Short Summary: Marina CCO Proposal
Issue Overview:
- Nelson City Council is considering transforming the management of the Nelson Marina by transitioning it to an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation (CCO). This change aims to enhance the marina's management efficiency, financial sustainability, and community value, aligning with the recently adopted Nelson Marina Masterplan.
Options:
- Option 1: Maintain the current management structure, with the Marina staff reporting to both the Council and the Marina’s Management CCO Board.
- Option 2: Transition to an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), where the Marina’s assets and liabilities would be managed by the CCO, aiming for efficient decision-making and reinvestment in the marina.
- Option 3: Establish an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) focusing primarily on profitability and financial returns from Marina operations.
Public Opinion:
-
Option 1: Supporters of maintaining the current structure value its transparency and community control. They express concerns about increased costs and reduced public access under a new management model, emphasizing the importance of keeping the Marina accessible and affordable for all residents.
-
Option 2: Many residents support this option, highlighting its potential to improve management efficiency and reinvest in the Marina, enhancing public spaces and facilities. However, there are concerns about potential fee increases, the need for transparent governance, and ensuring that the Marina remains a community-focused asset.
-
Option 3: This option has supporters who see the potential for increased profitability and financial sustainability. However, there are significant concerns about reduced public access, the prioritization of profit over community values, and the ethical management of the Marina’s resources.
Recommendation:
Given the feedback and concerns expressed by the community, a balanced approach seems most favorable. Option 2, transitioning to an Asset-Owning CCO, appears to align well with the community's desire for efficient management and reinvestment in the Marina while maintaining its public accessibility and affordability. It is recommended that the Council ensures robust mechanisms for transparency and community involvement in decision-making to address concerns about governance and fee structures. This approach would allow for the strategic development of the Marina in line with the Masterplan, enhancing its value as a community asset and supporting Nelson’s connection to the sea.
Comments
| Comment | Point ID |
|---|---|
| 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. | 5.1 |
| sell the Marina to a private operator. | 28.4 |
| The Marina needs a commerical ownershipmodel to make any real progress.Akersten Street has sat as it is for far to long un-developed. | 43.4 |
| Please create better public areas around the marina - parks, trees, walking / biking routes, scope for appropriate bar / cafe / restaurant at the end over looking the sea and boulder bank.Please keep the marina affordable for yachties, there is a lot of potential for positive livaboard communities there with better facilities. | 54.4 |
| Given the wide range of underused amenities closer to where people live and work, I don't see value in prioritising the marina's broadening of service. The simple fact is that our only viable connection to it is the Trafalgar Park underpass or driving there via pedestrian-unfriendly SH6. Until socioeconomic conditions can drive a substantial attractor development out there, it appears to be a remote fringe area, for minority benefit, that seems to look after itself just fine. It's a nice peaceful place to go for the occassional walk but only if you're already at Trafalgar Park. From anywhere else, it's too far and too poorly connected. We should be looking to extract benefit from it, not to put benefit where hardly anyone will go – especially in this time of austerity when we have ever less to spend. | 56.4 |
| 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 | 67.3 |
| I do not have a view on this issue. | 72.4 |
| The marina is our biggest asset, we need to grow this area. We have world class maintenance facilities for contacts on merchant/foreign vessels. The boat ramp is already back logged, how can we manage this? | 81.4 |
| I have no knowledge of the current marina details | 87.4 |
| Noting I do not understand the difference between option 2 and 3 | 89.4 |
| No strong opinion | 108.4 |
| Don't know enough to be able to answer this fairly | 164.4 |
| Public/private invetsment in the marina’os future, and in particular residential facilities in and around it is a positive way forward for seaside living, and certainly in reversing a centuries-old culture of Nelson City “”turning its back on the sea” | 168.4 |
| Support CCO as it not then be profit driven. This is a highly valued facility by Nelson's community | 169.4 |
| as long as the marina is making a profit | 267.4 |
| unsure | 275.4 |
| 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 | 297.4 |
| MARINA CCO PROPOSALnow | 346.7 |
| I am new to Nelson and have to knowledge of the Marina! | 353.4 |
| not enough info to vote | 413.4 |
| I dont know enough about this to comment | 464.4 |
| With a right of renewal lease so that every 25 years or so this option of what to do with the Marina is able to come back to the council table. | 486.4 |
| again I dont know enough to comment | 504.4 |
| 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. | 519.4 |
| Regarding | 530.1 |
| We dont need another layer of bureaucracy ,more overheads and more wages | 541.4 |
| not familiar enough with details | 556.4 |
| Our marina is awesome! It would be great to see it more accessible to the public, while not compromising security of the vessels in it. | 583.4 |
| The liability of a business should not be on the rate payer | 610.4 |
| Again, don't feel I know the positive and negative outcomes of each option. | 682.4 |
| Outsource it and focus NCC on core matters | 745.4 |
| 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. | 748.1 |
| No idea about Marina. It would have been better if the Nelson communities knew about it. | 765.4 |
| It seems like receiving profits can then further leverage the long term planning requirements and boost the resiliency of the marina. | 773.4 |
| Council cannot run business. Complete conflict of interest which limits business aqdaptability | 809.4 |
| 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 | 828.4 |
| if the council retained ownership and passed management to a dedicated organization, the quality of marine areas could improve. Providing of course this is still democratic, and that management is good for marine environment and not for profits. | 847.4 |
| Assume Council 100% shareholder | 876.4 |
| 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. | 881.4 |
| Council has already proven that itis incompetent - see #1 | 888.4 |
| support streamlining the marina operations and giving them the debt as they do make enough stable profit and are able to pay it off sooner than the council probably could. But, definitely think it needs to be a clear part of the proposal that it will forever remain in council ownership and is not up for selling | 894.4 |
| The CCO must be bound into the so-called 'social enterprise' model mentioned in the documentation. The recreational use of the Haven, and Tasman Bay must be protected and the Marina organisation must seek to benefit the community first and foremost, rather than generate profits (as per option 3). I do have some serious concerns around the Marina Masterplan, in particular the location of the proposed Sea Sports Facility, and the expansion of the marina to the North. The Sea Sports Facility would be much better located at the end of Akersten St, where Plant & Food Research currently is. This would allow water access to be developed on the lee (downwind) side to the breakwater, which would provide for much safer water access for the multitude of different craft who will use the facility. The proposed location is exceptionally exposed to prevailing wind conditions, and has strong tidal currents. It will be totally unsafe in commonly occurring Nelson conditions. | 909.4 |
| 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 | 931.3 |
| The Marina Masterplan is an important initiative that will unlock the significant potential of the Blue Economy in Nelson Tasman. As a regional development priority, it seeks Government partnership investment to drive growth in the marine industry and enhance our regional marine offerings. The Council's proposed model for the Marina has been identified as the best structure to enable this blue economy opportunity. The Marina Masterplan and Government partnership investment aligns with the goals of supporting regional development, creating sustainable jobs, and fostering innovation. | 932.4 |
| Does not concern me. | 934.4 |
| OPTION 3 … must be agreed as it provides a dividend. | 959.4 |
| The Marina needs to more that fish factories and a floating storage area for boats. It needs a fish market, cages and restaurants to make it part of the attractions of Nelson City | 963.4 |
| Sensible and fair | 977.4 |
| MARINA CCO PROPOSALAsset-owning council controlled | 982.4 |
| Too hard to understand. | 983.4 |
| We agree with Nelson City Council's proposal to move the marina to an asset owning CCO, with the council transferring both the assets and the liabilities to this new organization. We can see that this should strike a balance between more efficient decision-making processes, and providing assets and services for the public, with commercial returns reinvested in improvements to the marina. | 985.3 |
| What protections exist to prevent the future sale of Marina assets without ratepayer consultation? As a COO how can we ensure the ethical operation of this organisation, other examples of this model have shown councils try to distance themselves from COO’s who for example do not pay a living wage, have poor employment practices or do not serve ratepayers and residents well. We need to have an operational model where council can be held accountable to the ratepayers and residents, and ensure that our interests are served through the project. | 987.4 |
| 4Marina: Support Asset owning CCO | 1001.5 |
| Support providing modern facilities to meet the changing needs of boat owners including sewage and waste. | 1017.3 |
| When you look at the speed and efficiency that changes are being made in this operation - take note - this is a good model. | 1018.4 |
| I am a stakeholder yacht owner, and I will keep this short.Dredge, Dredge, Dredge! In the event of a fire at low tide my boat and many others CAN NOT leave our berth because it is to shallow. I am not in favour of selling any council land for private development. Don't kill the golden goose.Allow users access to the COO board to provide input. Please notify us of these meetings. I am in favor of wardale option 2 version 8 having docks R-Y. We need the berths! Great Idea having more pump outs for better water quality. Getting more Maitai fresh water to flush the marina from the P dock end would be good. Again Fire Safety and general marina health. All boats should be operational and required to leave their berth twice a year. Sooooo many boats I see never move and are dying a slow death. These boats are taking up space that people who use their boats would like. Good start so far with the boat graveyard in the hardstand.Thank you Saxby Thorndyke | 1024.4 |
| 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 | 1040.4 |
| it is a significant asset that should be giving the ratepyer a return and be open to public scutinary. | 1072.4 |
| Council should still look to receive return on investment or some profit to support other council initiatives and reinvestment. | 1074.4 |
| upgrade the marina please, keen to invest in the water front and utilize the potential trial we have in nelson. Windsurf or recreation facilities too please | 1076.2 |
| Within this model please ensure there is a voice for user groups within the CCO so that the use of the area by community groups is supported in tandem with the provision of services to berth holders. | 1081.4 |
| utilise the local knowledge from the current council owned entities such as the Port, Airport, Nelmac to manage it. Look for ROI | 1083.3 |
| dont' know enough. go with your recommendation | 1085.4 |
| Establishing a separate management organisation creates more costs. Better to manage the marina by efficient use of current council resources. | 1089.4 |
| 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? | 1108.4 |
| NA | 1157.4 |
| 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). | 1181.4 |
| It would seem to make sense that the managing organisation owns the assets in question, I would only hope that any such change would not give free reign to the CCO to significantly increase costs to Marina users. | 1182.3 |
| do not sell assesta at all | 1203.4 |
| Choose not to answer. | 1206.4 |
| It appears that Council controlled companies not providing good returns. Council governance needs to take a sharper interest in the returns it is getting from its assets and at least have a set of indicative dividend targets the assets should return. hese Council governance should publicly investigate and report on how these targets are met or not, each year. | 1216.4 |
| Nelson is one of the most fortunate cities in New Zealand to have such a wonderful asset on our doorstep. It is underutilised and the Nelson Marina has so much under utilized potential that could benefit so many industries and bring more businesses and tourism to the area. | 1219.4 |
| 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 | 1225.4 |
| It cant run things properly in its current state so why would we want to give them any further powers. | 1243.1 |
| 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. | 1246.4 |
| 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. | 1255.4 |
| 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. | 1295.4 |
| I don't understand why we would accept an extra cost to council regardless of who's name the marina is under. | 1299.3 |
| no opinion | 1302.4 |
| The current management of the marina doesn't work well, so we need change. I don't know enough about this issue so accept Council's proposal. But, more work needs to develop a plan for the marina that works for our community and copes with sea level rise. I am really concerned that the new sea sports building and infrastructure is too fancy and expensive. It is likely to be unaffordable for clubs to use it, and hence will move our club away from the marina rather than encourage all water sports, and showcase them to all locals and visitors. Those with money will have a great facility but the rest of us will be pushed out. | 1324.4 |
| 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. | 1345.4 |
| Comment: | 1390.4 |
| Marina CCO proposalTBCA supports Option 2 – creation of an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation to oversee and manage the Marina, its assets and its liabilities. Nelson’s unique geographical advantages give it a strong connection to the moana. This nurtured iwi and early European arrivals and has allowed our people to build relationships with the sea that support both social and economic well-being and prosperity. TBCA would like to remind Council that our harbour users come from a wide cross-section of the community, from recent refugee arrivals through to recreational fishers, youth sport participants, kayakers, swimmers, community not-for-profits and cruising sailors. Marina facilities must not be priced beyond the reach of this community. The marina is a gateway to the wider moana and its development should be seen in an holistic sense, as underpinning the hopes, dreams and visions of those whose lives are enriched by their association with the sea. | 1433.4 |
| Option 2 with reservations. There would be considerably less democratic 'contact' and accountability, unless safeguards are put in place. Using the profits to feed back into the Marina is good - but profits are not everything. Increased fees for marina berth holders must be something that berth holders can 'see', 'understand' and have feedback on. If there are some projects that require a big financial input, it would be approriate for the Council to add funds, including from general ratepayers. Some of the Marina Master Plan proposals were about Marina changes that were to benefit the whole population of Nelson and visitors, not just Marina users. Surely this should be part of Council funding. I certainly agree with continuing with the Asset-Owning Council-Controlled Trading Organisation, I am not sure about transferring all liabilities.There were many good suggestions in the Master Plan. But all the proposals will need more discussion, detailing and planning. Can the small Controlled Organsation manage all this? It could be difficult. | 1438.4 |
| Yes, there is good investment to be made, and is needed for a change in use (living on boats) repair etc. for extra work. | 1439.4 |
| ? Unsure Why do boaties pay launch fees where mountain bikers get similar facilities for free. | 1461.4 |
| Nelson Yacht Club supports Option 2 - to create an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation. There is mention of the ability for the CCO to operate as a Social Enterprise. This is an important factor for our community, who are all stakeholders in the marine environment, navigation safety, and recreational use of our marine areas. The remit of the Marina CCO to create value for our community, not just commercial returns is important. In relation to the “City to the Sea” connection. We feel strongly that the Marina Masterplan redevelopment should not come at the expense of investing in our waterfront, and the Wakefield Quay area that includes the Nelson Yacht Club. There is great potential for the “Haven Precinct”, with a commercial core around The Styx, Custom House, and Anchor Shipping & Foundry buildings, and a recreational zone from there to the yacht club. We would welcome Council engagement on proposals for this area as part of the Long Term Plan process. | 1465.2 |
| We are not able to determine which of the three proffered options is the most appropriate. | 1474.28 |
| The Blue Economy is a significant (economic) competitive advantage and opportunity for Nelson Tasman[1]. The Marina Masterplan is an identified regional development priority seeking Government partnership investment, as a platform for growth in the marine industry and to enhance our regional marine offerings (Nelson Tasman Briefing for Ministers 2024). NRDA will advocate strongly for Government partnership investment in the Marina Masterplan and supports Council’s proposed model for the Marina based on this being identified as the best structure to enable this blue economy opportunity. [1] Nelson Tasman Regional Economic Briefing. People and Places. NRDA commissioned. | 1476.1 |
| 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. | 1482.4 |
| 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 | 1489.4 |
| 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!!" | 1511.1 |