The issue was raised as councillors scrutinised the city's projected debt figures for the next decade, which Cr Dave Cull suggested amounted to a "warning" against leaving future councils with little or no room to move.
"Future councils will be constrained in those 10 years with regard to any activities. There will be no room to move for them if anything unexpected comes up.
"I personally think that's imprudent . . . I just think mortgaging the future for the present and trying to do everything at once is imprudent and I think we will live to regret it," Cr Cull said.
Cr Chris Staynes agreed, saying spending commitments signalled early in the 10-year period covered by the plan would leave the council with little "wriggle room".
"That's where we have to consider the fiscal responsibility of this council," he said.
However, other councillors were quick to take issue with their fears. Cr Michael Guest labelled them "scare tactics".
"They are hollow. They have no substance," he said.
The debate followed a presentation of budget figures by finance and corporate support general manager Athol Stephens, which detailed increases in total debt peaking at $354.1 million 2010-11, before a gradual decline.
He was quick to acknowledge to councillors that the projected debt "just doesn't leave much more room to work with".
Most significantly, capital expenditure paid for by borrowings would result in interest and principal repayments rising steeply to $39 million in 2012-13, and peaking at $44.8 million in 2016-17, before declining.
"Commitment to all of these projects really fills up our balance sheet pretty much for the next 10 years," he told councillors.
However, council chief executive Jim Harland reminded councillors the budgets being considered, a version of which would eventually be included in the council's long-term council community plan, were not locked in.
The plans were a formal and public statement of intent, but "you could in fact . . . say we have changed our minds", he said.
There was also "nothing in the plan which is reducing in any way our core services and our ability to deliver", he said.
Cr Guest said cutting the proposed stadium expenditure from the budget would save the average household "about $1.20 per week" in rates.
He urged councillors to be positive about the city's future instead, saying: "If we go the other way we may as well turn out the lights".
"Although things may look tight at this stage, they are not going to be that tight." Other councillors agreed.
Cr John Bezett said Mr Stephens had presented a "no surprises budget", while Cr Kate Wilson said ratepayers simply needed more information.
"Everyone is looking for problems when their aren't any," she said.
Cr Richard Walls said, even with the capital expenditure paid for by borrowing, city debt would still be "minuscule" compared with local authorities in Wellington and Auckland.
That was due to the successful management of the council's finances, helped by the establishment of council-controlled organisations and Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, which eased pressure on general rates, he said.
Councillors voted to accept Mr Stephens' report.
The stadium project is due to be debated on February 9.
