This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Official Information request 'Public Transport Funding Review reports'.
From: Lizzy Wiessing <[email address]>  
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2018 9:11 AM 
To: Amy Helm <[email address]> 
Cc: Dave Humm <[email address]>; Luke Troy <[email address]>; Helen Gilbert 
<[email address]>; Mark Ford <[email address]> 
Subject: RE: Greater Wellington Revenue and Financing Policy Statement of Proposal for Review [SG-
Hi all, 
And here are our comments on the report to Council adopting the RFP SOP. 
Lizzy Wiessing | Senior Associate | Simpson Grierson 
Level 24, 195 Lambton Quay, P O Box 2402, Wellington 6140, New Zealand 
DDI +64-4-924 3414 | Mobile +64-21 918 309 | Fax +64-4-472 6986 
[email address] | 
From: Lizzy Wiessing  
Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2018 4:42 pm 
To: 'Amy Helm'  
Cc: Dave Humm ; Luke Troy ; Helen Gilbert ; Mark Ford ; Jonathan Salter  
Subject: RE: Greater Wellington Revenue and Financing Policy Statement of Proposal for 
Review [SG-SGDMS.FID880435] 
Hi all, 
We have reviewed the draft SOP against the requirements of sections 82A and 87 of the LGA 
(we have considered section 87 because the Council is proposing to consult on the policy 
using the SCP). Although the Council has chosen to use the SCP it is required to comply with 
section 82, and therefore section 82A. This means the SOP needs to be clear that the whole 
policy is being consulted on and that the SOP spells out the changes from the current RFP in 
terms which satisfy section 82A(2)(a) and (b). 
Overall, the document meets the requirements of describing the proposal, the reason for the 
proposal, and analysis of the reasonably practicable options, and manages to communicate it 
clearly, so well done on that. The RFP itself should be attached to the SOP, and there should 
be more cross-references to relevant pages in the RFP. 
The SOP is quite long for an SOP and includes some information not strictly required (while 
it is well written, it requires a serious time commitment to get through it and digest it). We 
strongly suggest that it be considered whether the current draft can be split into the SOP 
(which contains the information to meet statutory compliance) and supporting information 
(which contains the rest), or at the very least, an executive summary that meets statutory 
compliance and the rest. 

Upfront, we consider you need to explicitly explain why the Council is focussing on fairness 
and transparency, and what you mean by these. Fairness seems to be described in “why the 
proposed changes” as being about benefits. The explanation of why could be to the effect of 
“in considering how we fund PT and flood protection we considered the factors in section 
101(3)(a) and the Council has chosen to advance proposals that particularly give weight to 
achieving fair and transparent funding decisions”. The rest of the references in the policy can 
then be made with reference to this introductory framing. 
Towards the end, the examples of rating impact – this is LTP CD stuff, not RFP SOP stuff, 
and we suggest it be taken out. Given the complexity of the proposed changes, we are 
comfortable with the examples of impact that are included before page 18. 
Please call if you have any queries. 
Lizzy Wiessing | Senior Associate | Simpson Grierson 
Level 24, 195 Lambton Quay, P O Box 2402, Wellington 6140, New Zealand 
DDI +64-4-924 3414 | Mobile +64-21 918 309 | Fax +64-4-472 6986 
[email address] | 
From: Amy Helm [mailto:[email address]]  
Sent: Sunday, 4 March 2018 9:48 pm 
To: Lizzy Wiessing <[email address]> 
Cc: Dave Humm <[email address]>; Luke Troy <[email address]>; Helen 
Gilbert <[email address]>; Mark Ford <[email address]> 
Subject: Fwd: Greater Wellington Revenue and Financing Policy Statement of Proposal for 
Kia ora Lizzy, 
Please find attached a revised version of the Statement of Proposal. 
You will find some specific questions noted in the comments. 
From: Amy Helm <[email address]> 
Subject: Greater Wellington Revenue and Financing Policy Statement of Proposal for 
Date: 2 March 2018 at 3:47:34 PM NZDT 
To: Lizzy Wiessing <[email address]> 
Cc: Dave Humm <[email address]>, Helen Gilbert 
<[email address]> 

Kia ora, 
I believe you’ve spoken to Helen Gilbert and Dave Humm and are expecting a new version of the SoP 
for review. 
The version attached has some gaps, where we awaiting the outputs of modelling work. This is being 
finalised over the weekend. We will have a revised version to you first thing Monday morning. 
In the meantime, could you please have a quick look over the attached document for any red flags you 
suggest we do further work to remedy over the weekend? 
Apologies for the lack of formatting. 
Have a good weekend, 
Kind regards, 
This email is confidential and may be privileged. If this email is not intended for you do not use, read, distribute or copy it. Please 
contact the sender immediately and delete the original email and any attachments. If you respond to this email, you agree it is not 
received by Simpson Grierson until the email comes to the attention of the addressee. Al  incoming emails are scanned and filtered by 
Simpson Grierson's email security system. This could result in a legitimate email being deleted before being read by its addressee.