This week, after four days of deliberation on the long-term-plan (2025-34), Dunedin city councillors added $96.9m of more debt to the books for the next nine years.
This included money for transport projects that would help to reduce carbon emissions ($64.44m), replacing the Edgar Centre’s roof ($15m) and theatre space development ($17.1m).
Running a balanced budget from the first year of the plan, instead of posting another deficit, pushed the rates rise from 10.5% to 10.7%.
Cr Lee Vandervis was absent from the final two and a-half days of deliberation due to "long-scheduled" hip replacement surgery.
However, in an email sent to fellow councillors and senior council staff on Wednesday, he said councillors were raising debt without building "anything substantially".
"You get the votes for spending money now that somebody else will have to repay 10 years later," he wrote.
"Buy heaps now, somebody else can pay later — brilliant!"
Cr Vandervis told the Otago Daily Times the additional $96.9m of debt was an "election year splurge" and councillors were "pretending that maintenance spending is all capital budget debt".
He was pleased the councillors had agreed to balance the budget.
In a statement yesterday, Mayor Jules Radich said delivering a balanced budget while continuing to invest in Dunedin’s core infrastructure were "significant achievements in difficult times".
A 10.7% rates rise was "regrettable" and would make a tough situation worse for some, he said.
However, he was "only one vote around the table".
"Although the increased capital spending plans will add to council debt, that is a normal part of the budget process where every councillor gets a vote.
"The great majority of submitters to our nine-year plan hearings asked for more amenity and services funding — the end result is a plan that delivers for our community.
"I don’t agree with everything it contains, but I respect the democratic process."
Cr Sophie Barker said she recognised there was a "danger" in holding the long-term plan process in an election year and hoped none of the councillors had voted based on upcoming elections.
"I am very concerned about the level of debt ... we need to have a plan on how we pay [it] off.
She said there needed to be better project reporting and more examination of how to prioritise projects.
She disagreed councillors were pretending maintenance spending was capital expenditure.
"Most infrastructure maintenance is funded by depreciation and the renewals budget, we’re finally coming to grips with proper depreciation for infrastructure renewals."
Cr Andrew Whiley said while he had held concerns about the forecast rates, elected members had "accepted the hard task of acknowledging the workload and investment of what needs to be done".
"Consistently under rating, deferring costs or underspending" would only hurt the city in the future.
Cr Bill Acklin agreed with several of Cr Vandervis’ points, saying plans to fund carbon zero initiatives were "ridiculous" as it would make little difference to the council’s existing efforts.
"Adding such a huge amount of debt into this financial plan is not what the ratepayers of the city expected," he said.
"The mayor, [deputy mayor Cherry Lucas] and a few others tried very hard to steer away from this, but the spendthrifts had the numbers."
Cr Christine Garey said it would be a challenge for Cr Vandervis to comment "accurately" due to his absence.
The council was within debt limits, had addressed the "vast list" of work required by central government and had invested in projects supported by the community with "clear economic and social benefits", she said.
"In the words of one resident: ‘If the city is to progress we have to pay. We had many years of low rates. I am happy to pay for the future’."
