Nicola Young: Wellington City Councillor on the council's $500-600 million fiscal hole

There's confusion over the size of Wellington City Council's fiscal hole. 

The council is scrambling to fill a $400-600 million shortfall in its 10 year budget to mitigate its insurance risk, amid threats of Government intervention. 

But Councillor Nicola Young told Mike Hosking the council doesn't have a clue how much money it actually needs. 

She says they've been told by council officers figures like $200, $400, and $600 million, so the council is aiming to find $500 million. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
D day of sorts for Wellington Local Government minister meets
with the mayor work out where to go. There was
an urgent meeting yesterday with the council. Of course, Councilor
Nikola Young is with us Nickeola, morning.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
To you, Good morning match.

Speaker 1 (00:11):
Did you get any circuit breaker type vibes out of
yesterday's meeting?

Speaker 2 (00:15):
Well, I'd have to say there is certainly an acceptance
by the councilors that they have to stop spending, they
have to make some spending cuts. The question is where
they make the spending cuts. The mayor is committed to
the Golden Mile, which of course most Wellingtonians we believe
don't want. She's talking about selling the ground leases which
are worth nearly two hundred and fifty million, but didn't

(00:36):
mention the fact that they're actually a major source of
revenue for the council. So the other thing is we
haven't actually got any idea how big the fiscal hole is,
and we've been told two hundred million, four hundred million,
six hundred million over ten years. So I think they're
aiming for a figure of five hundred million, but there's
no factual basis for this figure, and when I asked

(00:57):
about this what it was based on. I was told, well,
it's more it's an art, not a science. Well, actually,
money is all about science.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
This is very much the case. Does she have anything
do you know to convince Simmy and Brown this morning
not to pull the trigger?

Speaker 2 (01:12):
I don't think so. I mean, we haven't got a plan.
We've just got a vague agreement that we need to
address this, and the reality of where the cuts come
have not been identified. But you know, I mean three
of us who changed our vote. You know why we
changed our vote, the three fiscally dry councilors, because we
had the ability to borrow another two hundred and fifty

(01:33):
million in the case of an emergency. It's called the
insurance debt headroom, and this was agreed unanimously that wouldn't
be touched. And then a week later after the vote,
we found out that it would be in place, It
would be touched for the next nine years. It was
already factored into the spending, and that's why we voted
against it, because we're trying to stop the spending.

Speaker 1 (01:52):
What's your gut do you think Simming and Brown will
do something or not?

Speaker 2 (01:57):
I hope so good?

Speaker 1 (01:58):
All right, Nichol appreciate it very much. Nichol Young. A
lot of coverage some people talking about an election. There
will be no election. I don't know why they've come
to the conclusion that there could be a snap election.
Think it through. A snap election solves nothing because you
don't know what the election is going to provide. The
only thing the government will do if they pull the
trigger is put an observer in. Personally, I think they

(02:20):
should put a comisioner and noal commissioners and do a
tower on or doing a Canterbury regional. But they could
put an observer in initially, but there's no election. So anyway,
next time you hear about the possibility of a snap election,
and forget that people don't know what they're talking about.
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks they'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.