Rates affordability Debate Table

Group	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Community Wellbeing	Cost of Living (11 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of maintaining high service standards despite the potential for higher rates, arguing that reduced investment now could lead to greater costs and reduced quality of life in the future. They advocate for the continuation of essential services like the Eco Design Advisor, which helps households manage energy and water costs, thereby mitigating financial hardship during cost-of-living crises. Additionally, some suggest exploring alternative revenue sources, such as targeting wealthier individuals or allowing innovative housing solutions like tiny houses on rural land, to alleviate the financial burden on average ratepayers.	Cost of Living (24 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 generally appreciate its balance between maintaining essential services and managing rate increases, recognizing it as a practical approach under current financial pressures. Many express concerns about affordability, particularly for low-income households, and suggest that while the option is a compromise, further financial relief measures or adjustments to spending plans may be necessary to alleviate burdens. There is a consensus that this option, despite its challenges, represents a middle ground that attempts to sustain community wellbeing and service levels without imposing excessive financial strain on ratepayers.	Cost of Living (24 comments) --- Residents overwhelmingly support Option 3 due to the high cost of living, expressing that current economic pressures make it difficult to manage additional financial burdens such as rate increases. Many argue for prioritizing essential services and cutting non-essential spending, suggesting that the council should adopt more stringent budgeting akin to what ordinary citizens are compelled to do during tough economic times. There is a strong sentiment that the council should focus on reducing expenditures and avoid passing financial pressures onto the community, especially when many are already struggling with rising costs in other areas of life.
Community Wellbeing	Culture and Heritage (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of investing in arts and community facilities to enhance cultural engagement and overall community well-being. They advocate for increased environmental monitoring and the maintenance and expansion of public transport and cycling networks, which are seen as vital for sustainable community development. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment for prioritizing funding for heritage collections to preserve cultural identity, while deeming additional civic art projects as less essential.	Culture and Heritage (1 comments) --- The comment highlights concerns about the proposed suspension of the collections inventory project at Founders' Park, emphasizing that completing it now would prevent future costs associated with damage due to inadequate storage. The respondent argues that finishing the project would provide valuable data on the council's collection, which could enhance future decisions about the park's direction and exhibition offerings. Thus, the completion of the project is seen as a more cost-effective measure in the long term, supporting better management and enhancement of cultural and heritage assets.
Community Wellbeing	Equality & Inclusion (4 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of maintaining and enhancing public services, particularly in areas like public transport and sustainability initiatives, which they believe are crucial for community wellbeing. They argue for a more equitable distribution of financial burdens, suggesting higher rates for wealthier landowners and those with properties fully paid off, to alleviate pressure on those less financially secure or with significant mortgages. Additionally, there is a call for creative solutions to reduce costs, such as increased community involvement in services, which could foster greater community engagement and resource efficiency.	Equality & Inclusion (4 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the need for fairness in the distribution of rate increases, particularly to alleviate the burden on low-income households. They advocate for targeted relief measures and the preservation of essential services that are crucial for economically disadvantaged groups. Additionally, there is a call for a more equitable approach in the rating system, suggesting adjustments such as not doubling rates for properties with multiple units and considering higher rates for commercial entities to ease pressure on private homeowners.	Equality & Inclusion (3 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 3 emphasize the need for inclusive spending that reflects the diverse needs of all community members, including middle-class adults with pets, highlighting a desire for equitable consideration in budget allocations. Concerns are raised about the transparency and justification of specific financial policies, such as the postponement of rates on Maori Freehold land, indicating a demand for clearer communication and fair policy implementation. Additionally, there is a strong call for community-wide involvement in planning for climate-related challenges, ensuring that decisions are not disproportionately influenced by wealthier or louder voices, but are inclusive of all community perspectives.
Community Wellbeing	Health (5 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of maintaining and enhancing services that contribute to public health and environmental sustainability. They argue that services like public transport, composting, and the Eco Design Advisor are essential for promoting healthier lifestyles, reducing environmental impact, and preventing financial hardship due to increased living costs. Additionally, maintaining essential infrastructure and services such as public rubbish bins is seen as crucial for ensuring the cleanliness and overall wellbeing of the community.		Health (1 comments) --- The argument supporting Option 3 highlights the severe financial strain residents are experiencing due to rising costs in various sectors, including insurance. This financial pressure has reached a point where basic necessities, such as meals, are being skipped, underscoring the urgency of minimizing additional financial burdens. Therefore, Option 3, which proposes the lowest increase in rates, is favored as it aims to alleviate some of the economic stress on the community, potentially safeguarding their health and overall wellbeing.
Community Wellbeing	Lifestyle & Enjoyment (17 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of maintaining and enhancing public services, such as infrastructure, parks, and recreational facilities, to ensure Nelson remains a vibrant and attractive city. They argue that investing in these areas, despite higher immediate costs, will prevent future financial burdens and support the city's long-term economic and social prosperity. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that reducing services could negatively impact community wellbeing and lifestyle, hindering Nelson's progress towards its goals and making it less desirable for current and future generations.	Lifestyle & Enjoyment (4 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the importance of maintaining and enhancing recreational amenities, such as cycling trails in the Maitai Valley and Sharlands and Codgers, which contribute significantly to their lifestyle and enjoyment. They acknowledge the financial strain of increased rates but value the continued provision of services that make Nelson a desirable place to live, expressing a willingness to find ways to manage these costs. Overall, there is a strong sentiment that paying higher rates is justified by the benefits of preserving community well-being and the quality of life that residents cherish.	Lifestyle & Enjoyment (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 3 believe that the current level of services provided by the council is minimal, and further reductions would not significantly impact their lifestyle and enjoyment. They argue for maintaining essential services like the current library system, suggesting it meets community needs effectively without additional investment. Additionally, they propose utilizing existing empty buildings for new needs instead of embarking on new building projects, indicating a preference for resourcefulness over expansion in the face of financial constraints.
Community Wellbeing	Safety and Security (6 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of continued investment in infrastructure to ensure community safety, resilience, and well-being. They express concerns that reducing maintenance and infrastructure spending could lead to future systemic failures, particularly as the city's population grows. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment against austerity measures for critical infrastructure upgrades, highlighting the need for proactive maintenance to avoid burdening future generations with a deteriorated system.	Safety and Security (6 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the critical need to continue funding and maintaining essential infrastructure, particularly water and wastewater systems, to ensure community safety and security. They acknowledge the financial pressures due to inflation and other economic factors but stress the importance of keeping rate increases moderate while still providing necessary services. Concerns are also raised about the council's current strategies on resilience and managed retreat, highlighting the need for a more strategic approach to address environmental risks and their impact on community wellbeing.	Safety and Security (4 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 3 emphasize the importance of maintaining essential services such as water management, roads, waste, and public infrastructure to ensure community safety and security. They advocate for prioritizing budget cuts in non-essential areas like entertainment and arts, rather than compromising on critical services that affect daily living and community wellbeing. Additionally, there is a strong call for proactive planning to address future challenges such as sea level rise and increased flooding, ensuring that such plans are inclusive and considerate of all community members, not just the more affluent or vocal groups.
Community Wellbeing		Togetherness (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 believe that the council is prioritizing the best interests of the Nelson community by balancing financial management and community services. They appreciate the council's efforts to maintain a healthy, connected community amidst rising costs and recognize the value of the inclusive, collaborative support provided by Council Community Partnership staff to the For Purpose sector. This approach is seen as crucial for fostering community wellbeing and ensuring that the council's actions align with the needs and expectations of the community.	Togetherness (1 comments) --- The argument supporting Option 3 emphasizes the importance of focusing on essential services and involving the community in maintaining and improving local amenities. It suggests that ratepayers should not bear the financial burden for damages caused by commercial activities, advocating instead for a direct charge to those responsible. Additionally, it highlights a desire for less restrictive council policies that would allow community members to actively participate in projects like repairing local trails, fostering a sense of ownership and collective responsibility.
Economic Benefits	Business Opportunities (1 comments) --- The comment strongly emphasizes the critical role that the NRDA plays in supporting and developing the business sector in Nelson, highlighting its significant contributions to local businesses and economic growth. The commenter argues that reducing funding for such essential services would negatively impact both existing and potential new businesses, potentially stalling economic development in the region. Increased funding for the NRDA is advocated as essential to enhance Nelson's economic standing and ensure long-term growth and success.
Economic Benefits	Costs (16 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the necessity of increasing rates to adequately fund infrastructure and services, thereby preventing future financial burdens due to underinvestment. They argue that maintaining and enhancing current service levels is essential for the city's livability and economic growth, highlighting the potential long-term cost savings from proactive investment. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that reducing expenditure now could negatively impact Nelson's economic performance and quality of life, making future remedial actions more costly.	Costs (16 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 generally acknowledge the necessity of moderate rate increases to maintain essential services and infrastructure, recognizing that such investments are crucial for the city's long-term sustainability and attractiveness. Many comments emphasize the importance of efficient and justified allocation of funds, particularly advocating for prioritizing essential infrastructure over non-essential expenditures like art installations or private land developments. There is also a strong sentiment that while rate increases are necessary, they should be managed carefully to avoid placing undue financial burdens on the community, suggesting strategic, long-term financial planning to balance current needs with future obligations.	Costs (20 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 3 emphasize the need for the council to prioritize essential services and infrastructure while cutting back on non-essential expenditures such as arts, entertainment, and external business subsidies. They advocate for more stringent financial oversight, including a comprehensive review of council spending, staff reductions, and more competitive tendering processes to ensure cost-effectiveness. Additionally, there is a strong call for the council to focus on reducing the financial burden on ratepayers, particularly in light of the current cost of living pressures, by managing budget increases strictly within inflation rates and reconsidering the distribution of charges like the storm recovery levy.
Economic Benefits		Employment Opportunities (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 acknowledge its balance between financial responsibility and service maintenance but express concerns about the impact of rate increases on low-income households, emphasizing the need for targeted relief measures. They advocate for the preservation of essential services such as public libraries, which are crucial for economically disadvantaged groups, and stress the importance of making these services accessible and equitable. Additionally, there is a call for the council to prioritize projects that support job creation and provide opportunities for those on low incomes or seeking work, focusing on sectors like affordable housing, education, and climate resilience.
Economic Benefits	Population Growth (3 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of investing in Nelson's growth and development to ensure a thriving future, despite the potential for higher rates. They argue that such investments are crucial at a time when the city faces challenges with an aging population and infrastructure, highlighting the need to foster conditions that attract new generations and support economic vitality. Additionally, there is strong advocacy for maintaining and increasing funding for economic development services, which are seen as vital for attracting and supporting businesses, thereby enhancing the region's economic landscape and opportunities for growth.	Population Growth (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the necessity of modest rate increases to maintain high-quality services and infrastructure, which are vital for attracting new residents and retaining talent in Nelson. They argue that investing in the city's infrastructure and services now will prevent more substantial costs in the future and support economic growth by making Nelson an appealing place to live and work. Despite acknowledging the financial impact on property owners, they believe that continued investment is crucial for the city's long-term prosperity and community support.
Economic Benefits			Productivity (1 comments) --- The resident supporting Option 3 advocates for a thorough examination of council expenditures to identify and eliminate wasteful spending. They suggest that such a review could lead to significant improvements in productivity and financial efficiency for the region. This approach is seen as a way to manage costs effectively while still addressing the needs of the community.
Economic Benefits		Revenue (1 comments) --- The resident supports Option 2, emphasizing that modest rate increases are crucial for maintaining essential services and making strategic investments in Nelson's infrastructure, which are key to the city's long-term prosperity. They argue that investing now will attract new residents and retain talent, creating a vibrant community that boosts economic growth. Additionally, they highlight that timely investments can prevent future financial burdens by avoiding the escalated costs associated with delayed maintenance and infrastructure improvements.	Revenue (1 comments) --- The resident argues that imposing additional storm recovery charges is unfair, especially given the existing financial pressures such as rising rates and other living costs, without corresponding salary increases. They suggest that funding for weather-related events should be the responsibility of the Central Government, as is common in other countries. Additionally, the comment proposes that the Council should cut non-essential expenditures and explore alternative revenue sources like advertising to alleviate the financial burden on the community.
Economic Benefits	Tourism (1 comments) --- The comment highlights the importance of proactive investment in projects like the "Right Tree Right Place" initiative and enhancing access to recreational areas, which are expected to significantly boost the local economy and improve the quality of life. It argues that such investments will attract high-quality residents and tourists, thereby increasing economic activity and social benefits through enhanced recreational facilities. The commenter believes that these investments are essential for long-term economic growth and could help mitigate the impact of rate increases by fostering greater prosperity in the region.
Environmental Benefits	Ecosystems & Biodiversity (1 comments) --- The resident supporting Option 1 emphasizes the critical need to maintain current levels of funding for weed control, biodiversity efforts, and climate change initiatives, highlighting the urgency and irreversibility of environmental and ecological challenges. They argue that while some infrastructure and road marking projects can be deferred without immediate severe consequences, pausing or reducing efforts on environmental fronts would lead to detrimental and potentially irreversible impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. The comment underscores the belief that proactive environmental conservation is essential and should not be compromised, as the long-term costs and ecological damage of inaction would burden future generations.
Environmental Benefits	Sustainability (15 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of maintaining and enhancing services that contribute to environmental sustainability, such as composting, environmental monitoring, and public transport infrastructure. They argue that investing in these areas, despite higher rates, is crucial for long-term environmental health and sustainability. Additionally, they highlight the need for responsible financial planning that does not defer costs to future generations, advocating for immediate investment in sustainable practices and infrastructure to avoid greater future costs and environmental impact.	Sustainability (3 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the need for increased infrastructure investment to enhance the sustainability and resilience of community assets. They argue against allocating resources to projects like marina extensions, which they view as unsustainable and catering to wealthier demographics, especially in the context of climate change and limited city resources. Additionally, there is a strong call for continued support of environmental services, highlighting the importance of initiatives like Nelson’s compost club to the community’s environmental health.	Sustainability (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 3 emphasize the importance of prioritizing essential infrastructure projects that ensure the sustainability and functionality of the city's core systems, rather than focusing on aesthetic enhancements. They advocate for proactive planning to address the challenges posed by sea level rise and increased flooding, stressing the need for community-inclusive strategies that do not solely depend on constructing larger sea defenses. This approach is seen as crucial to avoid burdening current and future ratepayers with unsustainable financial and environmental costs.
Operational Considerations		Legal and Regulatory Compliance (1 comments) --- The resident supports Option 2 as it aligns with central government proposals, ensuring consistency in policy execution across different levels of government. This option is perceived as the most sensible and feasible under the current circumstances, particularly because it adheres to the frameworks and agreements already accepted by other councils. The choice of Option 2 is also seen as a way to maintain legal and regulatory compliance, avoiding potential conflicts or renegotiations that could arise from diverging from established government directives.
Operational Considerations	Stakeholder Engagement (1 comments) --- The comment supporting Option 1 reflects a strong trust in the council's expertise and decision-making capabilities, emphasizing the importance of investing in the community's future well-being and resilience. The resident acknowledges their own lack of specific knowledge in municipal activities but is willing to support higher rates if it means maintaining high service standards and proactive community development. This perspective highlights a readiness to accept increased financial contributions for the sake of long-term benefits and legacy for the city of Nelson.	Stakeholder Engagement (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 express concerns about the alignment of contractor interests with community needs, suggesting a review or renegotiation of contracts to ensure they are in the best interest of the community. They also highlight the need for targeted financial relief for lower-income households and demand greater transparency regarding which services might be reduced, emphasizing the importance of maintaining essential services like public libraries. Additionally, there is a call for prioritizing projects that support job creation and provide essential services to diverse and economically challenged communities, stressing the importance of equitable access to community resources.
Operational Considerations			Technical Feasibility (1 comments) --- The commenter advocates for a more stringent approach to managing council expenditures by emphasizing the prioritization of essential services such as water, wastewater, stormwater, and roads. They suggest that the council should enhance cost-efficiency by aggressively tendering all services and scrutinizing existing contracts, particularly highlighting the need for a review of traffic management costs and contractor arrangements. Additionally, the commenter criticizes the long-term planning approach, arguing that it often leads to unnecessary spending without incentives for cost reduction, thereby impacting the technical feasibility and operational considerations of council activities.