Council Planning and Finance Committee

aggressively in their own economic development, in events, and in city promotions. We do see this in the most, in the best possible light. It's not about saving money, it's about deciding whether Wellington is prepared to invest in your own future. And again, that's about bringing visitors, that's about supporting jobs and ensuring that Wellington is a great place to live, work, play, invest, and study. And it's an investment that is working. City confidence is picking up, and we're seeing that right across the city and our stakeholders. Your own stakeholder survey of residents showed that there were increased confidence in Wellington and in Wellington as a place to invest in as well. Public investment and city investment signifies confidence, it creates certainty. Wellingtonians have shown in the residents' survey that they embrace tourism. And as we reported last year, and we'll be reporting again this year, that Wellington indeed returns an $8 to $10 return to the city for every dollar invested. So when we're talking about a reasonably marginal drop of investment of just over $500,000, that's in excess of a $5 million return to the city. So in summary, the proposing funding cuts, as we see, we would oppose. We see them as a reduction in economic activity rather than a creation of real savings. But as part of our submission, we also put in a proposal to support Wellington City Council's short-term rental accommodation rates differential if that can help support sustainable and fair tourism and visit economy for Wellington. There's some definitions that we put in our, I think, reasonably comprehensive submission that we would need to work through, but it's something that Wellington NZ would support. Happy to take questions.

Thanks, Mark.

Do we have any questions? Councillor Thorne.

With the Auckland and Christchurch investing, I mean, what in your view will that look like for Wellington, and what is the ratio, like, how do we compare to their investment, and what do you think will happen if we don't?

From a public investment perspective, we sit under both of those cities at the moment and increasingly starting to fall behind. I mean, as we said, city investment also creates central government investment as well. We've seen central government through the Central Government Boost Funds, particularly for events, start to invest heavily in those two cities. There is increasing risk that Wellington gets left behind in those.

Councillor Chung.

Thanks very much for coming in, Mark. Would you be able to say, if you didn't get this extra funding, if the subsidy was reduced, what are the things— have you identified the things that you would need to cut and the effect of those?

Yeah, look, essentially a lot of that comes down to our promotional work, promoting Wellington as a great place to visit, to live, to play, to invest. We will also probably need to cut back some of our investments in inner city growth as well. Those both come out of Destination Wellington Fund, which is one of the proposed growth funds. So you will see significant and real-time losses. The other component sits across our City Growth Fund, which we use to attract significant events. Some of the things we're looking at at the moment is World Cup of Cricket, for example. It would be sad to see Wellington miss out on something like that.

Very quickly, very quickly, so do you think that with this cut in funding it would give Christchurch and Auckland a lead over, or a much bigger advantage in actually getting some of these events that may come to Wellington?

Well, I think you're seeing both Christchurch and Wellington proactively invest in their own cities, and I think the optics of Wellington pulling back on that has a significant flow-on effect in terms of that public confidence and that public public investment component that I talked about earlier.

Great, thank you very much.

Thanks for coming in, Matt, really appreciate your speech.

No problems, all the best.

Now we're going to move to Catherine McGregor representing Regional Tourism New Zealand. Catherine, you're online.

Yes, kia ora, councillors.

You've got 5 minutes, and if you want to leave any time for questions within that 5 minutes, you're welcome to do so.

Thanks. Great.

Thank you for having me today. I appreciate the opportunity. It's great to be here. I'm the General Manager for Regional Tourism New Zealand, and we are the peak body for New Zealand's 31 RTOs, of which Wellington New Zealand is a valued member. RTOs work in partnership with Tourism New Zealand and travel trade partners to attract the international visitors that contribute to economic buoyancy that local conditions can't always control. Tourism New Zealand brings visitors to the front door, but RTOs encourage those visitors to explore a range of destinations destinations across the motu. This year's resident monitoring survey, as Mark just touched on, showed there continues to be very strong agreement that tourism is good for Wellington and that we need to continue to attract more visitors to our city. That's 95% and 82% respectively. Look, I'm here today to encourage you to maintain the current level of funding for Wellington New Zealand, specifically that earmarked for international tourism attraction and the City Growth Fund. I'm also here to encourage you to consider a national approach to short-term accommodation, particularly a register, so that we can address this challenge nationally as a system, which our TNZ is lobbying for actively. This is going on all across the country, and it'd be great to have a unified approach. The funds discussed enable Wellington to bring in major events and drive international visitation beyond those main tourist centres, and importantly, bring external dollars to our local economy. So if you don't mind, I'm going to use aviation as an example. It takes an average of 5 years to attract a direct flight. Quoting analysis from 2024, the average value of a direct flight to New Zealand brings in $1.4 million to our economy per flight. That's per landing, and that's split between the top half of the plane and the bottom half of the plane. The top half bringing in visitors, business travelers, friends and relatives, and the bottom half acting as a key route for our international exports. So imagine this quantified over throughout the period of a year. It's pretty significant. Currently, most of those direct flights into New Zealand go to Auckland and Christchurch, but when this comes to Wellington, they benefit there on the ground. That means jobs for our families, opportunities for our small businesses, and easier pathways for our international students to make their way to our incredible universities. Those are world class. The airport can't do that alone. It requires years of investment in destination management and attraction to show what an amazing place Wellington is to live, work, invest, and visit. The exact same could be said for the asset owners who invest in our hotels. It's a big connected system, and Wellington NZ is a really important part of that. With the domestic economy up and down, international visitor attraction right now provides the economic resilience, and it's more important than ever. The work that RTOs do is long-term, and that return on investment comes in over time through relationship building with travel trade and consumer marketing in international markets. I strongly feel that Wellington NZ is not a driver of rates increases. Investing in the RTO has long-term payoff that benefits local businesses through increased revenue and resulting community benefits through employment. Tourism accounts nationally for 1 in 9 jobs. Our organisation deeply appreciates the financial pressures that councils and ratepayers are under, and local governments are currently undergoing the biggest reform seen in decades, and we appreciate that. However, from our perspective, this would be the wrong time to reduce investment in regional tourism promotion. Tourism supports a thriving regional economy, and fundamentally Wellington NZ's international initiatives are a means to stimulate the international visitor spend and domestic. Thank you so much.

Thanks, Catherine. Do we have any questions? Councillor Teppenbaker.

You touched on short-term accommodation, as there's a plan nationally to do something about it.

Can you give us a very, very, very, very quick outline of that in timeframes?

No, so we would love to see a national approach to that. So all regional tourism organisations are struggling with this and councils are, and so we would encourage people to consider this as we're going through local government reform to take a more national approach and, you know, working across councils to do this.

Any further questions? Doesn't look like we do. Thanks, Catherine, for your submission. Appreciate you tuning in.

Thank you.

We're going to go to Jeremy Smith next, representing Trinity Group. Welcome, Jeremy, in person. Welcome to stand there or sit at the table in front, whatever you prefer.

I'll sit here.

Excellent. You've got 5 minutes, and if you want to leave any time for questions within that, feel free to do so as well.

I'll do my best. Thank you for hearing me. I'm speaking as a business owner, and I'm seriously worried about the state of Wellington's health. And from a personal perspective, in terms of the two hotels we've got, Trinity Hotel and Cambridge Hotel, in 2019, our rates at the Trinity Hotel was $77,000, $606,000, and that's across all downtown levy council rates, Greater Wellington Regional Council rates. In 2026, we paid $153,729, a 98% increase in my rates. In that time, Trenet Hotels revenue was down 18.5%, and our other operating costs, which we manage as best we can, up 14%. So we've gone in that particular business from a profit of close on $700,000 to a loss of $488,000. This is not sustainable. And to show that, you know, I'm not just a crappy operator, the Cambridge Hotel in 2019, we paid rates of $52,000. In 2026, $134,000. An increase of 158%. There's not a lot of consistency. And same thing, revenue down 18%, costs up 19% on that particular venue. And we've gone from a profit of $360,000 to a loss of $500,000. This is not sustainable. I am, as a business owner, I've got to look and say, can I operate better? And If I look at Auckland and Christchurch, if I was in Auckland, my rates would be 43% of what I currently pay in Wellington, and if I was in Christchurch, I'd be paying 38% of the rates that I currently pay in Wellington, and partly differential, 3.7% in Wellington, 2.6% in Auckland, and 2.2% in Christchurch. So, we've got a major problem. But I'm not bailing just yet. I think we need to collectively work to invest in the right areas and also recognize that with our current rate base of people paying, and the amount we're spending is not sustainable. And the current plan is around the fringes and really tinkering, not necessarily grasping the, the nettle. Because if we look at our operating expenses against the number of ratepayers in Wellington, we're spending $4,179 per resident in our operating expenses, uh, compared to, um, Christchurch of $2,755 and Auckland $3,604. So we're spending more per head than we've got, and we've got a slightly lower base. Wellington's not growing as a city. And then we look at some of the other aspects, is that in terms of staffing numbers and spend per staff member, we're well up in terms of the number of staff we've got per ratepayer, and it's significantly higher than both Christchurch and Auckland, and interesting enough, where our average pay per staff member is higher than the other two cities. So it's no longer tweaking around the edges, and we need to look at areas where we can invest money where there's going to be growth or we can generate revenue. We need to make sure that more people come and live in Wellington. At the moment, we're the only city that seems to be going backwards in terms of a number of people living in our city, and if we continue in the trend that we are, we're not going to necessarily get to where we need to. So, I'm saying that we need to take a sharp knife— oh, sorry, the other area that looking at the costs is that Wellington seems to own more property than the other 2 cities put together. And the amount of money we're spending based on property that we own, again, is 5 times higher than the spend in Christchurch and Auckland. So happy to share, you know, all the numbers. It's all publicly available. So it's, you know, there's no secrets here. So we need to take a sharp knife to operating costs. We need to look at how we reduce our property operational costs. We need to sort of work on a plan and looking at it, I think there's, you know, a lot more than the $15 million that was proposed of— well, $17 million, $15 million which was a depreciation sleight of hand and $3 million in operating costs. And we should be looking at probably $35 million to $40 million in this year, building up to $90 million to $100 million savings in future years. As I said, we need to still be investing and we need to be investing in initiatives and activations that can drive revenue for our city and for the people that work and live in the city. And I'm very focused on hospitality, accommodation, tourism, and events, but without, you know, the likes of our IT providers, the film industry, the gaming sector, the university, my sector doesn't stand a chance of existing.

Sorry, Jeremy, to interrupt. We're just coming to the end of your time, but I'll give you a wee bit longer to conclude with some remarks.

Thanks.

Okay. Yeah. So just from a hospitality perspective, you know, we need to look at partnerships. We need to do these co-investments. I run the Vitalise Wellington where we're doing exactly that. And just a small example, for example, is that we run the New Year's Eve Carnival down in Courtney Place, and a council investment around $75,000, total investments around close on $200,000. We bring people in the city. We're paying, you know, $40,000 in live musicians and entertainers, and we're increasing revenue down Courtney Place by 30%. Compare that to the fireworks down the waterfront, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but there's no businesses derive any revenue from that apart from a few food trucks, and the spend is in the region of $300,000 from council coffers. So I'm saying there's smarter ways of doing things. Let's work out what generates revenue for the city, for the businesses, and let's focus on those. Let's look at what we can do to increase the number of nights people stay in Wellington. The league was great, but the old days you would have had people arriving Friday afternoon—

Sorry, Jeremy, we've got a—

one last one.

Arriving Friday afternoon, possibly leaving Sunday afternoon. Now 85% of the people arrive Saturday morning, leave first thing Sunday morning. So we've got one night spend. It's changed the way we look at things so that people go back to saying, we've got to come to Wellington for a weekend, it's so good.

Thanks, Jeremy. Appreciate you coming in and doing a submission.

Thank you.

No problem. Next we're going to go to Trinh Ly, who I believe is online. Welcome, you've got 5 minutes.

Hi, my name is Trinh Ly, I'm living in Wellington. So the reason I'm here today is because I'm a little bit very concerned about the rise in the cost of living, especially the council rates. So I read through the proposal, but I feel it's a little bit too much to normal people. I don't really understand too much about too many things around. I'm just like the normal citizen living in Wellington, so I just give you something that I feel from my side at the, at the residence in Wellington City Council. So like many households, I think it's a rate no longer another bill, it's become quite like contribute a lot of like percentage to my, my family budget. So it seems it raise much faster than anything else. So from like the last 5 years, 6 years, I found it's need double, more than double my price. So I go learning, it's become a little bit challenge for everyone else, not only my side. So I can see it's like, I know we have a lot of things to do, understand that we want to create some kind of like better cities, better library, better, um, swimming pool. Understand that. And we also need to do cycle lane. I like cycle, I like bicycle. Problem here is, I think, is, um, we need to focus a little bit more on the thing that we need to do, because otherwise too hard to afford to live here. So I can see a lot of other business people, they're struggling they have to shut down the business. And I think it's normal people when you have to cut your budget to afford like a restaurant, for other activity, because the rates increase a lot. Come like ongoing a lot of things, like we have a lot of like disaster here and also contribute to the, to the insurance increase a lot. So yeah, I I love what you guys doing. I think it's great when you have a lot of activities, and I hope you guys can sort it out to make it better. I don't really go too much on the thing that Option 1, Option 2 in the thing, but I would like to everything can align with the inflation cost because every family, every year, you got just increase on the salary a little bit, not a lot. And how come other thing is grow faster than your salary. So that is what I want to say. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any questions?

So my question is like, understand that—

Sorry, Chun. Well, we've got— I was just asking if any of the councillors had any questions for you on your submission, and we do have one from Councillor Chung, if you'd like to answer that.

Thanks very much, Shren, much appreciated. You mentioned about some savings on the cycleways and other items here, but do you think that there are things that we're actually doing in Wellington that can be cut back or can be deferred for a little bit later until we get more money?

Yeah, I look into that and I found a little bit, we are only two options, right? It's option you do medium thing and you do big thing. So I wondering is, I don't know, because I saw it's only few million dollar. I understand that it's big money, but I don't really have the big picture of how, how big it contribute to— let's, let's say, okay, if you do that, your rate will in— like your total expense will increase 5% or 10%. I don't have the bigger picture of the financial thing. So that's, that makes me feel a little bit like concerned when I comment on this one. I would like the city need to have more cycling, but I would like to have maybe one year we do one, one road, not like one year but we do a lot. So that's why my concern.

Great, thank you very much.

I've got another question from Councillor Randall.

Um, yes, thanks for your submission. I noticed that You selected Option A on the cycleways to reduce the cycleways program. If there was an option to say just stop the cycleway or pause the cycleway program, would you have chosen that option over Option A?

Yes.

Okay.

I will.

Thank you.

Thank you. We're out of time now, but really appreciate you tuning in to do a submission. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next we're going to welcome Derek McCorkindale. Welcome, Derek. You're welcome to take a seat there or stand at the podium. You've got 5 minutes. I'll bring up your PowerPoint as well.

How do we drive that?

Whenever you're ready to go.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to you today. But in terms of the plan, I feel this document falls well short of what I expected of a recently elected council that would put that in front of ratepayers of this city. The plan avoids the tough and significant decisions, continues a culture of big city spending, presents unsupported proposals, and calls into question the governance and financial stewardship of this organisation. I'm very disappointed and feel let down by a mayor who acknowledges, and I quote from his welcome, the rates affordability is a major issue for the community. I can find no evidence in this plan to support that statement. It is a very lightweight plan and I think an indictment on the intelligence of the ratepayers of Wellington. The tough and significant decisions. Firstly, rates—an increase of 7.4%. This is more than twice the level of CPI, 3%, and follows 3 years of double-digit rates increases totalling 42.8%. Compared to the cumulative inflation over that same time of 9.6%, so 4 times the level of inflation. Adding a further 7.4% this year takes the 4-year figure to 50%, while inflation may be around 15% over that same period, so 3 times the level of inflation. That's unacceptable. Where are the rate increase options and the hard decisions implications for ratepayers to make submissions on. For example, let's go to a zero rates increase, a cap on rates. The impact would be $30 million less of rates revenue. This could be delivered by reducing council staff by 375 people, or 20% of council employees. Unpalatable, but it's an option. The CPI increase, say 3%, impact would be $15 million less in rates revenue, could be delivered by Council reducing staff by 197, or around 10%. Or a 5% rates increase impacts 7% less revenue, could be delivered by reducing Council staff by 87, or 4.5%. Why aren't these scenarios being put in front of ratepayers? Was this modelling done by the officers and presented to Council? If not, why not? Does the Council set out its expectations to the CEO, or do you leave it to the officers to choose what the plan addresses? If this modelling has been done, why not put it out for consultation so there can be a mature debate by ratepayers? Does the Council feel ratepayers can't handle these tough decisions? Who decides the key proposals for inclusion in the plan? Where is the leadership of financial stewardship? With all due respect, cremation fees are hardly a substantive issue for the financial management of this council. Second critical tough decision: Teakiwai. Where is the discussion of the financial impact of this huge transaction in the plan? It's all 30% of the council's total assets. It will be the single largest transaction this Council will ever do in its history. Other than a mention of shifting water rates to a separate invoice and microscopic footnotes in the prospective financial statements, there is no reference. Surely the 26-27 plan balance sheet and operational results will be massively impacted by the establishment of Te Akiwai, yet there is no acknowledgement of this in the key proposals. There's so many questions for the ratepayers of the city. It looks like $3.87 billion of optimised depreciated replacement cost drainage, water, and waste assets being transferred, sold, assigned into the new entity at book value. Uh, the shareholding councils doing the same with their assets valued in the same way. The $3.87 billion of assets appears to be being exchanged for a $3.1 billion investment in Te Akiwai? Is the $0.7 billion difference the debt that's going across? If so, how does the council's debt only go down from $1.67 billion at June last year to $1.56 billion in the annual plan? Do the ratepayers are wanting to receive consideration for these assets in the form of cash, shares, shareholder loans? Are they interest-bearing loans? Will the ratepayers be required to invest in the new entity by way of shares? Shareholder loans, or some other financial instruments? What are the operational implications for the council with its existing staff transferring to Te Akiwai? Severance, redundancies, etc. What indemnities will the council be giving to Te Akiwai? So, will the ratepayers be consulted on the alternative capital transactions for the creation of Te Akiwai, or will the officers serve up a single proposal as a—

right, the big city culture.

Yeah, Derek, we'll just add any of the time that if you have a final— any final—

um, this is just saying we're still spending like a big city and we're a little capital, and I don't mean Andrew. So just rein it in. Um, finally then, the unsupported proposals. I claim, just to give you an idea, I mean, you've proposed a 2.6 times differential base, well, multiple for the short-term accommodation. Where's the evidence to support that? What is so magic about 2.6, 1.6? Where's the modelling? Why not introduce, say, 1.5%, this— well, 1.5 times this year, incrementally increase it, look at the impact on bed nights? It's just not my idea of consultation. Thank you.

Thanks, Derek. Appreciate you coming in and doing us doing a submission. Next, we're going to go to Shane Pridle, who is representing the Royal Port Nicholson Yacht Club, and he's online. Welcome. So you've got 5 minutes, and if you want to leave any time for questions, do so within that 5 minutes. And just whenever you're ready.

Tēnā koutou, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Shane Priddle. I am the Commodore of the Royal Port Nicholson Yacht Club. We're in our 143rd season, based at 103 Oriental Parade, immediately next to the Clyde Quay Boat Harbour. This submission is made on behalf of the club and is endorsed by 23 of our members who hold mooring or boat shed leases at Clyde Quay. And just a side note, I appreciate the feedback I've already had on my written submission from some councillors to date. I'm here today on their behalf and on behalf of the wider sailing community in Wellington that depends on this stretch of waterfront. I want to start with what Clyde Quay actually is. Clyde Quay Boat Harbour is not a marina, it is a heritage boat harbour. The historic boatsheds are a defining feature of Oriental Bay. The boats on the moorings are part of the view that the council itself uses to promote Wellington. People walk down Orrington Parade, they stop, they take photos, they are part of what makes that piece of waterfront special. The council's revenue and financing policy distinguishes between marinas and waterfront public spaces and applies different cost recovery to each. Clyde Quay has been treated as a marina. We do not believe that is the right classification. Treating Clyde Quay as a commercial marina and applying marina-style cost recovery year on year ignores what the Boat Harbour actually is and what it contributes to the city. It also produces fee increases that bear no relationship to what the council is actually providing at the Boat Harbour. I understand officers are looking at the heritage question, and we welcome that. We would ask council to follow through on it. The proposed 20% increase is not the start of the story. Over the past 3 years, mooring fees at Clyde Quay are already up by more than 35%. Boat shed fees are up by more than 55%. The proposed 20% on top of that means an additional cost of around $1,200 per year per boat compared with 3 years ago. In that time, what the council provides at the Boat Harbour has not changed. The sheds, the moorings, the public space around them are essentially as they were. The increases have come from a fee-setting framework, not from any change in the facility or the cost of running it. That is the question Councillor Confin has asked officers, and it is the right question. Where has the money gone, and where is it planned to go? Let me talk about who this affects. RPNYC is not an elite club. We are a community club. Our members are teachers, tradies, retirees, public servants, students. Some of our shared and mooring lessees have been at Clyde Quay for 30 years or more. Several are on fixed incomes. A further $1,200 a year is a tipping point for some of them. Every member who gives up a boat because of cost is a member we are at risk of losing from the club from racing and from the wider Wellington sailing community. That matters beyond our membership numbers because we are not just a private club. Through Wellington Ocean Sports, we introduce over 100 adults to sailing every year, many of whom have never set foot on a boat. We support the Wellington Youth Sailing Trust in delivering programs to over 100 young people per year. Over 50 of our recent Wellington Ocean Sports graduates have gone on to join the club. We host the Anzac Day Rally with the Turkey Ambassador and upwards of 50 diplomatic guests. Our goal is to double our membership by the 150th season in 2033. That ambition depends on sailing remaining accessible. Compounding fee increases run directly counter to it. We're not asking for special treatment, we're asking Council to classify Clyde Quay for what it is, to fee it accordingly, and to withdraw the 20% increase as currently proposed. I would also note that we are aligned with the technical case made in the separate submission by George Mason. Ngā mihi nui.

Thank you, Shane. Do we have any questions? Councillor Chung.

Thanks very much, Shane. Would you be able to estimate how many people, how often people actually use their boats boats there? Like, are they weekend sailors, or do they actually— are there people who take them out every day? And so what I'm saying is that, do you get better value from people who use it all the time, or do they just use it to park there?

It varies from people who may use their boats once every 3 months or rarely, to people who are using them at least every weekend during the winter when the winter sailing season, either for for racing or for recreation, but definitely in the summer months you'll find a large proportion of those boats are out multiple times per week.

Thank you, Shane.

We're at the end of the time now, but really appreciate you tuning in and doing a submission. Thank you. Thank you. Kākite. Next, we're going to welcome up Matthew Eyre. Welcome, Matthew. You're welcome to stand at the podium there or take a seat at the head of the table.

Is that on? Yep. Thanks for having me down here, everyone. So I'm sure that you've had to sit through and will continue to sit through quite a few submissions that pretend to know better than you do how to do your job. So I'm going to start by saying I think you will do a great job and that everyone in the city should be grateful for the job that you do and the hard work that you will put in. Now I know how hard you will work. I'm not here today to talk about any specifics of procedure or funding or anything like that. The only thing I've come here today with is my grief and my broken heart. That may seem confusing at this point. Let me explain. I'm here on behalf of my father, Desmond Eyre. He's been dead 17 years and none of us can get over it. And how did he die? Under the wheels of a truck. Why was he there? Because no cycle lane. Now, I'm lucky enough to have lived all over the world. I was born here, Wellington born and bred, but living all over the place. In places a hell of a lot poorer than New Zealand and a hell of a lot poorer than Wellington, and yet they all seem to be able to afford comprehensive networks of segregated cycle lanes. And why is that? Because in other countries and in other cities, people understand the value of human life. Especially when it comes to children, who let us not forget, we force them to ride out on the road with all the cars and buses and trucks, but don't worry, they've got stack head on. Now, all the research from all around the world, and I'm not going to bore you with it, shows clearly painting on a road and getting cyclists on one side and motorists on the other doesn't work. Has no effect. In fact, there is research by the University of Waikato that suggests that it has the opposite effect. It gives people a false sense of security. What you need to do is get the cyclists off the road, and that's not just for the cyclists, it's for the motorists as well. Because I'll tell you now, if you'd had to look into the eyes of the man who was driving the truck that ran your dad over, and it wasn't his fault, my poor dad was doored into the path of the truck. And we're talking 10 grandkids, 5 great grandkids, 3 kids, Girlfriend, ex-wife, girlfriend's family, 8 brothers and sisters, all their kids. Everyone misses that man every fucking day of our lives. Every day we wake up, where is he? He's not in our lives anymore. 17 years later, look at me, tough guy with a broken heart. This is a question of ethics. It comes down to ethics. You may not like cyclists. You may not like cycle lanes. You may not want to fund them. How many more people are going to have to go through the personal hell that I've been living with for 17 years because of some procedural niceties? I'm sick of having to argue this with people. I'm sick of having to tell people, I don't think you're arguing this from the right point of view. I know more about this than you do. I understand these issues on a deeper and more profound level than you will ever know, because I had to bury my father that day. It's in fact today, in fact right this hour, it's exactly 26 years and 6 months since I last saw him. I never get to say goodbye. All I can tell you is this: my experience of riding a cycle around the city is it's not safe. I've ridden all over Europe, I used to ride my bike to work every day on a segregated cycle lane. This city is not safe for cyclists and it's your responsibility. And what it comes down to Purely, at the end of the day, it's ethics. Thank you.

Thank you, Matthew. Do we have any questions? No questions, but really appreciate you coming. Thank you for sharing your story. Next up we have Nick Pearce representing Astra.

Kia ora koutou, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Nick, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Australian and New Zealand Short-Term Rental Association, or ASTRA. ASTRA represents the residential short-term rental sector across Australia and New Zealand, including local hosts, property managers, residential property owners, and service providers that support the industry. Our main message today is simple: short-term rental accommodation is not one thing, and it should not be treated as though it is. In Wellington, short-term rental accommodation includes very different types of hosting and very different reasons for sharing a home. It might be a public servant or a consultant temporarily living in Auckland for a secondment and who wants to share their home in Wellington while they're away. It may be parents who are away visiting a child in Australia and want to rent out their house for a few months as a form of extra income. It may also be someone travelling to support an elderly parent's health work and doing temporary placement work, or a family just trying to make some money during school holidays and events to help with the cost of living. The common thread is that most homes remain part of an ordinary residential life, and people are making use of spare space. Should not be assumed that a property has been working— sorry, has been removed from the long-term rental market. It is someone's primary or secondary home being used flexibly for a period of time because life, work, family, and cost pressures require flexibility. It's also worth noting that Astra does have data that shows that around 40% of stays are non-leisure. These include business travellers, those travelling for medical treatment, healthcare, and essential workers, construction workers, and sometimes women and children escaping from domestic violence who need a temporary home. Short-term rental accommodation also supports the local economy. Activity beyond hosting, including cleaning, tradespeople, maintenance providers, lending services, cafes and restaurants, and other local businesses that all benefit from the visitor economy. ASTRA believes that the better approach to manage short-term rentals is a national registry or a national levy, supported by registration scheme, clear enforceable standards, and appropriate data sharing. That would— this would give councils across New Zealand better visibility of the sector and better compliance tools without relying on blunt Property-based rate changes and already stretched councils should, should be resourced appropriately to do so. A national visitor levy is a coherent, transparent, and easily administered mechanism through which the visitor sector can contribute to the infrastructure and services it uses. We know that councils have faced difficulties administering and enforcing rate differentials, and more importantly, they have difficulty understanding the short-term short-term rental market in their area. This is why we support a registration scheme with data sharing, so governments can make evidence-based policy changes. These registration schemes have worked well elsewhere, including in Australia. Should Wellington Council choose to proceed with a differential rate of 2.6% targeting short-term rentals, we would recommend that the cap on nights is lifted to 120 nights as a threshold. which is a clearer and fairer way to distinguish the— distinguish residential hosting from more regular accommodation activity. The proposed 60 nights would capture a Wellington family that makes its home available across the summer break, Easter, or school holidays, and it is targeting the wrong people. And that's my submission. Thank you for your time. Any questions? We have 1 minute to go.

Thank you, Nick. Any questions? I'll give you one. You mentioned your support for the national register. Given that that's not something that's in place at the moment, have you been doing any lobbying or sort of had any conversations around the potential chances of implementing something like that in New Zealand?

Yeah, I mean, the pathway to that solution is becoming clearer, and actually it's part of the commitment to the Auckland City Deal that was announced a few weeks ago. So there's plan for central government to talk about an accommodation levy in general in 2027, sorry, after the election. So the agenda's already been set at a national level, and I know that other councils around the country have similar ideas. So Astra supports the national approach because it will be consistent, easier to maintain, understand and stops a patchwork of regulation and restrictions sort of developing in their own way across the country.

Awesome. Thanks for your time, Nick. Really appreciate you tuning in and doing this mission.

Thank you.

Next, we're going to go to Craig Fear. Welcome, Craig. Hello. How are you? Good. Oh, you're online. Excellent. So you've got 5 minutes, and if you want to leave any time for questions, do so within that 5 minutes. And just, yeah, start whenever you like.

Okay, thank you. At a previous long-term planning meeting, our oral submission, I said that if Council didn't sort out the water issues, we would be drowning in stormwater and sewage, and there would be no water to drink. The recent past storm and uncontrolled sewage overflow has borne out what I said would happen, and until Wellington City Council take water back on board and dump the Te Akiwai, this will only get worse. I don't like the way there's been a lot of underhandedness used by the council workers. Costs need to be cut. By cutting staff members. Get rid of those trying to drive their own agenda and not that of guiding the city so that ratepayers can afford to live here and bring back a vibrant and buoyant city. Now, in future years, there will be increasing numbers of people unable to pay their rates and water charges. I thought that Wellington City wanted to attract more people but you're driving them away. Water needs to be brought back in-house. That's pretty much all I have to say. Thank you. Thanks, Craig.

Any questions? Yeah, we have a question from Deputy Mayor McNulty.

Thanks very much.

One of the issues we have with water is that if we bring it back in-house, we have to borrow off our current debt ratio, which we are exceeding. We have a 280% capacity. An entity like Te Akiwai can borrow up to 500%, so they have much greater capacity essentially to borrow to just do repair works, and we have essentially no debt capacity. So in bringing it back into-house, how would we— what would your recommendations be to confront that reality that we simply do not have financial headroom to actually borrow to replace the assets due previous decisions positive.

Well, how about cutting some of the costs, as I said, like I understand it was something like 800 extra staff members that probably wouldn't need to be there. We've got a CEO who doesn't actually seem to be looking after the ratepayers. It's more about looking after himself and the political—

Craig, if you could just refrain from Singling out, thanks.

But cutting more costs, acting more responsibly, but just repairing pipes isn't going to get them fixed. If Wellington wants to increase the number of people here, we can't stand with the infrastructure that we already have. That needs to be rebuilt. The pipes need to be replaced. They need to be replaced larger than what we already have, doubling in size perhaps in diameter to cope with any potential growth in the city. There's been no forethought by the council by allowing all the infill housing or encouraging infill housing to be built when the infrastructure isn't there in the first place.

We have another question from Councillor Arulbhai.

Not so much a question, but I'm glad your staff had moved away because probably they haven't asked to be in the submission. Can I just kindly ask you to blur your screen so that we can only see you and not other people that have not asked to be in the submission?

Sorry?

We're nearly at the end of time now, so I think we'll try and get through. We'll just have one final question from Councillor Randall.

Yes, Sam, thank you very much for your submission and for outlining the affordability issue. What do you think will happen if— what would you see happening with, say, your business or in your community if we don't make the significant cuts you say we need to do?

Well, potentially there's going to be a lot of people moving out of Wellington because they can't afford to stay here. I know now a number of my customers coming in that are finding it a lot harder and are very worried about how they're going to pay their rates. And with the projections of the water rates bills, they're just saying they won't be able to afford it. Water is something that people should have as a right, to then give it to someone like Te Akiwai, who will then charge for it, and potentially it won't be controllable by the council. They can make up their own minds about how much they're going to charge in future. There will be people who cannot afford to pay it.

Okay, thank you very much for your call.

Thanks, Craig. We're just at the end of time now, but appreciate you tuning in doing submission. Thank you. Thank you. And our last one before the break, welcome up Louise Tong. You're welcome to take a seat or stand at the podium. And I'm sure you've heard the— you've got 5 minutes and leave any time for questions as well.

I've got a presentation. Is that going up?

Yep, we'll just get that up for you now and just Remember to turn on your mic as well so we can hear you nice and clear.

The patient is coding. Their condition is deteriorating in real time. The medical team gathers. Time is of the essence. This is a critical moment. And what do they debate? Should we use a Mickey Mouse or a Spider-Man bandaid? That is what this annual plan consultation feels like. Because the patient, our patient, our city, is not well. Wellington is metaphorically bleeding out.

It's not working.

People are leaving. Since 2019, Wellington's population has declined while the rest of the country, our neighbouring councils, have grown steadily. Businesses are voting with their feet too. Retail vacancy has reached a staggering nearly 18% in Courtenay Place, and while some may point to government cuts, we know that Wellington has prospered before with a much smaller public sector. The more compelling explanation is this: Wellington has become one of the most expensive cities in which to live and do business. And people are just responding rationally. Against that backdrop, we are here debating relatively minor issues. Rates are at crisis level. Over 9% of ratepayers are now in arrears. Many households have seen their rates double since 2019. Averages can really obscure the reality. Our rates are twice Auckland's. On a value-adjusted basis. Many households are paying $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 a year in rates and more—hundreds and hundreds of dollars every week. Wellington business rates are 5 times that of Auckland's. The questions must be asked: how much is too much? Wellington now carries one of the highest rates burdens in New Zealand. And the outcome from that is declining vibrancy, economic activity, and confidence. This is telling us something. This situation is just not sustainable. Local Government Act is clear: an annual plan must reflect and consider current financial realities, and it may change priorities, scope, and timing. But this consultation does not do that. It actively ignores material financial events: the town hall cost overruns, the sludge plant blowout, and who knows how much for Moa Point. And it is silent on how we should meaningfully respond: reducing overheads, addressing staff costs, and pausing capital projects. Those are difficult conversations, but they are essential ones. The council's 2026 resident survey shows a collapse in public confidence. Just 26% of your residents think that this city is lively and attractive, down from 86% a few years ago, and only 26% believe council decisions are being made in the best interests of the city. Questions should naturally follow. In the face of this, what can we realistically afford? How are we responding to the Deloitte report? Why are we still contemplating programs like the Golden Mile, organics, nigh on a billion dollars for social housing, and further cycleway expansion when balance sheets and— your balance sheet and ratepayers are are already stretched to the limit. Why are these issues not the focus of the annual plan? Public commentary increasingly points to a system that has lost discipline, where projects continue because the organisation is structured to make work rather than to step back and reassess affordability, value, and necessity. Ultimately, this shoots home to governance. Decisions are up to you as elected members. Accountability sits here. The mandate now must be refocused on fundamentals: financial discipline and clear prioritisation. Above all, you must recognise the limits of what your ratepayers can afford. It is not about reducing ambition for our city, it is about restoring balance. I put this to you because— not because these choices are easy, but because the current trajectory is unsustainable and untenable. Look, Wellington is an extraordinary city with culture, talent, and natural beauty that should make it one of the most desirable places in the world to live and work. But that future is not guaranteed. It must be built carefully and deliberately. If the patient is in heart failure, we do not debate band-aids. We stabilise, we stop the bleeding, we take the hard decisions needed to save them, and we do so because we believe recovery is possible and necessary and worthwhile.

Thank you. Thank you, Louise. We're at the end of time, but we're going to a short break now, so if anyone has any questions questions, then they might be able to go and talk to Louise in the— Okay. We are going for about a 15-minute break and we'll be back at 2:50. Thanks, Sarah. Welcome up our first submitter of the session, Alastair Beazley. Welcome, Alastair. Welcome to stand at the podium. Take a seat at the end of the table there. Would you want me to? Either one, whatever you prefer. Down. Yeah, come sit with us. So you've got 5 minutes, and if you want to leave any time for questions, just leave it within that 5 minutes as well. Thanks.

Thanks very much. Thank you all for giving me time to come and talk to you. So I kept my submission very brief, and it covers what you might call the policy reasons why I think we should continue with the program of cycleways and not truncate it now. In short, I think they promote cycling as a way of getting around Wellington and the safety with which you can do it and will help it continue to increase. And I think that's valuable from the point of view of public health and from the point of view of environmental health, climate. I also think that having more bikes in the city is good for the city's economy. Greater cycle use reduces congestion, makes shopping easier. But rather than going over that series of arguments with which I'm sure you're all familiar, I thought I might just look at it through my experience as an old man who drives a car and will continue to do so and has done for 65 years but who finds that riding a bike in Wellington has transformed his experience of the city. So today I went and had a meeting at La Cloche with a member of the Fulbright Board, which I chair. I went on to the marina and to Barton Marine. I shopped at Moore Wilson's and had some lunch and then went home. I've come back here via Te Matapihi, and then I shall do a little more shopping and go home again. So it seems to me that while not all of this is on bike paths, bike paths provided critical links and stretches along which you can move. They increase the celerity and the safety of riding a bike in Wellington. They save time, you don't have to look for parks, and money, you don't have to buy petrol, and they don't consume, well, and they don't consume fuel. They increase your experience of the city. They connect the city up. They give you agency and pleasure, and they're good for shopkeepers and cafes because it just becomes so easy. So what I want to say to you is don't pull back. This promotes a transformative experience which accommodates new technology. Electric bikes make it easier for more people to bike, and they're good in hard times. They're efficient and they're frugal. One thing you might keep in your mind is the necessity for having parking loops. They're very cheap, and very easy to provide. You can see a good example of them outside Te Matapīhi. So, that's where I'm going to stop. Thank you for listening, and I hope you'll continue with the bike plan as it was decided on and not curtail it.

Thank you, Alison. Do we have any questions? Councillor Randall.

Thank you. We've heard from a number of different submitters, some of which say that the city's become unaffordable and that 9% of our ratepayers are already behind on their rates arrears. Do you think that we should fund the continuation of this program from increasing rates, or should we cut services somewhere else, and if so, where? That's your decision to make. I'm not the council. I— but I— all I want to— that would require me me to take— to have the full kind of view across all the issues that you have. I just want to say this seems to me to be a growing point in the city and it would be a great pity to reduce it.

Thank you for your submission. Can you tell me, did you— have you— have having the cycle lanes helped you take up cycling or have you always been a bike rider or are you bike riding more because of them?

I bike ride in Wellington because of them. I've always, you know, I rode a bike to school when I was a kid, but it makes it possible to ride around Wellington in ways which it absolutely wouldn't be otherwise. I go to the hospital from time to time, alas. Really hard to get out there without the bike lanes.

Thank you, Alastair. We're just out of time now, but thank you so much for coming in and speaking to us. Thanks very much for listening to me. Thank you. Next I'll welcome up Judy Roloff. Welcome, Judy. Wherever is easiest for you to speak, you're welcome to stand there.

Tēnā koutou. Anyhow, thanks for the opportunity to submit on the annual plan. I've been a Wellington resident and ratepayer for over 45 years. I care deeply about the future affordability and vitality of our city, so much so that 2.5 years ago I formed the Wellington Rates Revolt Group, now Wellington Rates Revolt Support Group, fast becoming a Wellington Regional Ratepayers Support Group. The name changed because of members' increasing need for support through sharing stories, listening to each other, providing emotional, not financial support. It helps them to share experiences, know that they're not the only ones struggling. I say this to put a human face to the stress and misery of many Wellington ratepayers, be they residential or business. Wellington is without doubt and trouble. When I formed the group, it was to be for only about 18 months till ratepayers voted in new councillors and spending became more prudent. I was wrong on both counts, since most voters went for name recognition or party vote, and only two first-time independent councillors were voted in. Though prudent spending still continues, some members still that are willing to needs this group of 1,200 increasing daily as a watchdog. The annual plan does not grapple with the scale of the city's financial challenges, nor with the increase in financial stresses of households and businesses. Rather, it makes minimal mention of areas for material savings. Instead of making small token increases in the community fees such as cremation, library, swimming pool, etc., all of which increase the outlay of the average ratepayer to obtain what I can only call chump change in comparison to the measurables proposed. Without material change in direction, Wellington risks becoming increasingly unaffordable, uncompetitive, and unattractive to live in, invest in, and visit. The consultation document is an alarmingly narrow scope. Councillors chosen to consult on a limited in their set of select issues while excluding from discussion many of the most material drivers of rate debt and long-term affordability. Meaningful consultation requires giving ratepayers the opportunity to comment on the full set of levers that drive affordability, not just marginal adjustments around the edges. It also requires councillors to listen and engage meaningfully in that submission. Un-elected iwi representatives, specifically their votes on council. Local government has become vulnerable to this because Parliament has left a loophole in place, and it's fast going— it's about to be closed. I was told by councillors when this new council was formed, be patient. Andrew will sort it. However, that was more than 6 months ago. We've been patient long enough. Now critical decisions affecting every single ratepayer and other residents must be made. These decisions must be made solely on the votes of elected councillors, those accountable to the communities that elect them. As a council and a community, let's be proactive. Follow the wishes of the ratepayers and the the community in this matter and act now rather than wait for the legislation to close the loophole. Te Akiwai, in the indecent haste with which this is being implemented without any meaningful consultation, a year ahead of the time given in the legislation to do so, no later than 30 June 2027. So why the indecent haste to hand over to Te Akiwai on 30 June 2027? TRQI information states plans for the charging system will be developed by them over the coming year and there will be a consultation before decisions are made. So why not let that happen before the handover? Short-term accommodation providers, I strongly oppose the proposed changes of that, um, Key proposal 2: Cycleways. Is a ratepayer who has seen the system manipulated and abused by climate zealots and cyclists who have pushed for more and more protected cycleways with total disregard for other road users, cost to ratepayers, actual evidence, or real planning and forethought, and vehemently opposed to any further spend on cycleways It's now time to hit pause for a chance to reflect. The Samuel Plan is that time. I strongly— I'm just about done, aren't I? Rates affordability is now a critical issue for Wellington. Sorry, just one minute.

We've just reached the end of the time, but I'll give you another 30 seconds just to finish up.

Okay, thank you. Wellington is at a crossroads, and the decisions made by the Mayor and Council sauce. On this annual plan will a fair determine its fate, that of the many ratepayers whose very homes are at risk. There are real and unavoidable challenges which make it even more critical that Council exercises discipline elsewhere. The current approach, layering new spending on top of an already overstretched balance sheet, is simply not sustainable. Council must prioritize prioritise ruthlessly, deferring all non-essential projects and focus on the basics. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Judy. Appreciate you coming in. Thanks for your submission. Next, we're going to welcome up T. Lemos. Welcome, T. You've got your 5 minutes and leave any time for questions within that.

Thank you for having me on. My name is Dr. T. Lamousse, and I am a ratepayer here in Wellington Central. I live in Kelburn in a lovely apartment, and I have not submitted before to council hearings, but this time I felt so strongly that I felt that I needed to do so, and that's because of the differential rates being proposed around Airbnb. Now, I had the unfortunate experience experience of living next to an Airbnb last year, and I can tell you I was kept up at all hours of the night with parties on a regular basis. There was rubbish strewn outside my apartment complex regularly. So, so just to paint a picture, I was in a series of townhouses and one of those townhouses was Airbnb rented right next door to me. Constant disruption. Constant mess. And the thing was, is that it was actually a tenant who had rented the townhouse from a landlord, and the landlord could do nothing about it. And so we were just stuck with an Airbnb next to us, with the landlord not even wanting it, uh, and it causing countless nights of disrupted sleep. And so I think it's quite urgent that we take a stand on this as a city. It's an opportunity, yes, to to grow some revenue, but more importantly, it's about the kind of city we want to be for our visitors. I think about places overseas like Barcelona or Venice, and of course we know we're not quite yet a Venice, we're not quite yet a Barcelona, but where tourists are being attacked on the street, right? Rentals are— Airbnbs are so disruptive to our daily lives, to our ability to sleep, to our ability to get around our apartment complex without having to wade through rubbish and vomit and all the other stuff that come from Airbnb. That, that people get sick of it. And so I don't want Wellington to be like that. I want Wellington to be able to do something that is accessible for Wellingtonians, where housing is not being taken up by tourists, but where we welcome our tourists with the respect and dignity they deserve by ensuring that they have a good time in hotels and motels and backpackers, not in Airbnbs, because those are not appropriate places for tourists. Those are places— Airbnbs, apartments, Apartments are places for residents. So that's the first thing. Secondly, I also, now that I'm here, I did actually attend the Unions Wellington hui last week, was it? And I thought it was a very pragmatic set of proposals around insourcing Council services wherever possible. And I think that that kind of pragmatic approach is a really good one. If there's an opportunity for this Council council to save money by insourcing core services, I think that makes a heck of a lot of sense. So I'd really encourage you to take a very good look at Wellington Works. To me it makes a lot of sense and I would love to see more stuff done in-house, build up our expertise as a city and your expertise as a council. So I really, really want to encourage you to do that. And actually on my way there, I got caught in a cycle traffic jam. There were so many people cycling from Wellington Central through to Newtown that there were 20 of us at each traffic light. I was like, what on earth? This was like 6 o'clock at night. There were so many people on the cycle lanes. I was thinking, my goodness. I can really, really say quite strongly, I would like to see the ongoing funding for cycleways. Actually, that's for a number of reasons. One of them is around around making sure we've got accessible infrastructure. But one of them is, a couple of years ago, I was on a cycle tour with— that was run by Council, and it was a wonderful experience. Actually, Councillor Chung, you were there with me, and it was really nice to meet you there. But, um, I will vividly remember cycling up this one part where there was no protected cycleway, and Councillor Chung nearly got hit by a car. And I remember saying that to you at the time, Ray, that I was really concerned about about your safety. And to be honest, I think that's what this is really about. It's about safety. Cycling infrastructure is about safety, making sure that our kids can get to and from school, making sure that people of all ages, if they wanted to use the cycleways for any given reason, are able to do so safely. Because I want to protect our residents like Councillor Chung, making sure that they can use these— this infrastructure well. So really, I just wanted to reiterate reiterate that Airbnb, whatever we can do to regulate its use to make sure that it is not disruptive to residents, if it's possible to get additional revenue from them, that's awesome. I really, really want you to take a strong, good look at Wellington Works, and wherever possible, any additional revenue saved from insourcing, any additional revenue coming from Airbnb, please do prioritise Ways is about the future of our city. Kia ora, thank you.

Thanks, T. Next we're going to go to Andy Foster, who I believe is online.

I am indeed.

So look, thank you, 5 minutes of the presentation starting now?

Yes, whenever you're ready.

Okay, cool, thanks First of all, thanks for the opportunity to make a submission. I'm going to focus basically pretty much entirely, and I am speaking as an individual, not in my role as my day job role, although I might refer to some of that, but entirely about rates. And first of all, I'll just say thank you and well done in the budget because I actually see for pretty much first time I've seen it in a long time cutting back on some internal costs, and it is directly internal costs, so I think that's a good thing. The key though is that 7% is still a reasonably sizeable increase. Big issue is that it comes on top of a 46% cumulative rates increase over the last 3 years, and that is really, really significant. That is considerably higher than the national average, which I understand is about 34%, which is also obviously extremely high. I did read a very good article on Wellington Scoop this week by Councillor Compton saying that, and this is your projections apparently, over the next 10 years the combination of rates, sludge levy, and water services charges a forecast that puts you at the end of that, above the 5% of income affordability ceiling, which was recommended by the 2007 Shand Report. I do stress that's a ceiling, not a target. And I think you know, and you heard from Judy a few moments ago, that many Wellingtonians are really struggling with the rates levels as they are at the moment. All of these things should be flashing a big, very large alarm. You'll also know, referring to my day job, that the government is very concerned about rates levels. There's legislation before the House, in fact this week, the second reading of the Systems Improvements Bill that changes the functions of council, gets rid of the four well-beings again, and defines core services among other things. And all of this I think is a response to a real affordability issue, not just in Wellington but around the country. And also of course we know that there is a proposal for rates caps in the wings and that affects all of those things, water services and so on as well. I'm very well aware that councils are concerned about rates caps and the interface between those and the ability to maintain assets. I guess the thing is, it's that the priority has got to be maintaining assets before it is doing other services that are perhaps more discretionary. So, and I think councils' concerns there are fair, but we— this obviously means that there's got to be some decisions made about what you want to do and what you don't want to do, and the message is very clear that councils do need to be more disciplined. So some suggestions for you if I can. The first one of them is to reduce internal costs materially. You do have a report from Deloitte which I have had a quick look through which should encourage you to do that. You know, quite significant but should encourage you in that direction. There must be some specific areas for savings and I would pick 3 in the 3 C's: communication, cycling and climate. When you're dealing with cycleways, and there's been a huge investment made in cycleways in the last few years. One of the other things that's gone with that is a significant loss in parking revenue, which of course, you lose that parking revenue, it goes straight effectively on the rates line as well. So all of those are areas for possible savings. Then to stop as many of the discretionary projects as you can that you don't really need to do. For me, top of that list would be the Golden Mile, if that's still on the table at all, and organic waste. I'm sure there's much more efficient ways you can do that, and I have seen some examples of those as I get around the country. TK Inger, I understand the council's still involved in that. It made some sense in a fast-rising market, but not when property values have fallen so much. Rents are generally falling, and certainly they're falling in real terms. And what it does is it exposes the council and therefore the ratepayers to a much higher risk of vacancy rates and lower rental rates. During my time as mayor, we actually bailed out of some pending projects. I think we offloaded them to Kangoura because we could see that they going to cause significant losses to ratepayers. The other thing is I think that needs to have a good look at the social housing portfolio because it does— the investment looks incredibly expensive and see how you can get that cost down. A couple of things which might help you, one is that there is the earthquake-prone building legislation which is currently going through the House as well. Timber buildings and one or two storey masonry buildings will no longer need strengthening. That would help, for example, in your budgets with meaning you don't need to strengthen the buildings at Kandala Port, for example, which was a key driver for that project. I'd also encourage— quite a lot of work's been done about separating our proposed traffic management costs from projects. Now, you might think that's not material, but I've had council chief executives, not in Wellington, but council chief executives say to me that 40% of the cost of working on the roads is traffic management. If you separated those out, it starts becoming very crystal clear, and you might think about how you deliver those projects. And my other suggestion is that if you've got anything that relates to growth, you should probably reconsider it because we're the only two TAs to have nil growth in the last intercensal period. And unless something's changed dramatically, I think you should be really rethinking that. Certainly there is nothing, I haven't seen anything in either of the last two annual plans to suggest Wellington has sort of cottoned on to, officially cottoned on to the fact that we are nowhere near the 80,000, up to 80,000 new residents which is mentioned in the 2024 LTP. And so just to finish off with, in my view, the key things the council needs to focus on for the health of the city are bringing people back into the CBD to live, work, and play, and to minimise costs and debts. And I spend a lot of time around New Zealand engaging with councils, largely avoided Wellington for the last 3 years just because I thought it was the appropriate thing to do. Always wanting to understand councils' issues, challenges, and opportunities and see how I can help them. So that offer's there for Wellington too, and thanks for listening and wish you well.

Thank you, Andy. Unfortunately, we're out of time, but appreciate you tuning in to do a submission. Thanks, Andy. No, thanks heaps. Cheers. Next, we're going to welcome up James Ross and Austin Illingham Banks representing the Wellington Ratepayers Alliance. Welcome. You're welcome to stand at the podium or take a seat at the table there, whatever you prefer. Oh, in front, just at the table up here if you like. Up to you. As you've heard, you've got 5 minutes, and if you want to leave any time for questions, just leave it within that 5 minutes. And just don't forget to turn your mic on as well.

Cool, right, uh, first of all, good afternoon. Thank you very much for your time, it's always appreciated. Uh, my name is James Rolfs, this is my colleague Austin Ellingham-Banks from Wellington Ratepayers Alliance. Uh, we're a ratepayer advocacy group fighting for ratepayers first, and putting it frankly, uh, we think ratepayers have some concerns. So if I could start off with just a few key facts to sort of frame, frame the conversation. Wellington has the second highest average rates in the country, with the average bill now more than $5,000 per household. It has the single highest commercial rates in the country at $53,000 on average per business, which is a whole $7,000 higher than, than second place. And the average ratepayer has faced a 47% increase in their bill over just the last 3 years alone. Despite this, unfortunately, we're still seeing a proposed 7.4% increase this year, and by our reckons, when you include water in that, we're looking closer to sort of 9.2%.

Yeah, and I mean, for all these increases, what do Wellingtonians have to show for it? We've seen a near tripling of households needing help to pay their soaring rates bills. We've seen 1,500 Wellingtonians pack up and leave while other regions grew. We've seen 1,600 companies in our capital vanish in only 27 months, and as a result, our region is the only one in the country with negative economic growth. We're going backwards, and yet still on the way here we walked past the library where there was a $400,000 spend on an opening ceremony— halved but not slashed. We walked past the Council Art, $180,000 on that— $130,000, sorry, on bespoke council art. We simply cannot continue with this direction of travel, which is why in October Wellingtonians voted for change, but they're not getting it. And that's because of a deeper problem: the deep culture of waste embedded with this— within this council's bureaucracy. Wellington is comfortably in the top 10% of councils for the number of staff per household, and the Deloitte report, which we as ratepayers paid $400,000 for, showed 330 excess staff and 117 excess managers. The bureaucracy is simply out of control.

Now, Councillors, if you don't want to take it from us, uh, take it from your own official information team. If you check your inboxes within the next couple of minutes, you'll see this, which is a project we've pulled together, which is the Wellington City Council, uh, rich list. Now, the way we see it, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we're keen to bring, uh, staff bloat to your attention today to hopefully open your eyes in a way that unfortunately the Deloitte report didn't seem to. Uh, the numbers to this year's Rich List are pretty stark. So we're seeing 35 employees on more than $200,000 costing ratepayers $9.3 million just this year. Or in other words, you know, showing that this really does have quite the impact, that's more than 1,800 100 households' rates bills, uh, using the salary band midpoints provided by Council. We can see a chief exec on $530K, which is more than the Prime Minister. We can see 5 staff, uh, using these midpoints on more than $440,000. 5 more on, uh, $280,000, which is still more than ministers of the crown are paid. But it goes further. We see another 11 on $230,000 $210,000, which, ladies and gentlemen, is more than the mayor that Wellingtonians elected to lead our city is paid. From our perspective, uh, we'll keep shining a light on overblown salaries until we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, the decisions, uh, or the decision to pop that bubble and to back ratepayers ultimately falls to, uh, you around this table. Councillors, these rates increases that we're chatting about They're not just numbers on a spreadsheet, you know, they do matter to households, they matter to businesses, and clearly, looking around, you can see it in the city, Wellington is hurting. And at that point, I think we will pass it over to any questions, if there are any. Thank you.

We have a question from Deputy Mayor McNulty.

Look, just wondering, I guess I'll wait till the rich list comes through, but the version you provided materially to the council late on Friday afternoon asking for comment by Monday morning misidentified and had the incorrect photos of council staff members in it. So have you made those corrections and taken those on board before sending this out publicly?

Yeah, any— so obviously we put that out to verify. Anyone who came back and mentioned that they were the wrong photos, we've of course taken those down. You know, we're not here to misidentify anyone, but we do feel that there is a strong public interest in transparency around salaries, which in in many cases are higher than the mayor's, higher than ministers', and, you know, in one case, higher than the Prime Minister's.

Just want to make sure we don't misidentify people or put their images into the public domain when they have not— when they've been incorrectly identified. So look forward to seeing the report.

Quick question from Councillor Chung.

Great, thanks very much for coming in. You talk a lot about the Deloitte report and the cuts that we actually need to make in there, but do you think that there are projects that we are doing in Wellington that either should be delayed or cancelled altogether, or do you think that the projects that we've got going are actually needed for Wellington and will actually enhance the living in Wellington and bring more people in?

Yeah, I mean, I'll pass to Austin for this one, but I think the obvious point to look at, as in fairness you guys are, is the Golden Mile. Is that a project that we need? You know, a review is underway, but I think the feeling of many ratepayers is it's luxury that we just can't afford. Yeah, I mean, second to that is obviously cycleways.

I think one of the, one of the options out for consultation was up to $10.5 million, and when you have people, ratepayers, who need assistance, that's unacceptable.

Thanks, James and Austin. Appreciate coming in. Thanks for your time. Thank you very much. Next, we're going to welcome up Alex Carr. Welcome to stand at the podium or take a seat, and yes, 5 minutes as well.

Oh, do I get a clicker?

There's one there. We'll locate that for you. Thanks very much.

So as councillors, I know it's rare to be making a decision which is a win-win-win, but changing the rates differential on Airbnb providers for standalone properties might just be an example of such a decision. My name is Alex Carr. My professional background is in tax, economics, and financial services. I've worked for Inland Revenue and the Financial Markets Authority, although in this presentation I'm speaking for I'm pushing the wrong button as well. Here we go. I want you to vote in favour of the proposal to change the rates differential on short-term accommodation providers to 2.6% of residential rates, and I want you to cast that vote safe in the knowledge that vote will be helping businesses in Wellington, because this proposal is a win-win-win for businesses in our city. Firstly, it will be a win for small boutique accommodation providers who compete with Airbnb providers. Our city is home to some really cool, interesting accommodation providers that is offering a stylish and unique accommodation experience. But we need them because they actually act as a draw, pulling visitors into our city. People can be visiting for the tourist spots, but they can also be drawn in by great places to stay. However, these businesses pay commercial rates at the 3.7 differential, and they compete in the same market segment as Airbnbs, which only pay residential rates. Council's accidentally got its fingers on the scale, skewing the market towards Airbnbs by charging Airbnb providers less rates. I urge councillors to level the playing field and help existing boutique hotels to survive while making it easier for new ones to enter the market. Another winner is other businesses in our city. We love visitors, we love sharing our beautiful city with the world, but we also quite like it when they spend money. The problem with Airbnbs is that most of them are located way out in the suburbs, away from where we put most of the businesses who are desperate for tourist cash. In contrast, our hotels and motels are almost all located in or very close to our main commercial hubs. In this picture here, you can see the hotels and motels mainly concentrated in the CBD, and we overlay that against Airbnbs— these are standalone Airbnb properties available in July— with all the little red dots and the numbers as well. As you can see, they're spread out everywhere, all across the suburbs, deep into the heart of suburbia. And this matters because of the power of proximity spending. Let's say we've got some tourists, Joe and Mary. If they stay at the Intrepid on Gusney Street, they're surrounded by places to spend money. They could get brunch at Floraditas, they could go shopping at Mandatory Menswear, they could get ice cream at Café Ice. Let's say they want to go to Tupapa. That's a 10-minute walk, so they walk, and to do that they have to go past no fewer than 55 different shops. Here's a list of them, which I got from walking down that very same route. There's so many opportunities for these businesses, for these tourists to be supporting struggling small businesses in our city. Or alternatively, they could stay out in the suburbs in an Airbnb like this one in Crofton Downs. There's hardly any businesses around, and if they wanted to visit to Te Papa, they are going to have to drive. So the only one making money from that trip will be the petrol company and the Te Papa car park. My point is that councillors should care not just about the number of visitors to our city, but also where we put them. Support struggling small businesses by bringing visitors closer to them. Unlock the power of proximity spending for our city by removing the incentive incentives for Airbnbs out in the suburbs where visitors would struggle to spend money even if they tried. I want to speak to the final winners from this proposal as well, which is the Airbnb providers themselves. If this proposal isn't passed, the Airbnb providers of standalone properties, uh, will likely continue to be subject to the commercial rate. The only issue is the council hasn't actually been enforcing it. In 2019, I was across an inland Revenue project to go after tax evasion by Airbnb providers in Queenstown, and I can tell you it won't be as difficult as you might think to enforce this rates differential, especially as the information is available online and there's more data scraping tools available. So Airbnb providers risk a future in which council officers could eventually realise just how easy it is to enforce this rates and to start doing so at the 3.7 differential. If you vote in favour, you'll be supporting those providers with a 27% discount from what they would have otherwise had to pay. So this proposal will help small boutique hotel providers by levelling the playing field. It will help small struggling businesses by shifting tourists to be closer. It will be a win for Airbnb providers by discounting the rates they would have otherwise had to pay. I urge councillors to vote yes. To changing the rates differential for short-term accommodation providers. Thank you. Thanks.

We'll squeak in a quick question from Mayor Little.

Thanks, Alex. Very helpful presentation.

I think you glossed over a wee bit about the enforcement element of it, and you come from Inland Revenue, so you understand about enforcement, and because the alternative is actually a more centralised process that involves enforcement through Inland Revenue. Do you see some challenges with the requirements for declarations, for registers, and for understanding the pattern of occupation that many of these Airbnb properties actually have, that therefore justifies the differential?

I think councillors will need to look at this from the perspective of a little bit of an investment. There is a little bit of an increased compliance cost at that early stage when you're going through to implement any sort of a change. There's more investigative resources that you're needing to apply at that front end to be able to make sure that everyone understands what the rules are and how those apply. It's the same in the Inland Revenue context as well. But eventually, after enduring those initial costs of going through and driving compliance, what you'll find is, is that good ratepayers will be following the rules voluntarily, and the ones who won't, you can go through to take further action to deal with that. So, initial costs, but in the long term, this is going to help to save council budgets.

Thank you, Alex. Appreciate you coming in. Thanks for your time. Our final submitter for this session isn't here at the moment, so we will take a break and return at 4 o'clock. Thanks, Hiram. Back to our final session. Our first submitters, we have Alan Blake and Angela Rothwell representing the Mount Victoria Residents Association. Welcome to take a seat there. We've got 5 minutes, and if you want to leave any time for questions, do so within that 5 minutes. And start whenever you're ready. Oh, and make sure to turn on the mics as well so we can hear nice and clear. Thank you.

Okay. Kia ora, koutou. Thank you for having us. I'm Angela Roswell from the Mount Vic Residents Association. This is Alan Blake. I'm just gonna— you may have already read our submission on the annual plan. I thought I'd just concentrate on the suggested new revenue for Wellington City Council services that we've listed off. The Moa Point disaster, we could recover cleanup and environmental damage costs from the Moa Point operator. It seems only fair. Ensuring contractors pay for repair or change to meet the basic standards in their work, for instance, not meeting standard footpath design or vehicle accessway design and having to repair it. And we've seen lots of, like, there was lots of hoo-ha about the Thornton Quay cycleway of how many times the road needed to be pulled up because it hadn't been planned holistically. So a bit more attention to that would be awesome. Thank you. Motorbike parking on road. Introducing a fee for motorbike parking to recognise the benefits of the use of of public land in the same way that cars pay for it. That would be good. Introducing more parking charges in all suburbs to recognise the benefits of use of public land. Only some suburbs and parking meter areas currently pay for these. Introducing an annual charge for vehicle accessways across footpaths to recognise the benefits of continued use of the footpath space and roadside kerb edge charging more for the use of valuable footpath space by businesses to recognise the disbenefit for pedestrians of reduced space and the benefits to business of the use of that public space. Currently it's a nominal fee only and it's not paid by many businesses. For instance, we see the use of footpath space for sandwich boards, chairs and tables, and other items. And I mean, we love business, We love vibrance on the street, but we have to marry that up with pedestrians' access. And the space is usually taken away from pedestrian space rather than going into what is traditionally used for cars. Empty plots could also be charged higher rates, and government-owned empty sites could also be charged rates. For example, the empty site next to the Embassy, that's that's been sitting there for years. There's no incentive for them to develop in any way. We have a housing crisis. We could be using that space. We support public space for public use and support charging individuals and businesses for the privilege of being able to use parts of our public space for their own purposes. Policy changes are required to ensure that a large proportion of public space remains available to the public at all times. A few things that are just Mount Victoria Residents Association pet projects that have been going on for years. Public toilets at Pyrie Street, we'd really like some. We know that it takes years and it takes a lot to convince Council that there's actually a need, but we'll do it, we'll keep going. Mount Vic Town Belt is one of the most heavily used parks in Wellington with a constant flow of both local and overseas visitors of all ages, and yet there's only one toilet and it's right at the top. The Pāre Street children's playground has recently been developed to include adult play equipment, and it's a key access point to the park. Many people use this area and would stay longer if there were better facilities. This is one of the issues for volunteer groups who come to do bush restoration work in the town belt. There are many options to consider that would provide public toilets in this area and and further work is required. There's huge community support that shows the need for a toilet at this location from the many years of work that the residents' association has advocated for it. We'd like to see 2026-27 annual plan funding to investigate and come up with a plan to build these toilets. Providing adequate public toilets is an accessibility issue and is one area of manaakitanga that Wellington and New Zealand should stand out for. We need more toilets where they're needed, and particularly in busy areas. I'll just leave it there. If anyone's got any questions?

Do we have any questions, councillors? Councillor Matthews.

I'm interested in the Obviously it's quite difficult with the public toilets because the people want them, and but, you know, we sort of need to make assessments across the city about where we put those limited resources, and then we, we need to kind of pay for them.

So, so why in this area in particular is there an obvious need?

Well, like we say, heavy usage across all demographics, locals and visitors. And, you know, I know my own— my son is 20 years old, but as a weeny he, you know, would have stayed there a lot longer if there had been facilities.

Excellent.

Thanks. Unfortunately we're out of time now, but I really appreciate you coming in and doing a submission. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Next up we have Iyal Aharoni. Welcome. Welcome to stand at the podium or take a seat there, whatever you prefer. And you've got 5 minutes. Okay, thank you.

Sorry, I'm not very prepared. I had a busy day. I come here to discuss the commercial rating of NB&B. I haven't had the time to look at the other matters currently in discussion. That's a new rate. It's not actually— it's been published and quoted by a number of councillors that it's an increase of the commercial rating. It's not an increase for Airbnb or for short-term accommodation. It's not an increase. It's been like this for 20 years. It's a reduction. It always has been 3.7%. I haven't seen any suggestion how it's going to be enforced. So what's the difference? It was 3.7 and never been enforced, and now it's going to be 2.6 and never be enforced. So it's a bit— it's all a waste of time. The biggest argument is why do we have differential in the city? The argument is that business use more differential than residential. This is the, you know, all affordability. Well, clearly businesses are struggling at the moment, so there's no Affordability excuse is not relevant, but service use, um, let's have a look at the substantial use the council has spent in the last few years. Town Hall, library, water services, sewage plant, leaky homes, they're not business expenses. Most of the council expenses are actually residential expenses, but I'm not arguing That businesses should pay less. Businesses should pay equally. Now, you're quoting that Wellington pays 3.7% as opposed to other cities 2.6%. It's nonsense. Wellington pays— the commercial rating in Wellington is more than double Auckland. If you compare similar property, we are way more. Your published information, or their published information, is incorrect. Now go back to the Airbnb. So if you have a short-term— when you say short-term accommodation, sometimes people rent in Airbnb for 90 days. So that apartment is rented for 90 days, well, she shouldn't pay commercial rates, she should pay residential rates. Ah, okay, and what about that person that publishes apartment for daily stay and it's empty? Ah, well, it's empty, it hasn't been rented, but in your calculation it needs to be paying 4 times the rates and that the one that is actually occupied. Sorry, my phone just— So yeah, and so I think the whole thing is flawed. It's not going to work. You're not going to enforce it. You need to start looking at reducing the rating differential and other costs that incurred by businesses or this town. As you know, we've lost thousands of employees. We lost thousands of businesses, not thousands, but many businesses. Businesses are struggling. Unless you start making it more cost-effective for businesses, this city will turn into Picton. Now one more thing. One of the reasons we struggle in Wellington is a lot of people working from home. Well, have you thought of applying differential, commercial differential on working from home? It's a commercial activity. What are you doing about it?

So the whole thing is flawed.

You need to abolish the differential altogether. You have to start be consistent on your charging. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a bit of time left. Does anyone have a question?

Oh, so I got another minute?

You're welcome to keep going. We've got a question from from Councillor Randall.

Yeah, look, how is Wellington— I mean, you're a developer— how does Wellington at the moment, unless it changes, what's it look like from a development perspective?

Well, you can't develop in Wellington, and I know there's talk by some councils, they think they're going to make commercial rates or land rates higher, that people will start building houses. You can't build houses, you can't build buildings because there's no tenants There's no customers to buy houses. Willis Bond, one of the best developers in the country, they've developed houses all over the country. They got sites in Wellington they can't develop. It doesn't matter what you do with the rates and what have you. There's no end users, there's no development.

Another question from Councillor Young. Thanks, Mayor.

Actually, it's nothing to do with what you've just said. I just want to know what's happening to your hotel in Wakefield Street. Huh? What? Sorry? What is happening with your hotel in Wakefield Street?

The hotel is currently in building consent process.

So do you have any timeline for when it might be back online?

We're going to start— what's it got to do with what we're talking about?

I said it has nothing to do, but it's just great to have a chance to ask you.

We're starting the strengthening part. Maybe later this year. It will take a year to bring the building to 100%, and that's what we're doing. Great. But it's not the fit-out. The fit-out is a substantial investment. So the seismic strengthening is, you know, is $20 million or something, or whatever it is. Not $450 million like the town hall, but never mind. So one thing at a time. And once we finish seismic strengthening, We will look at the market and the viability of spending another substantial amount to turn into hotel. Thank you. It will happen.

Good. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you so much for your time and coming in and doing a submission. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next, we're going to go to Mary Trintsen, who is online, I believe. Welcome, Mary. Hi. You've got 5 minutes to speak, and if you want to leave any time for questions, You can do that within those 5 minutes and start whenever you're ready.

Okay. I do not support the proposed rate increases for 2026-27. Yet again, the council is planning to fleece the ratepayers to pay for its previous mismanagements. Our rates in the 4 years from 2016-17 to 2020-21 increased by 19.76%, while the cost of living increased by 18.37%. Since then, in the 5 years from 2020-21 to 2025-26, our rates have increased by an accumulative total of 79.68%, while the cost of living increase was just 23.96%, resulting in our paying nearly $6,000 above what the increase in the cost of living would indicate during that time. It seems to me that the council has had an agenda over the years to provide for the city what it thinks the residents should have, not what the residents want and/or need. We have seen budget blowouts on many projects and projects provided as Rolls-Royce solutions, not simple effective solutions, e.g., a toilet block with a light show. Where is the accountability for these costs due to extravagance and ideologies? As a household, we have been looking at our costs and managing to reduce some of them, only to have such cost savings evaporated by these eye-watering increases in rates over the last few years. It is time for the council to look at itself and reduce costs. E.g., we heard of a consultant's report stating the council had 350 too many staff. Has this been addressed yet? It's time the council thought about ratepayers, and particularly those on fixed incomes, as to how they are expected to find an increasing amount of money for rates each year that are way above inflation. Are we supposed to live in cold houses with no insurance, cut out meals, and resign from membership of organisations? Electricity, gas, insurance, food, and membership fees have also significantly increased over the years, but not at the rate at which the rapacious Wellington City Council increases its rates. We have seen cycleways propagated around the city at huge expense despite the limited number of cyclists on the cycleways, which does not seem to satisfy any cost-benefit ratio. And it needs to be taken into consideration the number of residents that have been inconvenienced, and the number of businesses impacted, in some cases had to close down as a result. Progress on the cycleways need to be halted. How can a cycleway in Karori be justified when the residents voted against it? While all this is happening, pipe repairs will be undertaken only when urgently needed rather than according to a proactive approach in keeping up with the maintenance plan. So in order to avoid street geysers, maybe we should sell tickets to them as they do for geysers in Rotorua. In our suburb of Churton Park, I have observed and reported many leaks, which is surprising considering the age of the suburb, and they keep popping up. Sometimes when the leak is fixed, another breaks out a bit further along, which leads to speculation as to the quality of the piping in the first place and whether it can stand up to the heavy electric buses now rolling over the roads. Has the council been putting money aside for maintenance the same way that body corporates are compelled to do by law? I have no issue with the council making users pay for more of its services. Making huge increases above the cost of inflation one go, however, may result in services being poorly used, particularly learn to swim classes. Many families may forego these if the increase is too high. Also, the waste disposal costs may result in more illegal dumping of rubbish. Such increases would be better phased in over several years. Also, currently booking a room in the Johnsville Library is free for the first 2 hours and then $19 an hour thereafter. How about the same approach for the City Library for community groups? If you charge community groups to use the library space in town, um, for space, they may end up losing membership and closing down because they wouldn't have the income for the proposed changes. Other thoughts on revenue: charge out-of-town visitors to Wellington attractions more than Wellington City residents, e.g., in Nelson, we paid to visit museum as we are not residents. We also paid for Broadgreen House and Isel Park House. The residents of Nelson and Tasman do not. Do other councils in the local area provide funds for the zoo, Wellington Museum, and other attractions? It would be a simple matter to extend the overseas visitor charge at Wellington Museum to out-of-town New Zealand residents and have a higher charge for Catherine Mansfield House for out-of-town visitors compared to those who live in Wellington. And this could be extended to other facilities.

So, any questions? Thanks, Mary. Do we have any questions? We've got one from Councillor Chung. Thanks very much, Mary.

You're talking about the expense and the cost of living increasing and so forth. So can you actually think of things that we should not be doing at the moment, or do you think that there are things that we can actually delay to actually try and save some costs? I think cycleways could be delayed. Okay, great, thanks. And do you think that there's something that we should be doing that's really, really important that we should be ensuring that people either, I guess, find it easier to live in Wellington?

Well, look at the costs. Look at some of the climate change initiatives. Maybe some efficiencies in what's going on. Your reporting services online for faults has been excellent, I'll have to say that, and that is a good way to go. Encourage people to use that more than the phone lines perhaps.

Yeah, great. Thank you so much, Mary. Thank you. Appreciate your submission. Thanks for taking the time. Thank you. Next we're going to go to Nicholas Smith. Welcome, Nicholas. You're welcome to stand at the podium or take a seat at the head of the table there, whatever you prefer. Alright. Yeah, yeah, sure. You've got 5 minutes and if you want to leave any time for questions questions, you can do that within there. We'll just bring up your PowerPoint presentation as well, and just speak into that mic there beside you. You just turn it on with the button there at the bottom, and yeah, whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

Okay, my submission is quite simple. It revolves around the key proposal number 2 around the cycleway changes, and my submission and preference is to go with Option B. So that's keeping the budget agreed as with the long-term plan amendment at $10.5 million. Now, the premise is this would give Council more options to make safety improvements for vulnerable road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists, and specifically I want to raise a situation where vulnerable road users interface or get into precarious situations. Traffic in Kandahar specifically, and I'm making a representation for a raised pedestrian crossing outside the Nenvil Park Rec Centre on Cockayne Road. That's a very high-risk convergence zone at the bottom of collector roads. There's high speeds, 50 50k zone, but we live directly opposite the Nimble Rec Centre and we experience cars going down there at the bottom of the hill over 50k. You've got parked cars, poor visibility, you've got bus stops going in both directions, you've got turning traffic, you've got children's parties at the Rec Centre, you've got senior citizens doing tai chi, pickleball and other games there, and in the weekends and evenings you've got athletics, sports, rugby cricket on the astroturf and in the expansive grounds out front. And further, you've got kids chasing runaway balls from the astroturf down into that high-risk convergence zone. Bike commuters are also present accessing the nearby Nyogorge Road and the Kaiwharapora Bridle Path. Periodically, we hear that shattering sound of damaged cars as wing mirrors are ripped off, as cars are parked too close to speed, parked cars on both sides of the road. To help you understand this, I've just got some photos that were taken over the weekend on Saturday. I don't know whether we can move through to number 2 in the slide. Is that for me? Yes. So here's the Nenaville Park Rec Centre, just to give a sense of, of what's available there in the amenity. There's squash courts, there's basketball courts, there's club rooms, There's changing facilities and expansive grounds out the front and the astroturf at the back. People from far and wide come to play games through the weekend, and at night too there's activities going on as well. The next slide will show you the location of this. The map on the left, lookers' left, that shows you the Cockayne Road accessing Nimble Park and feeding Kandala Road up on the top there and the Nyah Gorge Road on the bottom left. A more detailed map shows the Nimble Park Rec Centre with the proposed raised pedestrian crossing there on the red line. As you can see, there's a confluence there of Lucknow Terrace, the Collector Road, Cockayne Road, and Calcutta Street. All this is at the bottom of the hill where car speeds are at their maximum. It is the place where you've got young people crossing roads going to school parties and games, and when that's mixed with parked cars and buses, there's an inevitable accident waiting to happen. If we go to the next slide, these photos were taken on Saturday afternoon outside the Nimble Rec Centre. The photo up on the top Top left is looking back up Cockayne Road, and you can see cars coming down there and parked cars. The main photo has the rec centre at the back, sort of middle left. You can see a bus stop there, which is the Nimble Park rec centre car park, but you've got cars overflowing onto Cockayne Road. You'll see there a ute on the left. You've got someone with doors wide open, buckling in a baby. That is a common sight in this space. You've got cars crossing the centre line coming towards you. You've got cars pulling out of the Nimble Park Rec Centre. And you've got a car heading away from you, a white one, that's come down that hill. So this is dying out for some sort of leeway for pedestrian crossings trying to navigate. This convergence zone. The next slide— thank you— shows the top left there shows the back of the bus stop there. You'll see the yellow line, that is the back of the bus stop. So when you exit the bus, you're then faced with often a whole line of cars looking up the hill and you cannot see approaching cars. And the only time you see an approaching car is when it appears from the closest park car, in this case the ute. So you've got young kids who may be not able to exercise as much judgment as an adult sort of running the gauntlet to cross the road. And yeah, so the visibility is constrained, particularly for young people. The other photos there show you cars pulling out of the Nimble Park Rec Centre car park, and you get a sense of buses coming both ways. Bus commuters are also running that gauntlet as well to cross the road. This risk, these risks are exacerbated when daylight savings ends and you've got activities at the Rec Centre and still this much traffic happening as well. My last slide just shows you where there's a natural space or inclination where young families and pedestrians want to cross that road between those two bus stops opposite the Nimble Park Wreck Centre. Again, it's at the bottom of the hill. It would be a simple cost of $150,000, that's my understanding, for a raised pedestrian crossing. You compare that to the value of statistical life, what society is prepared to pay to prevent a premature death of 5 to 12 million, it pales in comparison and would be an easy fix. And if you've got the headroom for a great— through a greater cycleway budget, you could then sort of pick out prioritise these high-risk areas in our communities where pedestrians and cyclists use on a regular basis, and bus commuters. Any questions? Thank you.

We'll squeeze a quick one in from Councillor Matthews. Yeah, it's not really a question.

Thank you so much for your submission. This is my neighbourhood too, and I recognise the issues. I'm wondering if we could ask— we have, luckily, we have Jenny Chetwin in the room, and I'm wondering if we could ask the transport team. It's not so much probably an annual plan or cycleway issue, but if we could ask the transport team to come and have a look and assess the issues in that area, that is something that we kind of do routinely. And so I'd like to ask, with your patience, Chair, that we ask for the submission to go through that process, for the transport team to go and have a look and see what's possible in that area.

Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks. Thanks so much for coming in. Appreciate your time. Just run out of time for questions, but maybe you could— we've got one more submitter, so Councillor Cheyne, you might be able to grab him after that. Thank you for your time. We're going to welcome up our very last submitter of this process, Craig Moore. Welcome, Craig.

Kia ora, good afternoon. So I'm here to talk to you today, the lucky last, about the commercial rates and short-term rental providers. Just basically, my proposal is to, rather than introduce a blanket rate differential, is to introduce a bed tax as an alternative, and I'll explain why.

Do I click?

Thanks.

So just a little bit about me. I operate an Airbnb on behalf of family members It's used for a long weekend every 4 to 6 weeks. It's got amazing views. Most of my tourists, most of my guests are international tourists. I'm actually really good at what I do. I'm in the top 1% of Airbnbs in the world. I feel like I do a good job representing Wellington. That's a part-time, I guess, hobby. Side hustle for myself and my wife. What I want to really highlight, and it's a bit hard to see, but the black lines on the calendar there, that's my booking calendar. And Wellington's not a year-round destination like obviously Queenstown or Auckland. The bookings that I have over summer, you know, are relatively high. I'm— I think I've got their 44% occupancy over summer. But looking ahead over the winter months, and I've been doing this for a couple of years now, and based on my occupancy last year as well, the winter months are very, very quiet. And so a rate differential that applies to the whole year doesn't take into account the peaks and troughs that hosts experience. So a little bit about what I do for, for my, my guests. I promote local businesses. Each guest gets an information sheet depending on the time of the year around kind of cool weather tips, you know, stuff about, you know, which bars have an open fireplace for people to try, information about the Harbourside Markets, where to get a good coffee, all those kinds of things that promote Wellington businesses. And then when I look at my profit, I've put in some revenue showing revenue for my peak period, January and February this year. And then an off-peak month from July last year, and my revenue was just over $8,000 for those 3 months. When I apply the current rate differential, pay residential rates, my net profit over those 3 months is just over $1,100 to $1,200. But if I apply the proposed commercial rate differential, that really makes it pointless for me to now operate a short-term accommodation offer in Wellington. So in summary, I guess my bottom line is I'm not against regulating. I think there are possibly some cowboy players out there, and you know, could have some good, you know, offer good services to visitors, but the model needs to really line up, I feel, with the fact that we have peak and off-peak tourists. So a bed tax kind of incentivizes me to continue to provide an option for people, and the more I'm incentivized, the more income council make by charging a bed tax. And then that, you know, obviously has flow-on effects to hospitality, and I did note in the plan that there was a proposal to reduce the overseas, I think, advertising for overseas tourists, you know, that I think was a $70,000 cut. So, you know, a bed tax could go towards, you know, filling that gap potentially as well.

That's it for me, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions? I've got one from Deputy Mayor McNulty. Oh no, ah, Councillor Chung, you have one as well?

Great, thanks. Did you hear the previous speaker? I just went to ask him some questions about B&B, and we're talking about— he said that typically the Airbnb groups are family groups, and that's why they stay in there, and so that's why they tend to become, I guess, noisier for the neighbours, and they're a very, very different market to the hotels. Do you actually find that?

Slightly, I guess the people that we attract are high-paying tourists from overseas because they would like an experience where they've got an apartment with water views. We're kind of 10 minutes from the nearest— 10-minute walk from the nearest hotel, so it's a little bit distant. Two bedrooms, you know, you can spread out, do your own washing, and enjoy the views with a glass of wine on the deck, and then kind of withdraw from the city and go back in. Whereas a hotel, it's, you know, it's much more contained and a different market, and people prefer that kind of more one-on-one personal experience that I curate for them rather than a kind of generic.

Okay, that's great. Great, thank you. Awesome. Thank you.

Oh, it'll be stunning out there, wouldn't it? Yeah.

All right, thanks, Greg. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks for your submission. See you. Right everyone, that brings us to the end of all of our oral plan, oral submissions on our annual plan. I just want to thank all of our submitters for taking the time in their busy lives to come in and participate in our democracy and make a submission. We really appreciate them giving their time to share their views with us, and I know that I personally found it very beneficial for my decision-making. So, I'll move that motion. Motion now that the Te Ataurapa Council Planning and Finance Committee hear the oral submitters and thank them for their submissions. Have I got a seconder for that? Meletu. So I'll now put that motion which has been moved and seconded. Those in favour, press 1. Those against, please press 2. I think that's everyone there. Did you get me? You've got to tell us how you're going to vote or how you want to vote. Oh, there we go. Yes. Thank you. I declare that motion carried, and I'll declare the meeting closed. Please join me in the closing karakia. Eneihea, e neihea, e neihea.