Politically engaged readers will know Napier’s current Annual Plan consultation is proposing a radical shake up of the way we have been doing things. As the elected representatives of Napier, we’re having to make some tough choices on behalf of our community. 

This includes deciding whether we want to continue with the National Aquarium in its current form. The future of the Aquarium is a once-in-a-generation decision, closing Napier library early is a bold call, moving assets into third-party hands is a major change, so I urge people to make informed submissions on our Plan. I ask you to read our proposals and their rationale and reasoning first. Whether you agree or disagree with our proposals, we’re looking for carefully considered submissions and where appropriate, feasible well-thought-out alternatives. 

First, I encourage everyone to acquaint themselves with the facts, rather than making blind accusations of wasteful spending that has ignored the city’s critical needs. It’s easy to say nothing’s been done with water infrastructure when it’s not always easily seen. In fact, we’ve spent $111 million on new infrastructure across water services since 2019. There’s a host of other core needs we have and are delivering on across transportation, waste and managing our building assets. Our residents don’t need to worry about whether we’re taking care of infrastructure. We are.   

Unlike core infrastructure, our business and tourism facilities fall into the nice-to-have category. We’ve undertaken a cost-benefit analysis on some of these facilities and have found the financial benefits to the ratepayer to be wanting. We’re questioning whether it’s Council’s role to own and manage these facilities.  

We need to be fiscally responsible as caretakers of public money. We need to encourage growth and tourism for economic development’s sake. We need to provide facilities and services. Even then there’s debate over what is essential and what are extras.  

Some of our facilities pull on the public purse in their current form. Some are so full of potential that to hand them over may be doing a disservice to our community in the long run. For others, the potential might be there, but it may not be our role to realise it. At what point does short-term pain give way to potential long-term gain? 

I’ve been clear for a long time that the status quo for the National Aquarium is not an option. Council’s mandate is to serve Napier residents first and foremost, but we must also remember we are a tourist town. Marine Parade is the jewel in our crown and the Aquarium has always been a significant Marine Parade attraction. On that basis, would it be right to completely close it down? Or should we build something in its place that continues with a nature and conservation focus, but is more affordable to run? 

Rates increases aren’t easy on the community. Money is tight, both within Council and the community. Residents made it clear last year that the rates increase was extremely hard and increases of this size going forward are unacceptable. So, the tough choices must be made. 

Even if we cut all new projects, the year-on-year increases would continue. Inflation alone, especially for energy costs, will take care of that. Our proposal to close Napier Library 18 months earlier than originally planned, before the new library’s opening, is a direct response to the community’s demand for lower rates rises. By closing the Napier branch and just keeping Taradale Library operational, we will be able to keep the next rates rise below 8%. 

We need to think beyond a three-year political term and make bold decisions to set us up for a thriving and prosperous future. All our proposals in this year’s Annual Plan consultation require sound and careful consideration. As you do this, I urge you to put emotion and nostalgia to one side and be clear-eyed about the broader economic needs our city is currently facing. 

Go to sayitnapier.nz by 30 April to share your views.