Marina CCO proposal Debate

Economic Benefits - Costs

Option 1

Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the avoidance of unnecessary costs associated with establishing an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), highlighting concerns about increased bureaucracy and overheads. They argue that the marina is already financially self-sustaining under the current model, and additional expenditures on changes could be wasteful. Furthermore, they express a preference for maintaining community control and oversight, fearing that a shift to a CCO could diminish this aspect and not provide sufficient economic benefits to justify the potential loss of community focus.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
541.4	We dont need another layer of bureaucracy ,more overheads and more wages
931.3	I understand that the marina is financially supporting itself  so why I find the status quo is the best option.  Also please do not waste money by installing  gate and camera as having access to the pontoon is apreciated
1040.4	Significant money has already been gained by Council through Marina fees, to transfer assets to an AOCC seems counter intuitive - the proposed extension is already beyond what is necessary or seems practical in the face of sea level change and inundation  (this asset should not pass into the hands of those who are willing to ignore the science
1089.4	Establishing a separate management organisation creates more costs. Better to manage the marina by efficient use of current council resources.
1181.4	I'm not into adding more overheads to a council income streams, or having controlled organisations that are not democratically appointed (eg race biased representation).
1299.3	I don't understand why we would accept an extra cost to council regardless of who's name the marina is under.
1482.4	We disagree with the proposal to adopt option 2 (CCO) and consider the marina should continue to operate under its present mode (option 1).The LTP notes that this area is of great significance to the city, a valuable amenity to the community, and an important means of helping fund the waterfront master pan. We are opposed to a change that could notably diminish the level of community control over its operation, and are not persuaded that the stated emphasis on increasing business acumen would bring sufficient benefits to warrant the potential loss of community focus.We also stress the importance of preserving an operation that is self-sustaining financially and does not draw on rates for its operation.