Grants Subcommittee

The project has the support of Hockey New Zealand and Nukuora, and we would be looking to match any contribution from Council, but would need a contribution confirmed from Council to get that ball rolling.

Michael will be able to give us more details on the actual development plans.

Kia ora, Michael Langley, I'm the CEO of Wellington Hockey. What I just wanted to do was really quickly show you a couple of photos of the facility. I guess we were lucky to have the privilege to show a few of the councillors around over the last couple of weeks, but this is our building. This is our pavilion. It's council-owned. It was built in the early 1990s and largely has been untouched since that point. So as a sport, we recognise that we've got a part to play in bringing our home— and when I say home, I truly mean that this is the sole venue that hockey comes together across the Wellington region for our 6,000 participants or 13 clubs, and that's before we even start talking about secondary school students. And as you can see from the photos here, it's got a pretty spacious pavilion, it's got public toilets associated with the early 1990s. They no longer meet requirements of accessibility, so part of this upgrade is rectifying that. Changing rooms, if you're an international team, they're probably not up to your standard. If you're a club player, they're probably not up to the standard other winter sport participants are getting across the region. Showers are well and truly in need of replacement, and then into the sort of toilets and other spaces. This room here is our umpire's room. It's meant to hold 10 umpires. So that's another area that we want to spend some effort into rectifying so that we can support those who support the game. And last but not least, also rectifying the public toilets on the ground floor. And just a bit of a timeline— sorry, not timeline, but a bit of a key messaging around the proposed redevelopment. So I guess the key takeaway for us is that we respectfully are submitting this proposal seeking $825,000. As a sport, we are committed to matching that dollar for dollar and helping fund the redevelopment of a council asset for the benefit of our sport. Happy to take any questions.

Councillor Chung.

Great, thanks very much for coming in.

You mentioned that you applied for international tournaments as well, or you hold them at your facility. When you apply for these, do they actually come to inspect the premises, or do they look at what we have and say, and make a decision based on that?

We've got a really strong relationship with Hockey New Zealand, who are the decision maker. We run national tournaments every single year, so they know well and truly what they're expecting. We are expecting an international fixture later this year, still to be confirmed, but Yes, fair to say, sorry, Hockey New Zealand know our facility intimately.

Great, thank you.

Just briefly, Councillor Al-Rubayhi.

Thank you, Chair. Can I just— can you just remind me how many bathrooms are available at the moment, as well as what the privacy conditions are for the showers, and confirm if there is absolutely no accessibility toilets for people?

Okay, yes, so ground floor, which is the essentially the large area where the public toilets are and the changing rooms are. There's no accessible toilets on that level, and there's a single female and a single male accessible toilet on the top floor of the pavilion. I said before they don't currently meet the standards for accessibility spaces, and the showers, we treat all the changing rooms as gender neutral. And they are not meeting the current definition of gender neutral, but they do have shower curtains to afford some privacy.

Right, thank you. So I'm sorry, we haven't got time for any more questions. Thank you very much for coming to submit this afternoon. And now I'd like to ask the next submitters, Karen Sunstead and Helen Rodenberg from Citizens Advice Bureau. Good afternoon, welcome.

Kia ora koutou katoa, ko Helen Rodenburg tāku inga. I'm the Chair of Citizens Advice Wellington. Kia ora koutou katoa, kōkorensu nse tokuringa. I'm the General Manager of Citizens Advice Wellington. We have supporters in the room with us today as well. They might just like to stand or wave their hands. Thank you for coming too. We understand the council has set some specific new priorities for community funding. However, losing sight of the benefit of partnering with contributors to the social infrastructure, such as Citizens Advice, will mean worse outcomes for the city and its people at a time of increasing hardship, social stress, and reduced cohesion. With the proposed 59% funding cut, we will not be able to continue our current level of service and will struggle to survive. The current grant that we have right now of $242,000 is 75% of our income. The reduction to $100,000 starts in 6 weeks. The reduction will not adequately support a networked face-to-face presence and raises the question of long-term sustainability of Citizens Advice in Wellington. The advice by officers attached to the recommendation suggests we diversify funding sources. However, realistically, we have no chance of recouping $142,000 per annum in any one year, let alone on a sustainable basis. Central government funds our national office and the incredible knowledge base we use in our work, but will not fund individual branches around the country. We also do seek some clarity on the rationale for the cut. What service adaptation is expected when we already have 4 different successful delivery channels. And again, you know, this is 1 year funding and regardless of the amount granted, it does not allow for long-term planning. We therefore seek a reinstatement of the bulk of the reduced funding. If this decision cannot be taken today, we urge the committee to transfer consideration of the request to the June meeting. The reason there is so much value in our services is our competent and committed volunteers. However, they require support and management, and we are very experienced and we have a very good idea of how much staffing is needed to support 125 volunteers across 5 branches. This proposed level of funding will not support that. We are also very focused on accessibility. However, with the space no longer provided in the Central Library, we need to pay commercial rates for an accessible and visible location on Manor Street, which has seen an encouraging increase in face-to-face clients. But with this cut, we will not be able to afford that. Our information, financial mentoring, and community directory services empower Wellingtonians and help make Wellington a city of healthy and thriving whānau and community. And we've done that for 50 years, and we want to continue for another 50. The return on investment is clear. Multiple reviews have been done, including the Wellington City Council's review in 2018 by PricewaterhouseCoopers that said there's a 139% return on investment of our services. A recent North Shore CAB Impact Lab report said for every dollar spent, $13 of social value is created. For our contract at the moment, that would be $3 million of value created. By CAB across Wellington. We see the need every day. The need is still there. People's lives are getting more and complex. People who are vulnerable to misinformation, disinformation, digitally excluded, people with language barriers and access barriers, they turn to us because they trust our independent, free advice. We support people to make the next positive step in the right direction and act as a pens above the cliff rather than the ambulance below. You will also know we support people through adverse weather events such as the recent floodings, and things like we share fencing, rubbish, sewage, all those issues we help people with too. We do— what we do help Wellingtonians we all care about every day. It's therefore heartbreaking to see and be faced with such reduced services when there's so much community need. So we strongly ask that you do not reduce our funding in the future.

Thank you, of course. Right, well, we've got time for one question. Councillor Alrubayhi.

Thank you. Can I please just check, when you say the $242,000 are 75% of your income, is that for funding for head office or your local branches? Income? It's for the whole operation, but it's our local Wellington branch. Right, okay, so it's specific to Wellington. Across Wellington and we cover all of them. Okay. Can I have a quick follow-up if that's okay?

Very quick.

Okay. What strategies or steps has CAB taken otherwise to sort of look at the total funding model to ensure sustainability for all of the branches going forward? Forward into the future? So we apply for funding grants from other funders, obviously, but we— and we have always had funding from Wellington City Council. Across New Zealand, city councils fund Citizens Advice because they recognise the value that it provides for their communities.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Right. Thank you. So thank you for coming along. The next participant is Kate Scarlett from Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley. Welcome.

Kia ora, I'm the tangata tūtī co-manager of Community Law Wellington Hutt Valley. We're asking that you continue to fund our tenancy service, which is a drop-in service and full-time lawyer. To take on ongoing cases and ensure tenants are supported. This funding also provides support for our pro bono support service, which connects law— big law firms with community group not-for-profit need in Wellington area and provides legal education for not-for-profits and funds our outreaches in Newtown, Kilbirnie, Strathmore, and Johnsonville. We think this aligns quite well with the long-term plan of the council, specifically in the access to good and affordable housing and the community-led initiatives to build social connectedness and community resilience. Our tenancy service has a direct impact on reducing homelessness through challenging unlawful terminations and challenging emergency housing declines. Clients, and working on cases related to significance, maintenance, health and safety, and healthy homes issues. We also advise around 15 to 20-ish clients a week through our Wellington drop-in services and outreaches on tenancy issues. And we think that's quite important because it helps people become aware of their rights in addition to the education and radio work. And other promotion that we do around tenancy rights so that they are aware of that service. And we do also refer a lot of our clients to the CAB tenancy resource, as we don't have much funding to expand our online legal information resources. So we rely on referring people that we can't represent or give advice to, to that service as well. In addition, we also refer to the workers' rights service hosted by the Wellington CAB as well. When our migrant exploitation lawyer can't take on ongoing clients because that capacity gets maxed out quite a lot, then we will often refer clients to that free workers' rights service. In addition, this funding supports our outreach clinics, which we think would become more important in the event of the fuel crisis, or if there was a significant earthquake event. We work quite closely with Christchurch Community Law, about to do a training with them about responding to events as a community law centre. Our pro bono service that we operate with this funding also provides $348,000 worth of legal services to the community groups and clients that they work with. So we think that's quite good value on return. And, yeah, are there any questions?

Any questions? Councillor Foone?

Yeah.

Kia ora, Kate, thank you. Just noting the interlink between you and Citizens Advice Bureau, how critical is this relationship and I'm just concerned about one affecting the other?

There is significantly more unmet legal needs in Wellington than we can provide for in general, and when we can't help meet that need, we do refer to a variety of other services, and CAB is one of the ones that we do refer to.

Any other questions? Oh, Councillor Chung, of course.

My question was actually very similar. Is there any way that you can actually work closer together with the Citizens Advice Bureau? Because it seems like the services you provide are very, very similar. Is that a fair assumption?

No, they're different. We have to provide a legal service that complies with the rules of legal relations. That lawyers work under. So we do, and we also rely on that capacity. There are ways in which we work together. I think some of our lawyers do provide some legal education for the volunteers of the CAB type of thing.

Thank you. One very quick question from Councillor Foone. Yeah, and just back to the tenancy services, I remember you know, 2 terms ago when we put this funding up for you. How would you describe your experience of the people that are coming to you? Has that improved over time, or are you still seeing the demand for that support?

We still see quite a lot of demand for it. When we set up this service, there was, I think, 1 lawyer on our referral list who would, in private practice, deal with tenancy issues. There is now 2, but only 1 of them— see, law does not make you money. It's a very low-income thing, so it's unlikely that the private lawyers will take it on on the tenant side, usually just the landlord side, because they've got the money.

Okay, thank you very much, Kate. So now I'd like Jill Hood, please, from the Wellington Homeless Women's Trust. Welcome.

Kia ora koutou. I'm Jill Hood, I'm the CEO of the Wellington Homeless Women's Trust. Just a wee bit about the Trust, we provide safe, supportive transitional housing and intensive wraparound support for wahine who are experiencing chronic homelessness and multiple, often intersecting challenges. We currently have a 14-bed Whare, and 9 beds are funded by HUD, Housing and Urban Development, and we self-fund the other 5 beds through ongoing fundraising. The Wellington Homeless Women's Trust accepts wahine with chronic, high, and complex needs, including women who are often unable to access or sustain mainstream housing. Due to the severity of the barriers that they face. And often these women believe, and I think they have been failed by some of the services who don't really, or who struggle perhaps to actually understand the chronic issues that these women face. And the reality for these women includes things like chronic homelessness, trauma and complex trauma histories, family violence and unsafe relationships, significant mental health challenges, addiction and substance dependency, serious physical health concerns, extreme poverty, financial hardship, social isolation and disconnection from whānau and community. And there's multiple barriers for them in accessing in sustaining longer-term housing. And these challenges are really experienced in isolation. They are very much interconnected and cumulative and often very longstanding. And what makes the Wellington Homeless Women's Trust different is that we are the only transitional housing service exclusively for wahine in the Wellington district. And we specialise in providing a safe, stable, and trauma-informed environment, intensive relational long-term support, highly responsive wraparound care, which is really key, and support in rebuilding trust in every area, like with other agencies, with potential landlords, with whānau, just across the board, just really building that trust and engagement and supporting their wellbeing and independence and connection in order for them to be connected and Yeah, and good citizens within the Wellington area. So there's a lot of advocacy across housing, health, income, the justice system, and social services. And I just wanna make a, just really make a point that these women really are probably the most damaged people within our city and really, really struggle just to have basic needs met. And our service really works with them to actually work through those issues and to actually get to a point where they can function more effectively and primarily hold down a tenancy. So what we're looking for from the council is a contribution of $100,000 towards our services And this is just for day-to-day running. This is for paying the power bills. It's not for, yeah, it's not for anything sort of major. It's for the basic running of the service to assist these wahine and to really make a difference in their lives.

Yeah, have we got any questions?

I saw somebody was looking like they might have.

Yes, Councillor Foone has a question. Kia ora, Jill.

Thank you so much for the mahi.

What difference will this funding make to what you're already doing, and do you see that the need is increasing, or is it stabilised, or what is your experience of change in your customers or your people?

Yeah, first of all, I will say that the need is definitely increasing, both in volume and complexity. The wahine who are coming through really do have high and complex needs.

This—

if we don't get this funding, it will mean a reduction in the intensity of the services we can provide and potentially in the number of beds that we can provide.

Thank you, and I'm sorry there's no more time for any more questions, but thank you very much for coming along today.

Okay, thank you for your time.

And so next up is the Life Flight Trust, Lyndall Bremner and Sebastian Graud. Welcome. I like the uniforms.

Thank you very much. We steal them off our pilots. I'll just see if I get my— preso's about to start. Kia ora koutou. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'm Sebastian Graud, the head of fundraising at the Life Flight Trust.

I'm Linda Bremer, part of the fundraising team at Life Flight.

When our emergency phone rings, we never know what the day will bring. Could be a Westpac Chopper Rescue, a sick baby needing to get to intensive care, stroke, heart attack, uh, in all number of life-saving emergency services. We never know what the day will bring, but we do know this: more people than ever need LifeFlight. We're getting a call out on average every 4.5 hours at the moment. It's a 20% increase year on year over the last 3 years. We know our aircraft and medics need to be ready to fly within minutes, day and night, and we know that we face a $4,000 funding shortfall on average for every life we save, and that means we just simply cannot keep saving local lives without wonderful people like you and your voice. Here's a quick snapshot of the emergency services you fund right here in Wellington. Your fantastic Westpac Choppers saving Wellingtonians when minutes matter. These are the rescues in the sea, the rescues in the bush, urgent medevacs, flying babies and children to our incredible intensive care unit at Wellington Hospital. You also fund your local air ambulance planes. You might not be aware of this, but this is so Wellingtonians can access life-saving treatment that's not available here locally. 1 in 4 of those patients are Tamariki, and your grant provides access to the care that you simply cannot get here in Wellington. Those are things like the services provided at Starship Hospital in Auckland, The incredible surgeons at Middlemore in Auckland, child cancer treatments which are just unavailable here, the list goes on. Your funding helps Wellingtonians access that life-saving care. Now it's an amazing, long-standing relationship with the Council dating right back to our founders, some incredible Wellingtonians. There's Peter Button on the left, Simaap Denaechek, one of the incredible first funders on the right, Dr. Russell Worth, incredible co-founder. And it's a relationship that's been cherished for half a century. That's a little picture I took on my way home to the base last night. You can't really make out your logo on the bottom right there, but rest assured it is there. We're very proud of the support that we get. I don't want to have to peel that logo off. It's very important to us. In fact, you are one of the— you are the third biggest funder of all time to Life Flight, and it's fair to say that you're simply irreplaceable to us. We got a really distressing phone call on Friday that we're actually not going to make the cut and not going to be recommended for funding. It's shocking to us. For the last almost 30 years, since 1997, we've recorded a kind gift from Wellington City Council every year. It's a relationship that dates back even further than that, and I, I just don't know what has materially changed this year. The need is still just as great. The Wellingtonians still need to be saved, and your support is still just as important. Now, we've asked for over $100,000 towards operating costs. I see a lot of important need here. If you require to keep it at the level which we were at, which was about $43,000 per annum, we'll gratefully receive that and we'll utilise that to save lives. Do what you need to do, but please, please consider us and give what you can. Now, I'll hand over to Lyndall quickly shortly, but a quick recap on what your funding will achieve. Fuel for emergency flights, we've had a 65% increase in that over the last 3 months. Aircraft maintenance, crew wages, rescue equipment, life-saving medical equipment for our teams. Right now, the need is the greatest. We're actually going to expect our busiest year. We're anticipating 2,000 emergency calls coming in in the year ahead for the first time ever. And with fuel going up, it's actually our toughest year. So I'm asking you, please, if you know someone that's been flown by LifeFlight, if you care about the tamariki that might need the service, if you appreciate the diverse need that we cover— we fly a lot of people who come from low-income situations, we fly them for free. We fly a lot of people that have mobility challenges, we fly heavier people, we fly those with disability, all free. We fund specialist equipment to make sure that we can cover all of the different types of wonderful Wellingtonians that are out there. So if you want to support the Wellingtonians who will need us in their greatest moment of need, please go into bat for us. We would really, really appreciate it. I'll hand over to Lyndall quickly.

Thanks, Steve.

As Seb's mentioned, your support is needed more than ever. This is one of our patients that you've helped support, baby Santiago. This young family was out for a walk in the Orongorongas when mum Kylie tripped. She tried to shield baby Santiago, who was in her front pack, but unfortunately his little head hit a rock. Distressingly for his parents, there was a fist-sized indent in his tiny skull. The Westpac Chopper was was dispatched, picked them up, and airlifted them straight to the rooftop at Wellington Hospital. The amazing team there looked after Santi. He underwent a CT scan where they found a fracture. He needed to get to Starship Hospital quickly for neurosurgery.

Life Flight's air ambulance plane was the only viable way to get him there.

He was placed in a special baby pod, which you can see there in the photos. The pilot flew the plane at a low altitude to avoid increased cabin pressure. He arrived, he had his surgery and was flown home 2 days later. He's a happy, healthy little boy who comes in to visit us every now and again and keeps us well amused with his questions. Santi's just one of the 40,000+ patients that we've flown to date.

Thank you very much.

Kia ora.

Ah, thank you very much. I do hear your helicopters going over my house every now and again, so I know that you're busy. Thank you. Thank you. So now I'd like to ask Kaibosh Food Rescue, Susie Robertson or Nikki Bortwood, or both, possibly.

Tēnā koutou katoa, Mayor, Councillors, and friends from the community. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Susie Robertson and this is Nikki Boardwood, who's worked for Kai Bosh for 8 years as our, what I would call, jack of all trades. On behalf of the entire Kai Bosh team, I'm here to express our sincere gratitude for the grant you have awarded us. This funding is a highly valued contribution to the food rescue mahi we do across the Wellington region and we're incredibly grateful. For the Council's continued belief in the mahi whi dou. This support comes at a critical time. Food insecurity across Aotearoa remains high, with 1 in 4 children often or sometimes going without food. That increases to 1 in 3 for Māori and 1 in 2 for our Pacific whānau. The findings from the latest New Zealand Food Network Hunger Monitor, which was released in March, shows that 68% of those currently identifying as food insecure are experiencing this for the very first time in the past 12 months. The face of food insecurity in our city is changing and the demand on our frontline community partners is greater than ever. Ki'Bosh provides a proven solution to this food insecurity crisis while simultaneously tackling the environmental burden of food waste. In Wellington City alone, we now connect surplus food from 46 generous food donors to 62 charity and community partners, helping an estimated at least 4,000 people a week. To give you a sense of the scale of our operation, between March 2025 and February 2026, our Wellington team rescued over 243,000 kgs of food. When you add in food from the New Zealand Food Network and second harvest produce collected by us from our growers up in Kaupari in Horowhenua via our Kaupari branch, we just redistributed over 273,000 kgs, which is the equivalent of more than 608 meals making it to people's plates. Environmentally, this also keeps an estimated 644,000 kgs of CO2 equivalent emissions by not putting this food into landfill. We acknowledge that the council is under immense pressure to fund the basics. I would call putting food on the table of Wellington residents a fundamental basic alongside things like providing warm, dry, healthy homes. It's also a harsh reality for all NGOs that we must compete for limited funds with the incredible community groups in this room today. We never want to be in competition with them, and yet here we are. In fact, our next evolution is designed to specifically further help those we support. We're looking to transition to a delivery model. So instead of charities spending precious time and money sending volunteers in their own generally fuel-powered vehicles to collect food from Kai Bosh every day, our EV vans could go out with drivers and deliver directly to them, which removes that transport burden burden, allowing them to focus their limited resources entirely on their core services. Furthermore, the shift will ensure greater food safety and lower carbon emissions, making better use of Kai Bosh's electric fleet. Kai Bosh is solving two major problems—food poverty and food waste—whilst actively driving wider Wellington and regional kai security. We thank you again for this grant. You can rest assured every cent will be put to excellent use And we look forward to continuing the conversation on how we work together to improve food security for Wellington. Tēnā koutou katoa. Happy to take any pātai. Are there any questions?

No, thank you very much for your presentation today. I'd now like to welcome Jane Paterson and Anna Simons from the Newtown Community Centre. Two days in a row.

Oh, I know. We're doing our best. My name is Anna Simons. I'm the general manager of the Newtown Community Centre, and this is Jane Patterson, our chair board, but in the interest of time, I will stand up on my own. I'm here today to ask you to reconsider cutting our funding in general and $52,335 from Smart Newtown in particular. I will try to keep within the time, and please excuse me as I'm upset. I want to share 4 things with you to take into consideration today. I want to talk about context because I think it is missing in the paper you have been provided. There's too much of an emphasis on outcomes met and continuity supported in today's agenda. The feedback that we have been sharing with the Wellington City Council in our report backs funding applications in Hui is that the situation is critical. We have not had a substantial increase since 2009. Since 2009, Newtown Community Centre and Smart Newtown combined have had an average increase in funding of 1.6% per year, and average inflation has been 2.5% per year in that same period. In those 16 years, The center, the costs, the needs are very different. Everything is going up. Your expectation of us rises. We are becoming more and more vital in people's lives. Our work is getting more complex. The current team are so stretched in their capacity that they are not sure how much longer they can do this mahifu. And as we cannot afford living wages, we have team members worried about paying the rent. We are already, without this cut, planning to receive 45% of our income from other sources. Funding applications and reportbacks are using up more and more of our frontline time. Second, I want to talk to you about being the community centre that is going to have their funding cut. This is the year that a community centre won the Wellington Airport Health and Wellbeing and Supreme Winner categories. This is the year that we worked with the city safety team around making sure everyone in our community is welcome and supported. This is the year that we worked with a new Wellington City Council Māori advisor, reaching out together to local oropu to build on our relationships with Tangata Whenua, continuing to do the mahi to be a genuinely inclusive space. This is above and beyond running our 6 community venues at capacity, facilitating community-led events and community services, co-leading the Wellington South Community Network's hui, running 3 kai programmes. This year we get our funding cut. Third, but most importantly, I want to talk to you about the people and groups that rely on Smart New Town. Digital inclusion is necessary for people to participate in society. Smart New Town is unique in that it provides access to free computers but also free individualised support. People come to Smart Newtown to get help with booking appointments, with CVs, with password recovery for all sorts of accounts, to dispute a traffic ticket, to file a formal complaint, to enrol to vote, to deal with mobile phone viruses, to access their online banking, myIR, myMSD, to keep their Kiwisaver, to do StudyLink applications. We're the biggest SkinnyJump provider in the Lower North Island, signing people up and fan out to low-cost internet. We run free computer classes. People come to us from other community centres, Johnsonville, Kilbirnie, Island Bay, the Newtown Library. It is used by the JPs and by community group partners such as Age Concern, who now do their Steady as You Go class payments online. I was going to read some of the stories, but We do not have time. Please have a look at the over 45+ stories shared with us in the last few days from people using Smart Newtown. And lastly, I want to talk about another short funding term. We have just gone through a year's transition. It was a change process that was under-resourced by council. It was confusing, unclear, and worrying. We were told repeatedly that we will need to do more and our funding is in danger. Short funding terms make budgeting for community work really difficult and are stressful for the team. Please approve a longer funding term. Please save Smart Newtown.

Thank you. Just an alert that the clapping cuts down the time for questions. So I have a question from Councillor Abdurahman.

Thank you for your submission. Um, I'll also try to control myself as well. So why do you think the funding has been cut, and did you request more than what you usually get, or why do you think is the funding— any, any reason that been communicated to you? Because from all the funding that mentioned here, the only one that tick actually all of the criteria is the Smart Newtown included in the Newtown Community.

Yeah, so I I think, I'm not sure, apparently the new outcomes don't match with what Smart New Town does. And also, so, question that was asked by accounts in the questions and answers in the document that was in the meeting, that apparently we only had 305 people use Smart New Town in the calendar year. That is just reading our data report wrong. Our help Helpdesk tickets were 305, and that's where people come for the one-to-one support. The total computer hub visits in the calendar year in 2025 were 2,285. Then we had 305 helpdesk tickets. That's an average of 25 minutes per helpdesk ticket. Up to SkinnyJunk. Thank you.

There are more questions to be asked, but we don't have the time. But when questions public participation is finished, we'll break for a cup of tea and then perhaps Councillors can ask their questions then. Very well. So thank you. So now I'd like to have Kerry Teng from the Wellington E2E— what does that mean, E2E Centre? Is that an abbreviation?

Welcome. Kia ora katoa, Mayor and Councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. The advisor is passing around some copies now. Towards the end, actually, we have a little quiz for you. Did you get the— The triangle prism model are you going to get in your hands. It's a hands-on learning activity we use for our E&I group students at school. We have transformed Adler's globally influential psychology practice into an emotional anchor and a lifeline empowering tool for our young people. Feel free to open it and you can discover the secret inside. I acknowledge with grace our funding application was not recommended this time. This is our first time applying. However, the real loss here is to the young Wellingtonians, girls and gender-diverse students who are being told that the future can wait. 14 years old is a critical turning point. It is an age where confidence is either built or broken, where their career identity begins to form, where a young person might decide the STEAM— oh, sorry, it's going— okay, the STEAM is never for me and Wellington cannot afford that. We are so grateful that Council provided seed funding in 2024 It helped us grow from a trial of 4 students to where we are now today, aiming to reach 160 students across 3 partner schools this year. We are showing that Full STEAM program is not just another youth development program. It is a Wellington-built talent pipeline. We all want our young people to take STEM career like on the top, the branches. However, to grow branches, we need the strong roots, and that is why we created the personal STEAM, which is at the bottom: the skills, the talent, experience, attitude, mindset, and the motivation, which is our unique research-grounded framework. Young people need the skills but also believe. They need the practical strategy and mindset that says, "I am a problem solver." We help students develop their human strengths and grow into future-ready talent. We help them discover their ikigai, connecting what they love, what they are good at, and what Wellington's economy needs. Our young people consistently develop their curiosity and self-awareness, meet industry mentors, build hands-on projects, and navigate critical transition from education to employment. Most importantly, they have us walking alongside them, making the journey smoother clearer and more achievable. Mayor and councillors, we know you are listening with spreadsheets, but Wellington's economic future depends on long-term productivity and innovation. We are part of the 10-year Wellington Regional Economic Development Plan. We are developing a sustained and scalable ecosystem It fills a significant gap in our city. Please look at the data here again. Our youth unemployment rate is rising horribly. Every young person who disengages costs our city much more later on. Full-steam program is protective and higher return investment. It intervenes before confidence drops, and before a young person disappears from our talent pipeline. Today, we ask Council to reconsider, give more young Wellingtonians the chance to see themselves as builders of the city's future. We ask Council to invest in young people who will help keep Wellington creative, skilled, resilient, and economically alive. Many of them here will become engineering, inspiring future, inspiring teachers, business owners. Most importantly, they may someday say Wellington believed in me early. They do not found us because these young people need help. Please reconsider to fund the Full STEAM program because Wellington needs their future. Thank you for your reconsideration. Thank you very much.

So there's no time for questions now, so thank you for coming along. And now Georgie Ferrari from the Sustainability Trust.

Kia ora koutou. I'll just wait for my presentation to come up, and I'm joined by my colleague Julie Gunn, who's the manager of Wellington Curtin Bank, and our chairperson, Emily Fetcher, who's— we're going to present together. So I'll just wait. Julie's going to start. Thank you. Where's the clicker? Oh, there it is. There we go, you go. Oops. Tēnā koutou anō. You remember the— remind you about the Wellington Curtain Bank and what we are, operated by Sustainability Trust for 16 years now. We provide free, fully lined, upcycled curtains to people living with low income. We divert textile from landfill, 9.5 tonnes in the last financial year. We currently have only 2 paid staff and 30 volunteers. That's how we carry out our mahi. The last financial year, we provided 1,422 pairs of curtains to 403 homes, and I see there the textile waste that we diverted. Our volunteers contribute a lot of time. Last financial year, over 4,000 volunteer hours, just over 2 full-time equivalent. And if we paid people at a living wage, that would be $120,000 of staff wages that are donated annually. So we also— Sustainability Trust has contributed over $1 million to running the Wellington Coonan Bank in the time that we've been in operation. Last year alone, $470,000— sorry, last 5 years, $470,000 $1 million that Sustainability Trust contributed to keep the Wellington Coonan Bank running. With the amounts that we are supporting ourselves from in-house, we wonder what other community organisations in Wellington are co-funding at this level. Assumptions that were made in the Grants Office's report that we think are a little incorrect and perhaps misleading. So for a little bit of funding context, you'll remember when we presented to you, many of you, at the Waste Minimisation Grants Committee meeting last year, that we told you the Genesis sponsorship, Genesis Energy, had sponsored us for 10 years for $65,000, and that came to an end in December. At the Waste Minimisation Fund, the report noted that we were declined on the basis that council is currently supporting operations for this initiative via a contract with the Social and Rec Fund, this fund. So I just point out to you that now we are being declined by the very funds that we were pointed to for the reason to not be funded under the WasteMinds Fund. So it's a little bit of damned if we do, damned if we don't. What we're asking for, it costs us $225,000 a year just to operate Curtin Bank. So far in this year, for this coming financial year, we've only raised $30,000 from a lotteries grant, and that reflects the amount of money that is being asked by our beautiful community groups behind us. We're all in competition for such a small funding pool. Suss Trust will contribute $75,000 in the coming financial year to Curtin Bank. That leaves a $120,000 shortfall for our operations, and we're only asking for $60,000, which is only 50% of the shortfall. So it's not a lot of money. The impact is there. We'll be forced to at least shut by one day a week. We'll reduce our operations by between 20% and 30%. We'll have 425 fewer curtains. 120 fewer low-income homes will receive those curtains. I just want to point out the reason that the Grants Report recommended for decline for us. Financial impact was assessed comparatively lower, reflecting that only 25% of households served sit within the Wellington City boundaries. Our referral data shows that 46% of households requesting curtains in the 2026 financial year live within the Wellington City. We anticipate providing 654 pairs of curtains to around 185 Wellington City homes. That's 46% of all our curtains sewn, added 26% of the total operating cost. That curtain, the home of, um, and just very briefly here at the end, I want to give you some numbers of what you're actually purchasing by giving us that grant. So those curtains will essentially be equivalent to a 650% return on the investment that this council could make, and that is a return that's going to go directly to our low-income homes in around 300,000 baht Thai.

Right, thank you very much. I have donated curtains in the past to Curtain Bank. It's a great way of recycling something I didn't want. Any questions? No questions? Okay, thank you. Oh, sorry, Councillor Foote? Just in time? Actually, no, it was about just making sure that clarification was there, that— so basically you're saying that half of the curtains you are supplying are coming into Wellington City homes, and therefore you're asking for half of the funding you require?

We're— 46% of curtain requests come from Wellington City. And we're only actually asking for 26% of the total cost of providing curtains. Thank you for clarifying that. And we've got two handouts for you. One is just a bit of a visual and some really lovely feedback from our curtain recipients. So I'll leave those two for you to hand out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Art workshop. So, 5 minutes, and if possible, leave some time for questions. Thank you, Andrew.

Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Andrew Mitchell ahau, kei te kai whakahaere o Vincent's Art Workshop, supported here today by one of our wonderful patrons, Dame Suzanne Snavely. Ore rā, tēnā koutou katoa. I'd like to start by thanking Wellington City Council for their financial support of Vincent's art workshop over the last 30 years of our 40-year history. In our application to Tāhua Whaihua Aupori this year, we stated that our proposal delivers a free community art studio, a safe place in the CBD for people to belong and to expect it in resilient communities. Vincents addresses the need for spaces in Wellington for people experiencing mental distress, disability, social isolation, homelessness, and cultural marginalisation. Vincent's meets this need by providing a safe place of belonging where people can build relationships. Council support has been crucial to Vincent's maintaining its policy of free and open access for all people of Te Whanganui-a-Tara. Without Council funding, Vincent's will be heavily subsidised by our government funding from MSD, which is specifically targeted for people with disabilities and long-term health conditions. And which is only guaranteed until June 2027. In August last year, we celebrated our 40th anniversary of the major exhibition at Tākina. Attendees at our opening event, including artists, staff, and long-term supporters, all expressed a deep sense of pride and validation for their involvement with Vincent's. The 3,000 public visitors to the show shared their feelings of joy and appreciation for the positive impact Vincennes has on many lives and its contribution to making Wellington a great city. Over our long history, multi-year council funding of Vincennes has meant that we've been able to tautoko many council-supported community events. This includes our extensive involvement with the Cuba Street Carnival, night parades, the Excessive Accessories parades, and of course the wonderful Newtown Festival where we have had a presence since it began. Over the last few years, we've responded to requests from the funding team, such as the need, the need to increase our reserves to improve our financial resilience, which we have now done, and the need to increase the marketing of our service within the Wadjak community. And over the last year, we've made major improvements in our social media engagement with over 140,000 views on Facebook and Instagram, and we've also significantly strengthened our government's management and internal processes and procedures. We have continued to have many referrals to our service, including from DCM Pathways, Child Youth and Mental Health Services, Rape Crisis, Mātanga, Wellington Health, Wesley Community Action, Ivaro, Idea Services, Spectrum Care, Community Connections, Ascension Home, Emerge, Onsai College, Rongotai College, and from Te Whare o Mātairangi due to our weekly outreach at the psychiatric ward. Vincennes is part of a network of 65 creative spaces across Aotearoa. Quoting from a report from Arts Access last year, creative spaces reduce barriers and provide valuable opportunities for different communities to connect, participate, and create work that encourages learning and curiosity. And promotes understanding and a sense of belonging. This is what some people have said about the impact of being able to access our services: 'It's given me a place to go during the day and keep up a schedule. Having a creative outlet is therapeutic and has helped my mental health.' 'Vincent's has literally saved me at least twice—many years ago when I was highly traumatised from the Christchurch earthquakes and had just moved up to Wellington, and some years later when I lost a job that I very much identified with.' Vincent's has a continuous major impact on my wellbeing. Spending time at Vincent's is what makes me happy, or sometimes what keeps me going at all. These outcomes represent what Wellington City Council can achieve through investing in Vincent's Mahi. A decision to stop our council funding will require us to consolidate rather than grow. It will affect our ability to increase staff capacity and to assist our whānau to connect to wider social services. And we hope and expect that the Council will consider our application to this fund again next year, otherwise Vincent's future will remain uncertain. Thanks for hearing from us today. Tēnā koutou katoa. Thank you very much.

And we have one question from Councillor Foote. Kia ora, Andrew. I was aware just on looking into this application that officers are also suggesting that we move you to the arts funding in the next round. Is that something you would be interested in? I mean, yeah.

We're always interested in funding, definitely. Yeah.

I mean, have you applied to that fund before, or do you— have you always come through to the social and rec?

We've always traditionally come through the Social and Recreation Fund. Received funding for particular projects through Creative Communities, and we have sometimes received some small grants from the Arts and Culture Fund, yes. But the requests— we've been less successful in those applications in recent years. Right. Yeah, OK.

Thank you. Yeah, thanks so much. Andrew, thank you very much. So moving on now to Karen Smith and Wurimu Eds from Volunteer Wellington Te Puna Taotoko.

Tēnā tātou katoa, ko hōhui mai te rā nei. Kia ora, everybody. My name is Wurimu Eds, and I am on the Board of Trustees for Volunteer Wellington, and I'm joined today by my board chair, Karen Smith. We'd like to start by acknowledging the officer recommendation and the recognition of the role that we play in the city. We really appreciate that. We also recognize the challenging funding environment that we're in. So I want to acknowledge obviously firstly that the panel here today, but also our organizations, our fellow organizations applying alongside us, a number of whom we actually work with directly. This is a timely opportunity for us to be speaking with you today as the United Nations has designated 2026 as the International Year of the Volunteer in recognition of its impact to communities, and as you can probably hear from a number of the kōrero today, the value that they provide to organisations like this. At its simplest, volunteering creates connection, builds capability, and strengthens communities.

So what we're seeing right now, and you've heard today, is growing demand. We're seeing more organisations rely on volunteers to deliver essential services, whilst more Wellingtonians are looking for ways to contribute and feel connected in their community. Last year, over 8,000 role referrals, and that's because behind many of Wellington's community services are volunteers supporting food banks, helping new migrants settle, strengthening local neighbourhoods so they're resilient and able to respond in times of need. In fact, Deputy Mayor Ben Lilty said on Microvolunteering Day, without volunteers, the city would shut down overnight. But those connections and those impacts do not happen on their own. They require coordination, support, and capability building, and that's the role we play. Volunteer Wellington has been part of this city for more than 30 years. We act as a connector between volunteers and community organisations. Alongside matching people, we also support over 300 organisations with training, advice, and practical support to ensure volunteering opportunities are inclusive, meaningful, and sustainable. We also focus on communities where the need is greatest, including migrants, whānatahi, job seekers, Māori, Pacifica, ethnic communities, and we recognise that people engage in volunteers in lots of different ways. A big part of what we do is work through partnerships. A good example is our Youth Impact Programme. Through this, we're partnering with the Student Volunteer Army to run a practical workshop tomorrow looking at how community organisations can be ready to work with younger volunteers, helping ensure that those opportunities are well set up and meaningful for those rangatahi. So the value that we bring is not just direct delivery, but it's through those collaborations that we strengthen the wider community sector in Wellington. And we recently—

we regularly see people come to us looking for a way forward One recent example was when a wahine who was made redundant in recent public sector redundancies, she began volunteering with us while searching for work. Volunteering gave her structure, confidence, connection, and new skills, ultimately helping her move into her next role. We hear stories like this day after day. People come through volunteering to find purpose, connection, confidence, work experience, and ultimately community. And in many cases, it becomes a pathway back into employment and ultimately wellbeing too. The funding you're considering today is core funding for us. It supports our staff, our systems, and coordinating— the coordination that sits behind every volunteer connection we make. Without it, we'd need to reduce our capacity capacity in the number of organizations and therefore volunteers we can support, but with it we can continue to support this growing demand and ultimately help Wellington make the most of opportunities like the International Year of the Volunteer.

So to finish, we're a small organization with a wide reach. We sit at the center of a network of community organizations, many of whom you're hearing from today. We sit alongside volunteers and partners across the city. Investing in us is not just funding one organisation, it's strengthening the infrastructure that enables that participation, connection, and resilience across Wellington. Ngā mihi nui, thanks again for your time and consideration, and I think we've got 30 seconds of questions.

Thank you. I don't think there are any questions. So anyway, thank you very much for your presentation. Kia ora. Thank you. So now Trish Gibbon from the New Crossways Community Trust. Welcome, Trish, your familiar face here.

Kia ora koutou. I'm Trish Given Toko Ingawa, and I'm here today with our community coordinator, Joel Cosgrove. We are here representing New Crossways Community Trust, also known as the Mindtech Hub. So I want to speak today not just about the hub, but about nearly a decade of community work and belief in what community can be. In 2020— in 2016, the Mount Victoria community found itself at a crossroads. We were operating from a space that we— that was unusable and not fit for purpose as a community space. And when our lease came up for renewal, we knew we had to rethink everything. We also knew that Wellington City Council was not going to buy or build us a brand new community centre, and we were told that very clearly and early. So we created what a community centre could be, and that is the Mount Vic Hub. But today we come to this meeting, um, following a very upsetting and unprofessional evening call made less than 48 hours ago to us, to our chair, by Councillor Young that completely blindsided us. During that call, Councillor Young advised our chair that she intended to go against the recommendations of council officers and opposed funding for the Mindfic Hub. The justification given was that the hub was not delivering value for money. The only evidence apparently offered to support this claim was that Councillor Young had occasionally walked past the hub and not—

So, Tricia, I'm just going to interrupt you here because I was part of the conversation and you were not, and recollections may differ.

So I think I think you say it is believed she said, but since apparently offered to support this claim was that you had walked past the hub and not personally— this is on which to potentially overturn an officer recommendation and remove funding from a long-standing community organization. During that conversation, there was no indication that Councillor Young had meaningfully read or understood the information we provided in support of our application. At no point point during this whole funding process were there these concerns formally raised with us. And at no point were we advised there were concerns regarding our reporting, our outcomes, our governance, or our impact. And at no point were we given an opportunity to respond to these concerns through a fair or transparent process. And at no point during this funding round or previous funding rounds were we informed the success of our application depended on whether meetings happened to be visible when a councillor walked past the building. This is not good process. This is not evidence-based decision-making, and that is not natural justice. The Mount Vic Hub has a proven track record of delivering outcomes for the Mount Victoria community. This is not hypothetical. We provided a clear evidence evidence base in support of our application, and council officers clearly agreed when they recommended that the hub receive funding. Over the 2025-26 financial year alone, we estimated delivering more than 6,000 hours of hub-related engagement and activity. That includes events, meetings, collaborations, community activity, both within our small 10-square-meter space and across our wider community through partnerships with other organizations and venues, and from a space that Council doesn't have to maintain, with a community that delivers. And that work is real, those outcomes are documented, and those relationships matter. Instead, it appears this recommendation may now be disregarded based on an anecdotal personal observation rather than the evidence in front of this committee. And we believe this process has been arbitrary, unfair, and deeply, deeply damaging. If funding for the Mindfuck Hub is withdrawn, there is no plan for— and we are asking the committee today to either uphold the officer recommendations and allocate the funding as recommended, or defer this decision until a proper, fair, and transparent process can be followed. Because after all, community organisations like everybody in this room deserve better than this.

So I would just say that that's a highly selective and slightly skewed version of what I said because it completely distorts what I said. However, I was part of that conversation.

I think you did say that we weren't value for money. We didn't get value for money.

Look, we're not going to have an argument about this now. Thank you for your presentation. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you. So the next one is Sam Donald and Phil Clatworthy from the Vogelmoorne Community Group that run the hall and the former bowling club.

Tēnā koutou katoa. This is a call for Phil Clatworthy and Sam Donald. We are trustees of the Vogelmoorne Community Group running the the Broogammon Precinct, as you said. First, we'd like to thank the council for seeing to propose to continue the existing funding that we've gratefully received over the few years that we've been in operation. It is less, of course, than what we needed, but we are still grateful what we have because it does actually— it is a significant an important percentage of our income. As you know, we're a leveraged income base, so 30% of our income comes from the council funding, without which we simply would really struggle to survive. Our levers for closing that gap are few, but we will endeavour to look at that. Sam, we have got some slides. They coming?

Good.

So Vogelmoor has become a vital third space for Wellington, not home and not work, but a place where people gather, connect, create, and belong. As density increases and social isolation grows, spaces like Vogelmoor are becoming more important to community wellbeing. We serve many communities at once, local and citywide. Vogel Maun supports local families, co-workers, and residents, while also attracting performers, artists, classes, schools, and audiences from across Wellington. It's a neighbourhood space with citywide reach. The precinct is heavily used because it is flexible and welcoming. On any day, you might find theatre rehearsals, drumming, yoga, children playing on the green, people using the café, or attending community events. Multiple activities can happen simultaneously, creating a uniquely active and vibrant community hub. We have a proven track record of delivery. Since 2014, we've transformed these underused facilities into a thriving precinct. Expanded significantly the activity, and grown from a volunteer-led organisation to employing staff and becoming an established part of Wellington arts and community landscape. In the last year, we had almost 1,400 usage events, which translates to almost 4 events every day of the year in the precinct. And last year we celebrated 10 years since we took ownership of the old building club building, and it was a wonderful celebration. Vogelmond delivers directly against council priorities around connected and resilient communities. We strengthen social connection, support affordable arts access, build local resilience, and expanding work around emergency preparedness and resilience partnerships. We've recently installed solar panels and will soon have batteries. We have an active Disaster Research and Response Group known as DRRRT. As mentioned, council funding is highly leveraged but essential. We operate with a very lean model with modest reserves and we rely on a blend of venue income, volunteers, and partnerships. That 30% that we received is essential and without that continued support, the integrated management model that makes the precinct so successful would be difficult to sustain. Vogelmond isn't simply a venue, it's community infrastructure, a place where connection, creativity and resilience happen every day. Thank you.

So do we have— Any questions? No? Thank you for your presentation and the very helpful photographs. Damascus of course started in your facilities. Yes, they did.

Great. And moved on to become equally successful in Torrey Street. And we have a new restaurant there which you must come and try. They've just opened up. What is it? BBC Eats. It's a locally run family making some delicious food, so I recommend you come and try it.

Thank you. So now I'd like to welcome Celia Murphy and Sanghamitra Pandey from the Curtin Bank.

Welcome. Amit is going to start and I'll follow on. That's better. So sorry for that. Hello everyone, I'm Sanghamitra, I'm a volunteer at Curtin Bank We are here for that because we have heard that recently the funded applications for the Curtin Bank is recommended for decline, and I want to share my work is important and how— why I'm with the Curtin Bank connected. So when I started at the volunteering, I didn't realize how meaningful all of this work would be. It's in my own life is understand how important a warm and comfortable home is for family, especially during the difficult times. Even simple tasks like the sorting, preparing curtains showing me how the sometimes small can make a big difference. For many family, curtains are not just a fabric, is being a warmth comfort and dignities. Also, being a volunteer here make me feel happy, confident, especially when I'm come out for volunteers too, that I'm getting ready for to go for Curtin Bank. It's make me more confident. Even my kids are asking for that, Mama, how's your office? So it's make me more confident when you are not in any work. So it's bringing me a strong sense of purpose knowing I'm helping others in a meaningful way. It's more important for me. That's why I truly believe this work is important for both supporting the Curtin Bank Helping creating healthier homes, strong community. I'm a volunteer and I drive one of the sewing machines at the at the Curtain Bank, and I've been doing that for about 9 years. I work 2 days a week. We are getting an increasing demand for the curtains that we make, and they are not just for— because people want nice curtains. They want it to keep their homes warm and to keep their homes drier. We— yesterday I made curtains, that one pair of curtains that were 3— 2.5 meters long and it's probably about the depth of those windows, and 3.5 metres wide. That's a big window. If you've got no curtains on that window, there's a lot of cold air coming in. And if you're hanging a sheet over that curtain at night, it's not very nice. Hmm. Many of the curtains that we get donated have mould on them, and these are from people who are changing their curtains, who can afford to buy curtains. So the curtains that are in people's homes we know are mouldy, we know they've got black mould on them which affect people's respiratory health, we know that those curtains are harmful. One of the things about those curtains that I made yesterday, you can't buy curtains like that cheaply from Kmart or from The Warehouse. They would cost thousands of dollars anywhere and the curtains that you can buy are not lined. Thank you. Any questions?

Right, do we have any questions from anyone? So I have a question for you. You said some of the curtains that are donated to you have mould on them. Yes, they do. So what do you do with those? They go to landfill.

We can't use them. We can't put mouldy curtains into somebody's house.

Yeah, quite. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, sorry, sorry, we have got one question from Carlton. Tiffenbacher, Councillor Tiffenbacher.

So, by my calculation, I think the numbers earlier that Geordie might have shown were even less. Effectively, we would be supplying $41 for a household to get a curtain into their house. So someone who is unable to buy their own curtains, the Council would only be subsidising that by $41 per curtain. I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm not following. Or something like that, or $33, I think Geordie said. It just sounds like a very reasonable amount that we should be doing.

Volunteers operate on biscuits and coffee. Thank you. And now I believe we have former Councillor Fleur Fitzsimons. Where are you, Fleur? Hello. Hi. Representing the PSA. Welcome back. You can. Of course you can sit there. Do you need another chair? Just pull one from there. Welcome. Thank you.

Congratulations on becoming Chair of the Grants Committee. It's— there's a big future ahead of people that have that role. Look, we just wanted to start by genuinely acknowledging the importance of the Grants Committee, and we really want to talk about that importance given the political context Wellington is facing as a city. We have seen just in the last 2 weeks, the closure of Birthright in the Hutt. We've also seen the very likely closure of Respect Aid. Now, that is an organisation that has done an enormous amount in Wellington to prevent sexual violence. It is an absolutely critical organisation, and we're really concerned that with the government cuts that were announced yesterday, on top of funding cuts to community, non-governmental organisations, Wellington City Council is really going to need to pick up some of the slack. And we really want to send that message to you as a, as a final, very last time to be thinking about cutting important money that comes through this committee. And this committee, I know, does a lot of good. And I just want to start by also expressing solidarity with the Citizens Advice Bureau and acknowledging the absolutely critical work they do here in the city, and it is very likely that their workers will increase as a result of what this government is doing as well. So we, we stand in solidarity with them and in support of their concerns that they've outlined today. I've got with me Mel Duff, who is a PSA delegate and works at Newtown Library, and also some PSA organisers and staff and officials to speak with you with some precision about some of the concerns that have arisen for us. But really, generally, our real concern is that community organisations are being squeezed. They're being squeezed by the government. There's less philanthropic funding available. So we're really calling on this council to fill in that void and take moral leadership in these difficult times for Wellington. But I'll now hand over to Mel Duck. Kia ora koutou, I'm Mel and I am here as a PSA delegate to share some concerns from colleagues who work frontline customer service in the area, specifically around the Newtown-Kilbirnie area, who would be really affected, not necessarily directly as consumers of these services, but as people who work as public services servants for the consumers of these services. So for example, a lot of people use public computers at our city libraries. However, our librarians do not have enough staffing, enough training, enough support to be able to provide the high-level one-on-one support that a lot of community members, especially our most vulnerable community members, need to access the base— accessing online banking, accessing all the council services that now can only be done online as service desks have been defunded. I know my colleagues really rely on things like being able to refer people to Smart Newtown where they can get one-on-one hands-on support, both teaching how to use technological devices, so important in the 21st century to again access all of the things you need and that you may take for granted in everyday life as someone who has an internet connection at home and a reasonable knowledge of how to use a computer. And my colleagues have also been really worried that if we can no longer pass those people, refer them on to dedicated services, then those people work that we don't have the staffing or funding to be able to provide. And it's just going to cause more turnover, which costs lots of money, more aggressive incidents, which costs lots of money and paperwork. And it's all around a really disappointing situation that is going to really negatively impact our communities and especially those most vulnerable. Kia ora, I'm Stephanie. I'm one of the organisers that supports all the community public services in Wellington. We're also really, as Fleur mentioned before, we're really concerned about the wider funding environment, and you are part of this. We are disappointed that you have, this committee is overall reducing your grants funding in the annual plan because we really, you know, as residents of the city.

So just to interrupt you there, that's, that's not correct. The amount has not decreased. It has stayed exactly the same. It hasn't increased with inflation.

And that's one of the issues that we see is from a real— it has not— a real terms— there is a real terms decrease and this is impacting on these community organizations. They have not only need to provide a service which costs more in terms of power, etc., etc., that they need to provide, but it's also about those workers who do the work. They are the ones who will be impacted at the end of the day. We are currently supporting our members at RespectED, who you will have seen in your— have withdrawn their application for funding. And we would really like— and we're really disappointed to see that because that's such a key service within this community. And it's something that's really important to make this place a great place to live. We really urge you to think about how Supporting all these organisations are really important to make the Wellington that we know is really great.

Thank you for your advocacy. We are over time, but Councillor Abdurahman, special favour for you.

Thank you. I just wonder if you have any views regards to the strategy of the funding model itself. It seems to be moving from addressing both side of preventive and emergency response now to more of an emergency response where the community ground levels lose a lot and the top get a lot of the funding. Do you want to say?

Oh, um, we're completely utterly disappointed with the funding model, um, and we'd like to see big changes, but we ask you in this next financial year to think about these organizations because we don't want them to disappear. We cannot wait until big funding models and how come back and change to we need this funding in this community now. So I'm now going to—

thank you. So we're now going to have a 10-minute break for a cup of tea. If any councillors wish to speak to members of the public, could you go out to the foyer please to make it easier to manage? So it's now quarter past 3, we'll crack back into action, okay? Mark Farrah and Sahai Orgad to introduce the report for the Community Outcomes Fund of March 2026. It's 2.2 on your papers. Welcome.

Sorry, from 1 July 2026. And as Councillor Young pointed out earlier, the level of funding in your draft annual plan numbers is the same this year as next year, so we're not anticipating unless you make changes in the annual plan of any reductions in grant funding. This is funding new criteria, new priorities, and the organizations that were funded during this financial year for 12 months were granted funding for a 12-month transitional period. So we communicated very clearly that there could be changes ahead, and we were going to assess the applications under the new priorities. So that, in summary, which is in the paper, splits the funding 55% towards safety and well-being and 45% towards community resilience and connection, with a number of subcategories that you can read about in the paper. We had 54 applications. We were recommending 40, but of course that's 39 because we had one withdrawal. The issue around the 12-month funding versus 18-month funding, which you may have heard about, is because our advice on the back of the Revenue and Finance Working Group recommendation was just to do 12 months of funding, so that's why we're bringing 12 months to you. Some of the applicants made 18-month budget applications, so we've adjusted that in the paper. And it was a difficult moderation process, and I think it's fair to say that all of these applicants do fantastic work in the community, but our task was to prioritize and to bring to you recommendations that prioritize funding based on the criteria. So that's what we've done. I'd like to suggest you take the paper as read. Sahai and I are happy to answer any questions. We have provided extensive answers to questions in the Q&A document which was circulated last night and is on the website.

So I'll stop there and leave it to you. So I would just say I read out the wrong thing. It's— because I was looking at 2.2, this is actually 2.1, Community Outcomes Fund. But it's still Sahai and Mark introducing it, so that's good. Sahai, do you want to say anything? No, I'll take the paper as read. That's unusual, but okay, thank you very much. So I will move the amended Does anyone have any questions? Right, well, I'll go in clockwise. Councillor Finn. Yes, just— can I just understand the difference between the Citizens Advice Bureau services and the community law, and just, I guess, did you look at them as a whole when you were allocating the funding, or do they achieve completely different things? Things that align to our strategic direction? Where do we begin?

Do you want to go? It was quite a lengthy conversation.

Yeah, I mean, they are different, as was answered in the questions before. I think they are different services. You know, the Community Law provide very specific services. We did assess applications individually and then had a series of moderation discussions around priorities. So they are different services and made different applications.

Okay, yeah, one more, Chair, if that's okay. Yep. Yeah, thank you. Just Smart Newtown, there's some unclarity even amongst the members here, just how we— why have we ended up with a different amount recommended from what they've had normally? And I think I understand it regarding time bank and the shift, But could you please help, help us understand why we're here with Newtown, please?

Through the moderation process, of course, you would have read in the press that we had something like $7.3 million worth of ask. And in an effort to try and fund more things that more closely met, in our view, the strategic priorities of the fund, we were looking for ways of making savings to things that we already funded. New Town Community and Cultural Centre has the largest level of funding for all the community centres and has a couple of discrete programmes, Smart New Town and Time Bank being two of those. And in discussion, we have recommended that that would be a way of trying to save some money to be able to fund something else. So it's all been about prioritisation, really.

So, Mayor Little, if you'd like to be next.

Thank you. Just, look, my questions are about specific recommendations. With the community law recommendation of $100,000, that's a reduction from previously. What were the— against the criteria that apply, what were the factors that justified the lower than previous recommendation? Grant?

Do you mean Citizens Advice, Mayor?

So Mayor Little, you're talking about Community Law or Citizens Advice Bureau?

Sorry, Citizens Advice Bureau, yeah, sorry, my mistake.

Can you repeat the question please? Sorry, Mayor.

Sorry, there's been a reduction for Citizens Advice Bureau. I'm just curious to know, given the criteria that now apply under the new model that was agreed to last March, or March in 2025, what were the criteria that justified the lower than previous grant to the Citizens Advice Bureau?

Do you want to speak to the criteria? Yeah.

I mean, obviously I'll go back to the demand we had on the fund. So in that particular category, where 45% of the funding's been allocated, there was a lot of demand, and in the assessment It was determined that $100,000 was a reasonable contribution to make to the Citizen Advice Bureau to be able to continue to provide some services and then look alongside the funding they have in reserve in their financial accounts to manage that change process. So that's the rationale around the recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

So the next one is, um, Council Abdurahman.

Just going back to the New Smart Newtown, when it comes to funding community organisations, I think Newtown community, and specifically this one, was the only one mentioned in the paper and seems taking all the boxes and separated from the main community organization. I just wonder why was Smart Newtown separated from the core community center operations?

As the submitter mentioned, Smart Newtown was a separate— you know, it's always been part of Newtown Community Center but operated in the building next to the library in Network Newtown. And once the facility was refurbished, the Smart Newtown project moved back into the center. And the Citizens Advice Bureau have moved into Network Newtown. Previously, it was shown as a separate line in our funding. It was at one point a separate funding line. The other community centres don't have other funding programmes that they operate, so Newtown is a, you know, a well-established and successful community centre that do different programmes. So it was just, as I said before, identified as a potential line that we could take some money to fund something else within the recommendations.

My second question is the general question, and last March when the previous Council approved about the new funding model, for me what I'm feeling at this stage reading through the paper is that we are moving into where we fund small organizations let's say currently out of the 40 organizations, the top 2 organizations receiving $1.3 million compared to the top 25, the bottom 25. So my understanding, this, this is for the $20,000, $30,000, a lot of community organizations, $100,000. But it seems we are moving into the emergency response, high demand instead of preventing at the, you know, the community levels, like the Smart Newtown, the Sustainability Trust, and why is that the strategy or why are we moving towards that?

Yeah, thank you.

I think, and we've pointed this out through the paper as well, there was, as Mark pointed out, lengthy discussions through the moderation of how we are acting within the funding priorities in making sure that rather than dividing the available funding into smaller amounts across all applications, we could focus on recommending investment into services that are strongly aligned with the criteria and therefore make potentially a greater impact that way.

I'll come back to you. Councillor Chung. Great, thanks very much for all your work.

I understand, we understand that you have very strict criteria when you're assessing these applications. I can't help but sit here and listen to these applications and listen to these speakers and not be moved by them. So do you think that because you're looking at their written applications, do you think that it makes a difference when you actually hear them speak? Like, are they giving additional information that you didn't consider, or do you think that that may actually change your criteria or may change your judgment, or do you think that you were pretty solid on your assessment. I mean, I think there's a couple of answers to that. There's the funding criteria and the funding priorities that Council asked us to work within, and then through the funding framework we have relationship managers that work closely with each of those providers. You're right, each of these community organisations are amazing organisations and work off, as the previous speaker said, biscuits and tea. And that's no small act or small feat. Unfortunately, as you know, we are working within a very limited funding envelope. The decisions and the recommendations, I should say, that we've put to elected members have been really hard to make. And but we've done the best with the information that we've assessed, the information through the application, plus the information that we've got through those relationship managers and the contracts that have been in place.

Okay, thank you.

Can I just follow up on that?

No, actually, I'll put you on the list to come back. Okay, thanks. Next, Councillor Compton, if we have time. Councillor Chung.

Thank you, Chair. So I noticed in the amended substantive that we're looking at essentially sending some money back to you guys to essentially take back through the framework to make further recommendations. Now, a lot of our applications, people will want some certainty by 1 July as to essentially what money they have for the coming year. When would essentially those recommendations be coming back to us? What meeting would that be for?

My understanding, Councillor, is that we would have another the 23rd of June. I don't think that's been confirmed yet. I'm just looking at staff over there in order to bring back some recommendations.

Thank you. Councillor Aoubaye.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, officers. Can I just have some clarification on how funding across community centre networks compares in this round specifically, and is it a reduction to one centre or part of a broader approach to maintaining stable core funding across all of them?

I might just call on Josh Briggs, who is our Community Centres Manager. Thank you. And Josh can probably talk to that one.

Kia ora koutou, tē rākau e, Councillor. So the intention is to have core funding remain for this financial year coming, as we've currently got position for our community centre partners. As has been discussed under public comment and by my colleagues around Smart Newtown, as a discrete programme as part of the Newtown Community Centre— Cultural Centre, sorry. And so, as has already been said, the intention was to reduce that funding for that discrete service so that we could—

We touched on this a little bit earlier, but just to clarify, can you please outline the key reasons as to why the Smart Newtown component was not recommended for funding, particularly in the context of the criteria under Priority 2C and the level of competing demand in this round?

So yes, Councillor, just to confirm that the Smart New Town does fit the criteria for the fund, as many of the other applications do. So it was really just around prioritisation. And as Sahai said, these were difficult calls to make, you know, and we were trying to support as much as we could, you know, through the recommendations.

Thank you, sir. So we're going back now to Councillor Foote. Yeah, just can I just confirm in the community centre review or re-look at that we're doing, Kia ora Josh, welcome to our table, that the Crossways Community Trust would have gone through that process to be for their performance to be reviewed and looked at, and also what date are we considering that coming back to the council to make decisions on.

Kia ora, Councillor. And so with all the core funding for community centres, as previously said, we're recommending as officers that that has remained in this funding round, and that included Crossways as well. When it comes to what we'll be doing between now and the next funding round, it's twofold. It's one that's looking at how we apply the strategy of this council and the priorities to the funding round, but also how do we ensure that our partners and our community centres have the tools and capability to articulate the impact rather than— it's a challenging task and community organisations are really good at articulating their activities and what they do, but the impact that they serve for our city and for this council is a lot harder ambition for us to better get them to better articulate. And so there'll be an ongoing piece of work. and as the manager for community centres, myself and now soon-to-be appointed advisor will be working with them to ensure they have the tools and capability to better articulate that clearly. And so when we're considering priorities and considering impact at the next funding round, we'll be able to provide that information for you. Right, thank you, thank you.

One more question, Chair, I forgive— sorry, you forgive myself. The Curtin Bank, can I just— if they do not get funding next round, when is the next opportunity they could come, and what committee would we refer them, or what fund would we refer them to?

The December meeting of the Grants Subcommittee will have the Waste Minimisation Fund and the Climate and Sustainability Fund coming to the meeting. So in the Q&A, that was my answer. We will be having— it depends what happens with your amendments. Obviously, there is some money left over in the fund because of the respected application was withdrawn. So, you know, we'd normally do another funding round for the September meeting, so that's what's on the forward programme that you'll see on your agenda papers. So, it would be either September, depending on the money situation, or December for the Waste Minimisation Fund. And as the presenter said, they had funding for the year, but of course the recommendation from the Waste Min Fund was that they already had funding. So, it's unfortunate the timing of that was unfortunate, but, you know, understandable.

Councillor Abdulrahman. This one is a quick question.

Who are the moderating team? Do you have external community organisations in it?

That team of people are all council officers.

Okay. Regards to, again, some of the organisations, Citizen Advisory Bureau and Smart Neetown, what alternative funding pathway, if any, is envisioned?

We can certainly commit to offering any advice that the team may be able to offer them. We are in contact with other funders and philanthropy, but as you would have heard from various speakers around the table, these are difficult times, you know, in terms of funding. So it is a challenging environment. We acknowledge that. So we can offer as much advice as we can. But, you know, as you might expect, many of these organizations are well-seasoned at filling in application forms and applying to other people, so we will provide whatever advice we can. I don't see any other routes, particularly through council funding. As I said at the beginning, the fund is retained at the same level for this year, but obviously we're going to undertake a big review of funding to try and consolidate funding in the future, because of course you've got the challenge of the long-term plan coming ahead of you. This is, you know, it's been a difficult enough process without the funding being reduced, you know.

Akilah, so— No, because otherwise we'll be here until tomorrow morning. Councillor Chung, have you got a quick question? Very quick.

Thanks very much, Sir Hai, for your clarification.

Just for me to confirm, if something, if a speaker here today came up with some information or some new information that you didn't know about and you just had a eureka moment and said, oh, I didn't know that, would you reconsider your decisions on the grants that you've actually already made?

They're your decisions, Councillor. We could potentially put that into further information for you to consider with, but we've only put recommendations for you to decide on. Yeah, great, thank you.

And last question, Councillor. Aroo bhai. Thank you, Chair.

I guess just more in a general sense, could you tell us of any work that is undergoing at the moment to look at our funding models and strategies going forward? Is there a piece of work? Is there opportunity to look at this before the next funding round or at any timeline in terms of how we can Yeah, that's right.

I can start and the others might want to chip in. Thank you. As I say, the direction we've got from the Revenue and Finance Working Group in the draft annual plan is to conduct a thorough review of all our funding programmes. Obviously, this new framework was approved last year and it was 20-odd years since anything had happened. So, as some of you would recall, the pattern of funding over that 20-plus years was the same, you know, no one, no one else was ever allowed to apply. So we opened up applications, so we had 54 applications. Um, I think there's one— one of those applications is being recommended for funding, uh, to the full amount this time. Um, so our plan is to do some work on that in the next 6 months. Um, we do, as you would appreciate, have a number of funding streams. Our Hattini did a lot of work on that new strategy and has a robust funding framework, but we need to look at all our funds. I think the concern from the Revenue and Finance Working Group was about overlapping priorities were for organizations where they have to make multiple applications. So we would certainly be looking to streamline that and to work with the Grants Subcommittee on that in the coming months.

That's the end of questions. Thank you, officers. You can leave the table now. Thank you. And I'm going to move the amended substantive, which is on your screens. So I'm not going to say very much because I think we've gone into quite a lot of detail already. I would just say this has been an incredibly difficult grants meeting. Normally it's— you feel like you're just dishing out lollies, and this year there were more hands and fewer lollies. And I think the officers have, working with the councillors, have gone out of their way to find the most effective way of spending limited resources. I think as someone has already mentioned, might have been the Mayor, we were asked for over $7 million of grants and we had $4 million available, so some big decisions had to be made. So I think that's— is that what I wanted to say? I think so. So anyway, I'll move the amended substantive, and then Councillor Al-Rubaiyi will second the paper. Would you like to speak now?

I reserve my right to speak later.

Okay, is there any debate? A question to the substantive.

I just want to ask a question to the substantive because you included, isn't it?

Sure.

So I just want to ask officers and the amendment about removing funding for So, where that leaves us, because officers recommended saying that it ticks all the boxes, and we're moving an amendment here, and that's not justice, even if this council has to make a decision, what that means for those, relationship-wise, for those communities. So the question is regards to the Crossway Community Trust funding. Officers recommended granting $79K, and now the substantive is saying that take it out. Where that leaves us, um, relationship-wise, or Are you worried the consequence of this decision, basically?

Sorry, Councillors, just as part of the amended substantive, there was a— you know, we suggested that officers could work with the Trust to look at, you know, other options around funding and different things. So that was our suggestion. It's—

Councillor, it's not our decision. It's your decision.

Is there any debate?

So I'll take Councillor Tippenbaker because even though he's not on the committee, he's entitled to speak.

Exactly, and I've made the effort to be here because I think it's such an important meeting. Really, I think what's been highlighted today is that there are so many community groups that actually add massive amounts of value to us as a city, and currently a lot of them are not going to be getting enough money necessarily to carry on. And I think as a council, we do need to realise that while our objective is to save as much money across board as we can, currently by doing that through community grants, I think we're making a massive mistake. I think we're losing a lot of benefit that the community actually provides us through free and cheap volunteer hours. So while I don't have a vote and while I know you only have a certain amount of money to allocate, I do think it would be very, very wise of us if we move— moving forward, we look at things along the lines of the Downtown Community Grant and also the Warrington City Mission Grant and look to fund that through a different source so that we leave the $1.5 million plus that we're giving to those two community groups for obviously city safety reasons as much as anything else, to the smaller community groups that actually add so much value to our city.

So just one, I just would like to say, not to make any noise when someone is speaking, otherwise we'll ask to have the room cleared. But I would just say that there are not cuts, we have not cut the spending. There are no cuts.

So my point is that we do not currently have enough money to actually enable these organisations to provide great value to us and we need to sort that out.

I think that's a discussion for another time, but I mean, I'm sure that you would not want the rates to go up to, you know, this is— I mean, we are working within an envelope of money that we have and I think the offices are doing a great job working with councillors to make the most of it. Now, who else would like to speak in this debate?

Thank you, Chair. I actually just want to start my debate by offering a few thanks. And first of all, I just want to thank all of the community groups that have applied and have come in today. You all just do really, remarkable work and your motivations, uh, to make our city better. And, and that's really— it's, it's a wonderful thing. And, and I do want to thank you for the— for your efforts that you, you really bring to making Wellington the place that it is. Um, I, I just wanted to give a quick thanks to the, to the council staff. I— we know— when the mayor asked me to be on this committee, I thought, it's going Committee would be pretty nice, you know, we'll give out funding. But obviously, I only really thought about the yeses. I didn't think about the nos. And I can imagine, as the staff who worked through this process, it can't be an easy process. So I just want to thank you for working in an area where there frankly are just no right answers. So thanks to that. And then finally, I just wanted to quickly thank the chair for bringing in the amendment into the paper. I think it makes the direction that we as councillors are providing staff better. I think it's only right that given the very, very clear needs that we have in our community for support, that we reallocate all of the available funding that we have from this funding round to other community groups. And again, to the staff, I wish you luck working through the— the moderation process to identify the, the fairest way that we can reallocate that funding, because I think that's the right way to do it. I don't think we as councillors should be picking winners in a way. I think it's right that we set the framework within which the council operates, and then we oversee those, those results. I just wanted to touch a little bit on, on what Councillor Tiefenbacher just brought up in his speech, which is there clearly is more need than what we have in this fund to provide for. And I know we need— we're facing many challenges, but with the government announcing that it's looking at thousands and thousands of job cuts in Wellington over the next few years, You know, maybe the election might change that, touch wood, but we are, that need is only gonna grow. And I think it's really important as we start to look at our long-term plan over the next year that we really do consider whether our funding is sufficient to meet the needs of especially those that really, are struggling to meet their needs themselves. And I think that those people, that's a growing cohort of people, and that's a real problem for society. And I think government stepping back, it may well be, as the PSA has said in their submission, that we as council need to step up. So I just, I'm happy, well, I will support this paper. That's all I really need to add. Thank you, Chair. All right, so thank you.

So next, Councillor Al-Rubayyi.

Thank you, Chair. I have to say this has been the most challenging week for me. It's been an absolute moral dilemma that I had to sit with that it made me physically ill. As I— just from my own personal experience, the reason A big part of the reason that I'm able to sit on this table today and have the honour of being a Wellington City Councillor is because I had been supported, my family and I had been supported by community organisations such as yourselves for the longest time. And it is extremely difficult to make this decision today. But I do want to really ground us in the reality of the decisions that we are making today and for supporting this paper. Paper. We are working with a highly oversubscribed fund with a nearly $3 million gap between community organisations and what they've asked for and what we are able to fund. So yes, you're quite right, Councillor Diefenbaker, we absolutely need to look at how best to provide for our communities and make sure that the good work on the ground continues to keep going, and that is a discussion for another time. But I just want to recognise the 14 applicants that will be denied, declined their funding, and the 13 that will have their funding reduced. This gap truly reflects the real pressures on services, staff, and on communities across our city, and I just really want to acknowledge that. And it does also mean that we need to be deliberate and consistent in how we make these decisions. And you're right, Councillor Osborne, it shouldn't be left up to us councillors, because we will all advocate for what we think is important in our communities and what our communities will need. But it should be up to— it should go back to offices to work along the criteria and bring us the most fair decision that we are able to do. Our role is simply to apply judgment here, but also to do it in a way that maintains the integrity of the process and ensures limited funding is used where it can have the greatest impact for our communities. So what's being proposed here, I do believe that it is a measured response to that challenge, as challenging as it is. And I'd just like to leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I'd call on the Mayor.

Thank you, Chair. And like Councillor Osborne, can I just acknowledge all of those who spoke today, the organisations and their representatives, and actually those who didn't, those who have put in applications, most of which have been granted, and to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution that all those organisations make, and it's all a contribution to— at the at the bottom line, social cohesion for the city. And it is important. There are many vulnerable communities that are reliant on the contact they have with the community organisations who are receiving grants. And even in the case of, you know, organisations doing a range of things to help people who would not otherwise get that help, that's really important. And so I acknowledge all of those, all of our organisations who we support and just the value that they bring to the communities that they serve. So thank you. I just want to reiterate too that the amount available for grant funding for organisations has not been cut. There was a misleading media story earlier this week that suggested that was the case. The media story misunderstood that the amount applied for was greater than the amount available. And the amount available having been granted didn't mean that organisations were necessarily having their grants cut. It's important with— across the range of grants that we make, that we continue to support well-functioning organisations providing a great service and who can be trusted to do so. That's very important to provide that continuity. It's also important that we provide the opportunity for new organisations who are new in the community service provision to have the opportunity to get grant funding so they can make their start and establish their track record. We can't just continue to fund an existing bunch of organisations as if sort of nothing has changed, as if there are not new needs or new ways of providing those services. So it's good that there are new organisations getting some grant funding. I appreciate that for this committee, but actually for the officers who have provided advice to it, that this is extraordinarily difficult. There are are some very difficult judgment calls to make. But we expect the judgment or the advice to be, and the judgment calls that are made, to be on a principled basis. And those principles have been set out. They were recast in March last year. That's the basis on which the advice has been provided and the recommendations have been made. It is entirely appropriate that as elected members we tease out the ones that from either personal knowledge or for other reasons that we think bear further scrutiny, and I think the amended recommendations reflect that, that there's further work that might be required, and that's the appropriate thing to do. For those who say we should just add more money to the grant pool, I mean, that's a very fine thing to do, but this Council in other debates and other discussions in different forums to the Grants Committee is grappling exactly with that problem. And it's interesting that some of the strongest and fiercest voices calling for more council, or reductions in more council spending, might in the Grants Committee context now be calling for more funding to be spent. So, no doubt we will square that circle in a different form at a different time, but it doesn't sound very principled to me. So, I support the recommendations as they are, And I think there's an opportunity to, with funding that is left available, for some reconsideration of those who either have had reduction funding or may have missed out on funding, and that's an appropriate safety valve to have as well.

Thank you, Your Worship. And next on the list is Councilor Councilor Abdurahman.

Thank you, Rafano. First, thank you to officers, and I just want to start by acknowledging the important work of organizations like the Downtown Community Ministry, Wellington City Mission, Wellington Homeless Trust, and others working directly with the most vulnerable in our community. These services matter deeply, and I support Council continuing to support them. But I also think it's a broader governance question as for— as a committee. Do we want to continue investing in emergency responses, or do we want supporting organizations that working from the bottom up to avoid people getting into that emergency level? Because if we only fund downstream emergency responses, eventually we will need more emergency funding. And that is, I think, organizations like Smart Newtown, Citizen Advice Bureau, Sustainability Trust matters in this conversation. Their work might not always produce the same immediate measurable outputs as crisis services, but they build something equally important. I don't think this should be framed as either we need those big organizations or those smaller ones. We need both models. But where that funding should be allocated? For me, when we have funding allocated for two organizations taking about 30% of the total and the bottom 25 organizations get lesser than that. That shows we need to look at it, especially the funding model we approved last year under the previous council. Otherwise, we risk creating a system where we become very good at managing social harm while gradually weakening the very community infrastructure that helps community on the ground. Imagine of someone who uses Smart Newtown to do their funding or to work on their paper application to the Work and Income, not getting those accesses because of the language barrier or technology barriers, ending up on the street because they can't get access of support. That is where our money seems to be going in this funding area. And as much as I support those big organizations, I really think I don't propose, like my colleague Councillor Tiffenbaker, increasing a lot of money in this area. If we do, we just have to be careful because the more we increase as well, the demand is very high. We should do all our best, but we can't cover all the organizations supporting them. But the way we allocate the funding needs to be just, and at this stage in some areas In this funding model, what I'm seeing is where we're moving towards more of the emergency response organizations fit into the criteria that we set last year, and even some of the new ones that are emerging are not getting the amount of money even they're asking.

I'd just like you to wind up because I know we don't have a complete limit on speaking, but you've had 3 minutes and we are trying to keep the meeting bearable for us. I mean, it's lovely listening to you, but we want to go home.

Good. Yeah, so I think it's really important in going forward to look at those things, and organisations like Citizen Advice Bureau and Smart Newtown, I know my communities use them. The community that I belong to, the Newtown communities, the refugee communities, migrant communities, communities from low socioeconomics, they really rely on those services. And we need to look at it going forward, and some of them remaining funding to focus on how we allocate. And I hope officers who work really hard in this space to look at and how to— how they can support them. Thanks to Mark and your team. It's really incredibly hard, but I'll leave it there. Thank you.

He's my technical assistant. We've had 3 in support of the substantive. Is there anyone voting against the substantive— speaking against the substantive? Otherwise, I'll call for the vote. Once the Deputy Mayor has spoken.

I do appreciate the discretion, Chair. I've just been listening along in my office. For a day where you're giving out $4.1 million of grants, this does not feel like a particularly happy meeting, and I don't think anyone in this room is feeling particularly great right now. I appreciate this is not fun. What brought me here though was— I don't want to call it naivety, but I heard some of the comments about looking at needing to increase the funding, which, yes, but— and I think it's best for me to talk while community organisations are in the room to just be really frank about the legislative change that is in front of us. The government's definition of core services under the Simplifying Local Government Act bill: network infrastructure, public transport, waste management minimisation, civil defence, emergency management, libraries, museums, reserves, and other community and recreational facilities. That's it. That is what local councils do under the government's proposed reforms. So let's firstly have that on our radar. Second, rates capping. We've gone through $10 million of savings through the Rate Revenue and Financial Working Group. We've heard through our annual plan hearings the pleas to not proceed with some of those funding cuts. That was $10 million. We need to add another $17.5 million to come in at the very top of the rates cap ban that the government are putting in front of us. I don't want to give false hope that this council can meet the obligations of community organisations when— and it is a cruel irony because their funding sources outside of council have been drying up because of other governments decisions, but I just came in here almost— I just want to be really frank that unless there is a substantive change in Parliament or direction at the election, this next grants meeting will probably be the worst one ever, and we will be going declining and declining and declining, and that is the reality of the legislative change that has been put in front of councils right now. And I'm sorry to come in and be— I feel like the Grim Reaper, but I just, I heard the conversation, I heard the So the optimism of, you know, we need to find more funding. You're not core services according to the government. I completely, inherently disagree with that. That is bullshit. But that is what is being put in front of us. And so, sorry to come into grants and to play that, but I just felt it was so important to be contextual because November determines the ability of this and all councils to respond to community organisations who can do environmental protection, social harm reduction, and helping people so much better than we ever can, because they do the hard mahi, they're on the ground, they know the people in the communities, they show up and they have been there and they do it on the smell of an oily rag. I'll leave it there. Thank you, Chair.

So now, does anyone want to speak against the substantive? Otherwise, we'll go to the vote now. So you want to speak against it, Councillor Chow?

Good. So, but—

Well, are you suggesting an amendment, Councillor? No, no. We'll go to the vote. All those in favour of the substantive, press 1. Those against, press 2. Right, that's passed unanimously. Right, so I declare the motion carried, sorry. So the next one, is the one I mentioned before when I got it wrong, Community Outcomes. Please welcome again Officer Sahai Orgad and Mark Farrah to the table.

Through the chair, just— oh, sorry, shall I wait? Oh, would you like to start? Yes, please, sorry. Okay, sorry, I didn't want to speak out of turn. Apologies. So, Councillors, this is the Tāhua Whaihua Hapori Funding program. So this is the second funding round for the current financial year. So you just approved grants for next year. This is the, the balance of funding that's left for this year. We're recommending that 8 grants be approved and 2 grants be declined. And within the report, because we have delegation as officers to approve small grants under $5,000, There are 3 residents' associations who have already been approved by officers in consultation with the chair already, so they're included in that report as well. This is the final funding round for the financial year for this fund. There are 4 applications in here for a safety and wellbeing initiative for the care programme, and they're listed in there as well. There are some of these that will go on to the Social, Cultural and Environmental Committee because the total amount of those recommendations exceed $150,000 in a year. I'm going to hand over to Sahai just to make some general comments about the care applications.

Thanks, Mark.

So very quickly, the care recommendations are directly associated with the City Safety and Wellbeing Plan. I don't know if you recall back in March we gave an overall briefing. This specifically delivers against pillar 3 of the plan to support the nighttime economy, essentially operate— creating an initiative that's a coordinated strategy between the key nighttime players from Wellington Free Ambulance, including police, Applicants listed there, I don't need to repeat them. Thank you. Sorry. I'll keep it short. But that is specifically what this is about.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? So do I mention this now?

Oh.

Oh, sorry. So, officers, thank you very much. And if you'd like to leave the table. That would be good. So, um, Councillor Chung has, um, alerted us he has a conflict of interest on Clause 4 of this motion. So, um, he can, um, he can debate, uh, on everything else and vote on everything else, but we'll take Clause 4 separately. Okay, what you want? So, um, Is there a mover? So Councillor Foote, you'll move, and Councillor Osborne seconds. Is there any debate? I'll move the paper. I'll thank the officers for the work, and I'll thank all of the organisations. And it's good to see some new organisations in here that we'll be keeping track of. And I do thank the City Safety and Wellbeing team for the mahi, and it'll be good to start seeing some of the changes or hearing some of the stories that these investments in our communities are making. Thank you. And Councillor Osborne, would you like to speak now?

No, thank you, Chair. I'm happy to second the paper.

Thank you.

Councilor Abdurahman.

Yeah, thank you again. Just quickly to mention the City Safety as well. I think they're doing a great job, but at the same time also, it's a time for us to see some of the return, what it means. I'm thinking of the community in Newtown, which continuously been discussing the issue. I'm thinking of the community in Kilbirnie. And I think we really need to— it's probably the time to see what exactly we're getting out of that services as well. And I see a bit change in central city, but on suburbs it's still a big issue.

Does anyone else wish to speak? So we will go to the vote. Oh, Raj Rupali, sorry. Okay, so, um, I'll put— sorry, I'll put the motion which has been moved and seconded. You know how to vote, and we'll take, um, Clause 4 first. So if you'd like to vote.

Yeah, not you, Councilor.

Yeah, you're not voting. So that's carried unanimously. And now we move on to the rest of it where Councillor Chung can vote again. All those in favour, number 1.

Right.

And that's carried unanimously. Thank you very much. So now we move on to Arts and Culture. So, Projects and Living Wage, I'd just like to welcome Stephen Blackburn to the table, please. Thanks, Stephen. Does anyone have any questions about this before we move into debate? Councillor Osborne. Thanks, Chair.

The paper notes that there's perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding in the arts community around what living wage fund is designed to provide for. I'm just wondering if there has been any work from Council staff to try and overcome that misunderstanding.

There has.

All the Creative Capital team have direct relationship management with a lot of the arts organisations, and we've had several conversations with them around the living wage fund and how it's being implemented. The bigger problem is actually amongst individual artists and co-op type setups that apply to the Project Round in terms of their misunderstanding that it's not about just balancing their production or project budget, that it's actually going to be demonstrated as how it is feeding into a living wage for the artists and practitioners in the project.

So we're going to do some further work with the individual artists around templating budgets which will help them work on that.

I also think there's a general lower level of applications, but I think that's as a direct result, as I said in the Q&A, around the new framework and the way that we've moved a lot of those that regularly came into these kind of rounds into a curated funding with the venues that actually host them so that they are actually curating their own program rather than Council.

It's good to hear, thank you.

And Councillor Compton. Thank you, Chair. My question was similar. Once we provide these grants, what kind of retrospective do we do to ensure that they are going directly to the individuals to ensure that they are getting a living wage? It's essentially— I just want to know what the mechanics of that looks like. It's mainly through the acquittal reports that they provide us with, which shows their full expenditure breakdown and how that's been allocated across the practitioners in a project, and also through our team who are regularly in contact with the sector. And attending a lot of these projects, checking in with those artists to make sure that that is occurring.

So any further questions? If not, thank you, Steven. No worries. We don't need you anymore. Okay. So I'm going to move it. It will be seconded by the Mayor. I'm going to say very little because I think we've heard far too much from me anyway. But I would just say that just looking at this in particular, I'm drawn to the Wellington Heritage Festival because I remember when that started, and it started off in a very shaky way, and the council did step in to help, and it has grown from strength to strength, and it is now one of the major sort of cultural events of the city, in my humble opinion. So anyway, I am in full support of this, and I'd just like to thank the officers for all the help in analysing what is a very complex area of trying to, you know, peaches and pears and pumpkins, and you've got to work out they've all got to be assessed the same way. And I'd now like to call on the Mayor who is seconding.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, not a lot for me to add, and it's great to see some of the proposed recipients of these grants, particularly the Port Adelaide City Brass Band, because brass music is important in an age where electronic music sort of dominates. But beyond that, I think it's important to recognise that our support for the arts isn't just to arts organisations and performing organisations, it's actually through a lot of the facilities and other support that we give them, as well as the people in our Creative Capital Arts team, people like Steven Blackburn, who was just here. So I, you know, I'm very proud of what the Wellington City Council does to support our arts community. It could always be a lot more in different circumstances, but I think we do an extraordinary amount for a city that prides itself on its arts and cultural community.

So is there any debate? Great. So right of reply? No, there's no need for that. I now put the motion which has been moved and seconded. Would you all like to vote, please? So the next one is an area in which I have a deep knowledge, sport. So I've decided to be generous and ask someone else to introduce introduce it, Councillor Abdurrahman, but first of all I'd just like to welcome Sanjay Patel to the table to introduce the report.

Kia ora koutou. First I'd just like to take the opportunity to thank Stephen from Newlands Indoor Bowling Club, Michael and Sam from Wellington Hockey for coming and presenting today. North City Cricket Club have put in their apologies, but I believe they've been in touch with the ward councillors. So this paper recommends to the committee to agree to allocate funding from the Sport Facility Partnership Fund. There's $23,585 to the North City Cricket Club for a roof renewal, $17,000 to the Newland Indoor Bowling Club for a roof— a floor replacement. Both of those are within the 2025-26 financial year. We're also asking this committee to recommend to the Social, Cultural, Economic and Environment Committee to approve an allocation of $425,000 to the Wellington Regional Hockey Stadium Trust, with $250,000 in 2025-26 financial year and $175,000 in 2026-27. Happy to take any questions.

Councillor Abdurahman— sorry, Al-Rubaihi, Councillor.

Thank you, Chair. So just really quickly, Sanjay, and I probably mentioned this before, the total of $425,000. I know the— sorry, that the facility said that they would fundraise dollar for dollar, but then the requested total amount was $1.5 million. Can you just remind me what— where would they get that extra Was it another type of fundraising or? Yes, most definitely.

So it'll be external funds. There have been discussions with Class 4 funders. Great.

Amazing. Thanks.

Councillor Compton. Thank you, Chair.

Sanjay, just two questions for you, please. What is the square metre of the Hockey Stadium, please, the building.

So there are two buildings. The main building is 525 metres squared, and the smaller building is 270 metres squared. Okay, thank you.

And secondly, I don't see any declines in this round. Were there any other applications, or is everybody that applied essentially getting funding?

So this application, we tend to work in partnership with our community years in advance. With the hockey one in particular, we've been working with them for about 5 years, hence why the initial feasibility study came in at about $5.7 million, and we've worked them to come to council for a realistic figure.

So no other organisations, because I know that the North City was quite late in the piece, and I'll talk about that in debate. Was there no other organisations that needed any funding?

There are no other organisations that have requested out of this year's fund, but we are working with groups for next financial year.

Councillor Chung.

Thank you. I noticed that the North City Cricket Club incorporates members from Porirua, Tawa, and the Borough.

Do we consider how many of those members are actually in the Wellington area, or do we separate it out at all?

No, we do not consider that. As you can appreciate, sport has no boundaries in where we play. Majority of the major sporting facilities are within Wellington City, which we also fund.

Councillor Foone? Yeah, just how will we— sorry, Sanjay— check in on if this grant for the Wellington Hockey Club in particular is granted today, what will be the milestones and how will we check back in with Council so that we're aware of how the project's tracking?

Yes, so much like our fund with Toitu Pōneke that we've approved over multiple years, we sit on a working group with them and we go to their construction meetings every fortnight and receive updates. We also have a funding agreement which has different milestones around it, and we also don't provide funding upfront in full, so we set milestones around when they've produced evidence that they've received funding and/or quotes and/or invoices to pay out.

And the last question from Councillor Abdurahman.

Sanjay, could you remind me, they say they will match funding $4, that's my understanding, and the total cost is $1.5 million. We're funding them $825,000, and just that, that's going to take it into $1.7 million instead of $1.5 million.

Yes, correct. So what we've done there is that when they initially requested their funding, that was without any contingency. With our due diligence and council and checking with our buildings and assets scheme. We've added a 10% contingency, which they've advised that they would match as well.

Oh, they will match for the contingency as well. So they basically, they will be raising $825 million. Yes. Okay, so $1.7— almost about $1.7 billion with contingency is what you would think. Okay, sure.

Okay, if there are no more questions, Sanjay, thank you very much. You are now released, and we will So we have, for the mover, Councillor Abdurahman is moving it.

Kiarafarno, I think thanks to Sanjay and the team and to the hockey stadium as well, they invited us actually, Councillor Foone and Councillor Arrubayi, we went and we visited them, we looked around and what they planning to do, and it's a really great facility, it's a national significance as well. and they do a lot of great job, and they pay us about $38K per year, if I'm not mistaken, Sanjay, for using that artificial turf. And it's a great community facility and about 6,000 users a year, and they got— the number of female players is actually more than the male players, and it's really interesting to see that involvement. And the only one to— the only thing that I want to comment is for this committee and the rest to look at how we can make sport more affordable and accessible as well, because still for some members of the hockey players, it's a bit expensive because of how much we're charging for our facilities. And there is no clarity in how we determine how much to charge them, and a lot of places, and the football would be a good example, and where they backed it with example of how much we're charging is more than other cities. So with that, I think I'm fully in support of this, and has been— officers has been working for the last 3 years on this, from my understanding. It's a good outcome, and if we don't approve it today, that funding will go back and out of that big budget, nowhere to be seen. So let's give them and celebrate their success.

Thank you, Councillor. And Councillor Osborne is seconding.

Would you like to speak? Yeah, thanks. I'm very happy to second the paper. It'll come as no surprise to everyone around the table that I think sport and club sport is a really important part of the city, and these organisations so often run on the proverbial smell of an oily rag and really struggle with to maintain the facilities that are required, not only for themselves, but also often for other community groups. And we heard from the Newlands Indoor Bowls Club about all the various community groups that also use their facility when they presented earlier today. So that's all I want to say. Happy to second it.

Thank you. Is there any debate? So, Councillor Compton.

Thank you, Chair. I guess it would be remiss of me not to make a comment given that two of these venues are actually within the Northern Ward. So, I'd just like to give a little bit of history on the North City Cricket Club and how it came to essentially apply for this funding. They came to the Northern City councillors, Northern Takapu councillors, earlier in January and all 3 of us went and visited the club, and they have got significant water leak issues within their roof. It's a bit of an awkward facility. We own the, the bottom, they own the top, and essentially if the roof was not replaced, it would kind of end up as a derelict building. So we recommended that they come and apply for the grant through this committee, and I guess What I'm trying to illustrate, I'm not doing it very concisely, is that I encourage all these types of clubs to come and talk to their councillors and let the councillors help them advocate and work and navigate our systems so that they can get really good benefits for their community. And this particular cricket club has also provided New Zealand with some incredible international players. So again, I'm really supportive of this grant, and thank you. Sorry, any further debate?

Councillor Foone, you look as though you're wanting to speak. I just want to acknowledge the Hockey Club and their mahi. It's in our ward. So yeah, just fully supportive really, and thank Councillor Al-Rubayyi for coming up to that meeting that day. I think it was really helpful to have you there given that this was the process they had to go through. So yeah, no, really appreciate the work from officers as well on this. And Councillor Abdurahman, do you want to have a right of reply? Okay, so I'll put the motion which has been moved and seconded. You know what to do. That has been carried unanimously. Hmm? Everything— well, it's the most difficult meeting, but all the votes are unanimous. So now we come to the Heritage, Resilience and Generation Regeneration Fund, and I'd like to welcome Adam McCutcheon to introduce the report. Welcome, Adam.

Kia ora, Councillors.

This is the 4th year of the Heritage Resilience and Regeneration Fund.

This is one of 2 reports that comes to this committee each year. It reports on the progress of previous grants and updates on the allocations that we've received for this— the applications and allocations for this financial year. Heritage-listed buildings and buildings within heritage areas are eligible for funding. This year there's a total of $350,000 available. Of that, $255,000 is reserved for seismic strengthening, $45,000 for conservation works, and $50,000 to support heritage resource consent fees. The split is locked in within the terms of the fund. Grants under $100,000 are approved by the business unit manager, grants over that figure by the committee. Applications for seismic strengthening grants this financial year reflect a trend that we were seeing in previous years where there's a lack of interest and there's hesitation within the community of building owners to progress strengthening works. We're seeing the drivers for this being changing earth earthquake regulations that were consulted on earlier this year, and this council made a submission on those, and extensions that have been provided for building owners to delay works to a later date. So for those reasons, we're, we're seeing a lack of applications. On the other hand, we have an oversubscription of applications for conservation works. These include works to windows, veranda repairs, and façade restoration. 2 grants have already been allocated under delegations, one for St Gerard's, another for the Prudential Assurance Building on Lambton Quay.

One more is to be designed for the Dominion Building.

This exhausts the $45,000 for the conservation portion of the fund. There are 8 requests that are left unfulfilled. It's recommended that the unallocated seismic strengthening funds are transferred for conservation use and figures which would result are set out in the paper. This would require approval from the Social Cultural and Environment Committee. It would include 2 buildings in the Courtney Place heritage area, 3 within the Cuba Street heritage area, 1 on Te Aro Park.

That's me. Right. So does anyone have any questions before we move into debate, noting that this is an amendable an amended sub-centre. Councillor Osborne.

Thanks, Adam. Just given the reluctance of people to apply for the grants around the seismic strengthening, would it be your recommendation that perhaps Council ought to reconsider the criteria around this fund?

My view is that I think there is merit in that. The fund could be deployed differently, perhaps for regeneration purposes more broadly, but that would be something that we could report back to committee on with some recommendations.

Any other questions? Your Mayor, your worship. Thanks, just adamant, just in following up Councillor Osborne's question, is it possible though that people are just holding back until they see, get clarity about what the rules are given the signal that the government has seen?

Possibly. With previously allocated grants for seismic strengthening work, so for detailed seismic designs and some for works, we were seeing a trend of people getting to the point where they know what they need to do, but they're unable to progress because it is just so expensive at that point. So the council does benefit from understanding what needs to be done to remediate that building, but particularly multi- unit body corp owners, of individual owners, really struggle to progress to that next step of undertaking the capital works.

And Councillor Furney. Yeah, just recommending to the Te Rau Awa Committee, is it because there's a change of why the funding is being allocated, so they've requested a different reason for the funding?

So under the terms of the fund, 85% is reserved for seismic strengthening and 15% for conservation. Okay, yeah. To access that seismic strengthening money which is unallocated will require committee approval, hence the—

So full committee? Yeah. Shame we couldn't just do it here, but I'll take the process as So, are there any further questions? No? So, Adam, thank you very much, as always, for all your help. I will move the amended substantive, which is in front of you on your screens. So, what I would just say is that it used to be that the seismic and heritage funds were far more 50/50, but that was changed because of all the huge seismic work. And now, so the question that I was asked as Chair is, did I— what did I want to do? Did I want to leave the money in the seismic fund? So there are 5 buildings in here which I have asked for the money to be moved across. That's why it's an amended substantive. So 2 of them are in Courtney Place in the area which will be part of the Courtney precinct where various companies like Willis Bond and I think some architects Firms and Resene are going to be working to upgrade the Courtney Place area, and these buildings are right in the middle of the area. They're two of the ones that are affected. Then Cuba Street, again, it's one of our sort of most precious and quirky heritage areas, and it's just a way of helping the owners. It's a very small contribution, but these owners tend to be sort of elderly couples. These are not big corporate owners. They're little family businesses, And so they're in the heritage area, but Cuba Street and Courtney Place I think are two of our most interesting and attractive streets for tourism, for hospo, entertainment, etc. So that's the reason why. So that's the end of my speech. And I hope you support it because, you know, that would be helpful. So do I have a seconder? Councillor Al-Rubahi is seconding. Thank you. Oh, do you want to speak? No, thank you. Is there any debate? So do I have to do this or just go straight into the substantive? OK, right of reply. There is no right of reply. Go to a vote. Great. Off you go. Thank you. Another unanimous vote. I'm amazed you've had enough time to be in here for this long, to be honest. So now we come to the decision register. You can see this is the most interesting part of the meeting because everyone's Rushing to leave. So the decision register— oh, you've got to do it, sorry.

It's okay, we'll take it as read. Any questions?

Any questions? Could it be quick, please?

It will be quick. Can I just confirm that now in the forward register in June, that essentially that amended substantive that we voted on this morning, that we will see the by-product of the money that's gone back? To go through, back through the machine, that we will see that in the June meeting.

Yeah, we'll have to add that to the forward agenda, correct?

Yes.

You may leave the table now, in fact the room, pick up your son. So, would you mind moving the paper? Thank you. And then Abdulrahman will second it. Would you like to speak? Sorry, so sorry. So, Pōiwī Holden-Hoara is going to move it. It's going to be seconded by Councillor Abdulrahman. Stop laughing at me. And is there any debate? Oh, and do you want to speak? No, no. Any debate? No. Do you want to vote? Yes. A what? So I declare that's carried unanimously.

We can all do it.