The comments submitted by citizens who selected 'None of the Above' in response to the Marina CCO proposal reveal a range of concerns and perspectives that do not align neatly with any of the proposed options (Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3). These comments highlight a general sentiment of dissatisfaction with the proposed changes, a lack of sufficient information to make an informed decision, and concerns about the financial implications and governance of the Marina. Here is a summary of the key arguments made in these comments:

  1. Financial Concerns: Many citizens are worried about the potential increase in costs associated with the proposed changes. There is a fear that fees could rise to levels similar to those in larger cities, which could make boating unaffordable for many current Marina users. Concerns are also raised about the overall cost of the Marina development and skepticism about the projected $35,000 cost for transitioning to a new management model.

  2. Lack of Information and Understanding: A significant number of comments indicate that citizens feel they do not have enough information to understand the implications of the proposed changes fully. This lack of information has led to confusion and a reluctance to support any of the proposed options.

  3. Governance and Management Concerns: Some comments express distrust in the Council's ability to manage the Marina effectively, whether under the current system or a new CCO or CCTO. There are fears that a new governance model could lead to increased bureaucracy, higher administration costs, and a focus on profit over community value.

  4. Preservation of Public Access and Community Values: There is a concern that moving to a more commercially focused model (as in Options 2 and 3) could reduce public access to the Marina and prioritize profit over community recreational values.

  5. Impact on Local Community and Ratepayers: Several comments reflect a strong opinion that ratepayers should not bear the financial burden of the Marina, which is seen as benefiting a small portion of the community (i.e., boat owners). There is a call for the Marina to be financially self-sustaining without relying on public funds.

  6. Alternative Suggestions: Some citizens suggest selling the Marina to a private operator or maintaining the status quo because they believe the proposed changes will not address the underlying issues or may lead to worse outcomes.

In constructing a debate argument in support of 'None of the Above', one could argue that the proposed options fail to adequately address the community's needs and concerns. The argument could emphasize the need for a more transparent and inclusive planning process that considers the financial impact on Marina users and the broader community, ensures the preservation of public access and community values, and improves the current governance and management structure without introducing unnecessary complexity and costs. The debate could call for a re-evaluation of the entire proposal, suggesting that none of the current options satisfactorily balance the diverse interests and priorities of the Nelson community.

Comments

ID Comment
5.1 We have received the notification email from the Nelson Marina re the proposal to become an asset owning council controlled entity. We are marina user with a 10m yacht.In principle we don’t oppose this proposal. What we are really nervous about is the $$$$ signs tha flash in front of us. It sounds very aspirational to be a world class marina facility.  Goals are great but who pays for these aspirations? We are a Small town, with a Small rate base and a marina full of boats many of whom are here because iti s affordable. We cannot afford Auckland marina fees. It would be the end of boating for many of the marina users. Please please please be mindful of not increasing fees unreasonably.There are not many who are not struggling financially these days.
28.4 sell the Marina to a private operator.
67.3 Something between options 2 and 3 so that Council retains flexibility. It doesnt need to provide a dividend just little or no cost to Council
72.4 I do not have a view on this issue.
87.4 I have no knowledge of the current marina details
108.4 No strong opinion
275.4 unsure
297.4 No idea. FYI, this page should have links to the proposals i.e. https://shape.nelson.govt.nz/long-term-plan-2024-2034-1/key-issue-marina-cco-proposal
353.4 I am new to Nelson and have to knowledge of the Marina!
413.4 not enough info to vote
504.4 again I dont know enough to comment
519.4 Not sure how each would affect. The Marina needs to be expanded and updated. It is over crowded and more ramps and parking is needed in peak times.
530.1 Regarding
556.4 not familiar enough with details
682.4 Again, don't feel I know the positive and negative outcomes of each option.
765.4 No idea about Marina. It would have been better if the Nelson communities knew about it.
828.4 None of our Ratepayer funds should be directed towards the Marina!!    Why should I help those people who have the "luxury" of owning a boat!!  Boat owners should pay for their "own" facilities I should not. If "you" have a look around the Marina   even in a nice weather weekend in summer you will find that there would probably not be more that 5% of the boats gone from their moorings and being used for recreation out in the bay. During the week  there might be 1% usage if you are lucky. So it really is a facility that warrants no capital input from us ratepayers.   $60 million for the Masterplan   ---  and we dont even know just what that is.   a big NO  Again -- a bit difficult to follow  and understand Councils proposals, so I am suggesting NO CHANGE  and as aforesaid.    None of our rates towards the Marina at all
888.4 Council has already proven that itis incompetent - see #1
934.4 Does not concern me.
983.4 Too hard to understand.
1157.4 NA
1206.4 Choose not to answer.
1225.4 I am insufficiently informed to give a meaningful Submission. None-the-less I comment that- the existing operation seems remarkably unsuccessful (but I am unaware as to whose fault it is that there is so little re-development on Akersten Street);- “history” has shown that there is no way that the Marina will run at a profit - and thereby have to pay tax- (when I consider what it costs Council to “do anything”) I simply can’t believe that the proposed changes could be completed at a cost of only $35k – as suggested- I have insufficient knowledge as to possible composition of a CCO Board.However I have a real suspicion that governance/administration costs would increase substantially
1243.1 It cant run things properly in its current state so why would we want to give them any further powers.
1255.4 Sell the marina and stick to core business instead of pandering to those who lest need or deserve it with ratepayers money. Use the money to pay down debt.
1302.4 no opinion
1474.28 We are not able to determine which of the three proffered options is the most appropriate.
1489.4 i feel like it needs greater investment in the marina and if a privately run company would be be an option i feel like this would be the correct route as the invested and running of the marina could be world class however the lack of experience in running a professional marina isnt in nelson so we will never move forward and it will remain as it is without a full overhaul and some specialist brought in to stream line the process and action soemthing
1511.1 Priority One - Needor-Priority Nine - WantAnswer:  Its a want (low priority)Needs include:Ageing City InfrastructureSewerageStormwaterFreshwaterMaintaining whats already in placeSwim PoolsParksFootpathsRoadsFlood protectionWants:These are planners dreamsFluffy - feel good projectsConsider this:Look after what we haveThink cost $Think benefitsDoes it add value?$60 mil Marina development:Cost6% interest5% principal repay5% insurance & R&M5% management= 21%$60 x 21% = $12.6 mil cost paAdd depreciation @ 5% - $3.00 mil= $15.6 mil paWho wants to pay for this?- Ratepayers- Marina usersRatepayers wont want to pay for this - they are already facing big increases.Marina Users - they are already paying for rising costs.Consider:The "average" vessel in the marina is worth less than $100,000.  The owners don't have deep pockets.Crank up berthage costs and vessels will lie at anchor in the haven and become derelict - nice look eh - or lie at Monaco.As a vessel owner in the marina I am proud and appreciative with the facilities we have - "keep them maintained".Question - Will a $60m spend benefit vessel owners - I doubt it.- Will it encourage overseas yachties to have their vessels sserviced here - I doubt it.Consider - is there likelyhood of cost over runs - Yes - $60 mil could become $120 mil based on previous performance?Do we need an asset owning council controlled "trading" or organisation - CCO or CCTO - "NO".Possible outcomes -- Marina assets revalued- More expensive administration- Director fees- Greater return on investment- Higher berthage and occupancy costs- More bureaucracy"IF ITS NOT BROKEN WHY FIX IT!!"