed opinion on | 808.1 |
| 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 ?? | 828.1 |
| 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?... | 841.1 |
| 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. | 847.1 |
| It seems you have a reasonably good balance. | 851.1 |
| a goal towards inflationary rate increases | 853.1 |
| 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. | 864.1 |
| 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. | 874.1 |
| 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. | 879.1 |
| 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" . | 881.1 |
| I'm concerned we are deferring investment & maintenance which will end up costing us more in the long run. | 883.1 |
| Use the money to keep composting | 884.1 |
| Keep composting on the long-term plan and use these issues to save money and put it towards environmental initiatives instead! | 885.1 |
| Save Compostin! | 886.1 |
| 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. | 887.1 |
| 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. | 888.1 |
| 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 | 894.1 |
| 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. | 898.1 |
| Keep composting on the long term plan and use the higher rates to pay for it | 923.1 |
| 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. | 932.1 |
| 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. | 933.1 |
| 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. | 939.1 |
| we need to protect our heritage collections need to have), but we dont need more civic art (nice to have)projects . | 940.1 |
| 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. | 948.1 |
| Rates | 952.4 |
| Fewer cuts specifically to community compost. See their submission for why. | 958.1 |
| Option 3 … which requires cutting the cloth to fit must be the one agreed to. | 959.1 |
| would like NCC to continue their support for all environmental services, particularly Nelson’s compost club. | 961.1 |
| Options 2,3 & 4 all are the start of going backwards - the last thing Nelson needs | 963.1 |
| 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. | 977.1 |
| 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!. | 978.1 |
| RATES AFFORDABILITYWhile no one likes higher | 982.1 |
| Funding/Rates Rises | 985.1 |
| 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. | 987.1 |
| 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. | 996.1 |
| 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. | 1001.2 |
| 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. | 1003.1 |
| 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. | 1009.1 |
| 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. | 1017.1 |
| spend the rates on essential infrastructure and not frills. | 1023.1 |
| Thank you for maintaining your investment in sport and recreation across many areas during | 1027.1 |
| 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. | 1028.1 |
| 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. | 1034.1 |
| 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. | 1072.1 |
| Prefer not to double council debt over the space of 10 years | 1074.1 |
| 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. | 1075.1 |
| make this city epic!! And I'll pay | 1076.6 |
| 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. | 1081.1 |
| lets get Nelson pumping again. | 1083.1 |
| 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. | 1085.1 |
| 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? | 1093.1 |
| 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. | 1098.1 |
| 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. | 1100.1 |
| 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 !!!) | 1108.1 |
| 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. | 1116.1 |
| Focus on core activities - Roads / Waste / Public grounds / buildings in their maintenance. | 1124.1 |
| I believe councils should focus on code infrastructure services and work within inflation rate increases only | 1181.1 |
| Infrastructure needs investment | 1190.1 |
| People are at risk of having to leave their homes because of the unaffordability of rates. | 1192.1 |
| Property owners are feeling it, however, the city needs to continue to invest in strategic infrastructure and supporting the future of our community. | 1201.1 |
| more serives and a rates increase | 1203.1 |
| 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. | 1208.1 |
| 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. | 1212.1 |
| 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. | 1216.1 |
| 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. | 1219.1 |
| 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. | 1221.1 |
| 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 | 1225.1 |
| We already pay a significant amount of money for sub standard returns in value. There should be lower rates and better service. | 1250.1 |
| 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. | 1254.1 |
| Start with a full open and transparent review of all council spending and staff numbers. | 1255.1 |
| 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 . | 1257.1 |
| 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 | 1259.1 |
| 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. | 1273.1 |
| 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 | 1278.1 |
| Things like deferred maintenance will never be less expensive than if done straight away | 1286.1 |
| 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. | 1299.1 |
| 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. | 1302.1 |
| 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 | 1313.1 |
| I do not believe any of the 3 options outlined actually cover my submission. | 1315.1 |
| 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. | 1324.1 |
| We have to live within our means effectively you are taking out loans to keep lights on. | 1329.1 |
| I would like a review of the spending, identify wastefulness and cut out those expenses | 1332.1 |
| 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. | 1338.1 |
| 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. | 1343.1 |
| 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. | 1345.1 |
| Don't want to loose the services but appreciate hugh increases will impact thoe struggling too much so this is the happy medium | 1367.1 |
| 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 . | 1373.1 |
| Comment: | 1390.1 |
| I do not support spending rates on supporting the private land development in the Kaka valley, Mahitahi. | 1404.1 |
| Cut spending on exspensive non urgent things(think buses and other such vanity projects) | 1423.1 |
| Support for modest rate and expenditure increases to cover exiting forestry and replanting for recreational purposes | 1425.1 |
| 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. | 1433.1 |
| There is a lot to do in and around Nelson to keep our region smart, viable, safe and attractive. This require funding. | 1438.1 |
| Keep to core services. | 1439.1 |
| 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 | 1451.1 |
| Allow tiny houses as rentals on rural land. | 1461.1 |
| These options are too simplistic. | 1463.1 |
| 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 | 1466.1 |
| 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. | 1468.1 |
| 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. | 1471.1 |
| 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. | 1479.1 |
| 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. | 1482.1 |
| 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 | 1489.1 |
| I support Option 01 (fewer service cuts and higher rates increases). Although the idea | 1491.1 |
| Only essential expenditure to be considered next 3-4 years. | 1492.2 |