Debate Argument in Support of Option 1: No Change

Introduction

The proposal to transform the Nelson Marina into an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) has sparked considerable debate among the local residents. After reviewing the community feedback, there is a strong inclination towards maintaining the status quo, as represented by Option 1: No Change. This option advocates for continuing the current management structure without transitioning to an Asset-Owning CCO. The arguments in favor of this option are grounded in concerns about financial implications, community control, and the preservation of the Marina as an accessible community asset.

Financial Stability and Self-Sufficiency

Residents have expressed a clear preference for maintaining the financial independence of the Marina, which is currently self-sustaining and does not draw on local rates. The concern is that moving to a CCO could lead to increased charges and financial burdens on the community, potentially making the Marina less accessible to average residents. One resident highlighted, "The marina is financially supporting itself, so why I find the status quo is the best option."

Community Control and Access

A significant concern among the residents is the potential loss of community control and access to the Marina. The current model allows for direct oversight and involvement from the community, ensuring that the Marina remains a public asset that benefits all residents. Transitioning to a CCO could shift the focus towards profitability and reduce the emphasis on community values and accessibility. As one resident stated, "The marina is a key asset as we are strongly linked to the sea. The concern I have is if the asset is handed over we lose control over access and utilization as a community."

Avoiding Additional Bureaucracy and Costs

Many residents are wary of introducing another layer of bureaucracy, which could lead to increased overhead costs and complicate the management structure. The current setup, where Marina staff report directly to the Council and the Marina’s Management CCO Board, although not perfect, is familiar and has been functional. Residents fear that a new CCO could introduce inefficiencies and unnecessary expenses. One comment pointed out, "Establishing a separate management organization creates more costs. Better to manage the marina by efficient use of current council resources."

Preservation of Public Assets

There is a strong sentiment among the residents to keep the Marina as a public asset, ensuring that any profits are reinvested back into the Marina or used for the benefit of the community. The potential for privatization or a shift towards profit-oriented management under a CCO model is a significant concern. Residents argue for the importance of keeping the Marina under council control to safeguard against decisions that prioritize financial gain over public good. As expressed by a resident, "Any extra profits will be valuable income for the community. I strongly believe that we should NOT sell off public assets so that a small number of people can profit from that."

Conclusion

In conclusion, the residents of Nelson have voiced strong support for Option 1: No Change, emphasizing the importance of financial independence, community control, and the preservation of the Marina as a community asset. The feedback suggests a deep-seated concern that transitioning to an Asset-Owning CCO could undermine these values, leading to increased costs, reduced access, and potential privatization. Therefore, maintaining the current management structure is seen as the best approach to ensure that the Marina continues to serve the entire community effectively and equitably.

Comments

Option_Selected	Comment
Option 1	as long as the marina is making a profit
Option 1	MARINA CCO PROPOSALnow
Option 1	I dont know enough about this to comment
Option 1	We dont need another layer of bureaucracy ,more overheads and more wages
Option 1	I am a current berth holder and have been for over 12 years. I think the current model is working well and should be given time to bed in before any change is considered. There are some worrying indicators in Option 2 and 3 that suggest significant increases in charges will arise. Nelson Marina as it stands is still within the reach of an average Kiwi boatie. It should not become the exclusive play ground of the rich.
Option 1	Keep the money decisions in the hands of the population through the NCC. Stop giving away to Corporations that only see profit as a means to en end! Not in the best interest of the residents  of Nelson.
Option 1	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
Option 1	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
Option 1	utilise the local knowledge from the current council owned entities such as the Port, Airport, Nelmac to manage it. Look for ROI
Option 1	Establishing a separate management organisation creates more costs. Better to manage the marina by efficient use of current council resources.
Option 1	I chose option one because I think the Marina is a valuable asset for the community and I suspect it is likely to become an increasingly valuable asset in the future. Since it is a public asset, all profits should go back towards maintaining or improving the marina. Any extra profits will be valuable income for the community.  I strongly believe that we should NOT sell off public assets so that a small number of people can profit from that. Therefore if option 2 facilitates that process then I am against it. Why can't the council simply figure out how to streamline the decision making structure and process?
Option 1	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).
Option 1	do not sell assesta at all
Option 1	I do not support changes that would probably result in unaffordable increases in the cost of Marina facility charges for Nelson residents. Keeping full Council control of this valuable asset is the best way to avoid unnecessary fee increases.
Option 1	The marina is a key asset as we are strongly linked to the sea. The concern I have is if the asset is handed over we lose control over access and utilisation as a community.
Option 1	I don't understand why we would accept an extra cost to council regardless of who's name the marina is under.
Option 1	Options two and three to have serious consideration would need no sell of guarantees. I am thinking here of the income that would have been possible Nelson still had  an electrical distribution company.
Option 1	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.