Marina CCO proposal Debate Table

Group	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Community Wellbeing	Cost of Living (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 express concerns that transitioning to an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation (Option 2) or a Trading Organisation (Option 3) could lead to significant increases in Marina charges. They fear that these changes could make the Marina less accessible to average Kiwi boaties, potentially transforming it into a facility primarily for the wealthy. Maintaining the current management structure under full Council control is viewed as a safeguard against unnecessary fee hikes, ensuring the Marina remains affordable for Nelson residents.	Cost of Living (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 acknowledge the logical structure of having the managing organization own the assets but express concerns about potential increases in costs to Marina users without adequate controls. They appreciate the reinvestment of profits into the Marina but emphasize the need for transparency and stakeholder feedback on fee adjustments, especially for significant financial projects. There is also a call for broader financial support from general ratepayers for projects within the Marina Master Plan that benefit the entire community, suggesting a shared financial responsibility rather than placing the full burden on Marina users alone.
Community Wellbeing		Culture and Heritage (1 comments) --- The creation of an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation is supported because it leverages Nelson's unique geographical advantages and historical connections to the sea, which have been pivotal in shaping the community's social and economic fabric. The proposal is seen as a way to manage the Marina in a manner that supports a broad spectrum of community members, including those with economic constraints, ensuring that Marina facilities remain accessible and affordable. This approach is viewed as essential for maintaining and enhancing the community's longstanding relationship with the sea, which is integral to their cultural heritage and overall well-being.
Community Wellbeing	Equality & Inclusion (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 express concerns about the potential privatization of public assets, emphasizing that profits from such assets should benefit the entire community rather than a select few. They argue that maintaining public ownership ensures that all community members can continue to enjoy the marina and any financial gains it generates. Additionally, there is apprehension about the lack of democratic oversight in controlled organizations, which might not represent or serve the diverse interests of the community effectively.	Equality & Inclusion (2 comments) --- The community members supporting Option 2 express concerns about ensuring the Nelson Marina remains accessible and affordable to all, including less affluent clubs and individuals. They emphasize the importance of the Marina as a community asset that should support social and economic well-being without becoming prohibitively expensive. There is a call for careful planning to ensure that new developments, such as the sea sports building, do not exclude community groups by being too costly or exclusive.	Equality & Inclusion (1 comments) --- The argument presented highlights a perceived inequality in the charging of fees for different recreational facilities, specifically questioning why boat owners are required to pay launch fees while mountain bikers can access similar facilities at no cost. This concern suggests a desire for a more equitable approach to how recreational facilities are funded and managed, potentially influencing the support for Option 3 which promises a more commercially focused management that could address funding disparities. The comment reflects broader community concerns about fairness and inclusivity in the allocation of public resources and recreational opportunities.
Community Wellbeing		Health (1 comments) --- The stakeholder supports Option 2 as it includes provisions for more pump outs, which would improve water quality in the Marina, benefiting both the marine environment and its users. Enhancements in water circulation, such as getting more fresh water from the Maitai to flush the Marina, are also seen as beneficial for fire safety and overall marina health. The respondent emphasizes the importance of operational boats and regular use, suggesting that boats should be required to leave their berth twice a year to prevent deterioration and optimize berth usage.
Community Wellbeing	Lifestyle & Enjoyment (1 comments) --- The resident supporting Option 1 values the current financial self-sufficiency of the marina and prefers maintaining the status quo to avoid unnecessary expenditures. They express concerns about the potential waste of funds on new installations like gates and cameras, which they believe could restrict public access to the pontoon. This unrestricted access is appreciated as it enhances the enjoyment and wellbeing of the community by allowing free movement and use of the marina facilities.	Lifestyle & Enjoyment (9 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the importance of enhancing the marina to improve public spaces and accessibility, which would enrich community lifestyle and enjoyment. They advocate for the marina to prioritize community benefits over profit, suggesting features like better public areas, residential facilities, and recreational amenities to strengthen Nelson’s connection to the sea. Concerns are also raised about maintaining affordability and ensuring the marina remains a communal asset, with suggestions for direct community involvement in decision-making processes to safeguard these interests.	Lifestyle & Enjoyment (1 comments) --- The argument supporting Option 3 emphasizes that the marina, being perceived as a remote and underutilized asset, should focus on generating income rather than broadening community services, which are seen as less beneficial due to the marina's limited accessibility. The respondent suggests that the marina's current state serves a minority and is adequately self-sustaining without additional community-focused enhancements. Therefore, the focus should be on maximizing financial returns from the marina, which could be more beneficial during economic austerity, rather than investing in its expansion as a community asset.
Community Wellbeing		Safety and Security (4 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the importance of balancing enhanced public access to the Marina with maintaining the security of docked vessels. Concerns were raised about the proposed location of the Sea Sports Facility, suggesting an alternative site to ensure safer water access under common local conditions. Additionally, the necessity of dredging was highlighted to ensure that boats can safely leave their berths during emergencies, such as low tides and fires.
Community Wellbeing	Togetherness (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 express concerns that transitioning to an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation could lead to diminished community control and access to the Marina, which is viewed as a vital local asset closely linked to the community's identity and wellbeing. They emphasize the importance of maintaining the Marina's current management structure to preserve its role as a self-sustaining facility that does not rely on public rates, thereby ensuring its continued alignment with community interests and financial independence. Additionally, there is skepticism about the benefits of increased business acumen through a new organizational structure, with a preference for prioritizing community-focused values and control over potential commercial gains.	Togetherness (1 comments) --- The community feedback highlights a desire for the development of public spaces such as parks, walking and biking routes, and dining areas by the marina, which would enhance the area's appeal and accessibility, fostering a sense of community and inclusivity. Maintaining affordability for yacht owners is emphasized as crucial to support the viability of liveaboard communities, which are seen as a potential source of vibrant and positive social interactions. These enhancements are expected to improve facilities and communal areas, thereby promoting togetherness and overall community wellbeing at the marina.
Economic Benefits	Business Opportunities (1 comments) --- The comment supporting Option 1 suggests leveraging the expertise of existing council-owned entities such as the Port, Airport, and Nelmac to manage the Marina, which could potentially optimize operations and financial outcomes. This approach is seen as a way to capitalize on local knowledge and existing infrastructural management capabilities to enhance the Marina's performance. The focus on return on investment indicates a strategic interest in ensuring that the Marina not only serves community and recreational purposes but also contributes economically.	Business Opportunities (4 comments) --- The comments highlight that the Nelson Marina is viewed as a significant asset with potential for further development, particularly in enhancing world-class maintenance facilities for merchant and foreign vessels, which could alleviate current bottlenecks such as the boat ramp backlog. The Marina Masterplan is seen as essential for unlocking the potential of the Blue Economy in Nelson Tasman, with expectations that it will drive growth in the marine industry, create sustainable jobs, and attract government partnership investments. Overall, there is strong belief that the proposed Asset-Owning CCO structure will enable the effective realization of these opportunities, thereby boosting business and tourism in the region.	Business Opportunities (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 3 argue that a commercial ownership model is crucial for significant progress and development, particularly in areas like Akersten Street that have been stagnant for too long. They believe that the council's involvement in business operations creates a conflict of interest, hindering the business's adaptability and responsiveness to market conditions. These comments suggest a preference for a more business-oriented approach that could potentially unlock economic benefits and enhance business opportunities at the Marina.
Economic Benefits	Costs (7 comments) --- 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.	Costs (1 comments) --- The resident supports Option 2, acknowledging the potential for profits to be reinvested back into the Marina, which could benefit both the facility and the broader community. However, they express concerns about the lack of democratic oversight and accountability in this model, suggesting the need for safeguards. They also emphasize the importance of transparency and justification in any increased fees for marina berth holders, advocating for clear communication and opportunities for stakeholder feedback on financial decisions.	Costs (2 comments) --- The residents supporting Option 3 express concerns about the economic viability and accessibility of the Marina, suggesting that it serves a limited portion of the community and does not warrant further investment given its remote location and limited use. They argue that the financial responsibilities of the Marina should not fall on the ratepayers, emphasizing a need to minimize public financial exposure in its operations. Overall, they advocate for a model that prioritizes financial returns from the Marina to alleviate potential burdens on the community, especially during economic austerity.
Economic Benefits		Employment Opportunities (2 comments) --- The comments supporting Option 2 emphasize the potential for the Marina Masterplan to drive economic growth in Nelson Tasman's marine industry, highlighting the creation of sustainable jobs and fostering innovation through a partnership with the government. Additionally, the proposed changes are seen as a necessary investment to enable new uses of the marina, such as living on boats and boat repairs, which are expected to generate additional employment opportunities. Overall, the support for Option 2 is rooted in its ability to enhance regional marine offerings and stimulate economic development.
Economic Benefits		Productivity (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 appreciate the potential for streamlined operations and more efficient decision-making processes at the Marina, which they believe could lead to quicker and more effective implementation of changes. They argue that transferring the Marina's debt to the Asset-Owning CCO is advantageous, as the Marina's stable profits could enable it to manage and pay off this debt more efficiently than the Council. Additionally, there is a strong desire for assurances that the Marina will remain under council ownership, preventing any future sale of the asset.
Economic Benefits	Revenue (3 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of maintaining the Marina as a profitable and publicly owned asset, ensuring that any generated profits are reinvested back into the Marina for its maintenance and improvement, thereby benefiting the broader community. They express concerns about the potential for asset sales under other options, which could lead to private profiteering at the expense of public interest, referencing past experiences where community assets were sold. The preference for Option 1 is rooted in a desire for transparency and efficiency in management without altering the ownership structure, which they believe should remain under council control to safeguard against the risks of privatization and ensure continuous community benefit.	Revenue (2 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 believe that transitioning the marina to an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation will enhance decision-making efficiency and public service provision, while allowing for the reinvestment of commercial returns into further marina improvements. They also argue that the marina should generate a return on investment or profits, which could then support broader council initiatives and further reinvestments. This approach is seen as a balanced way to both improve the marina and contribute financially to other community needs.	Revenue (4 comments) --- Citizens supporting Option 3 emphasize its potential to generate profits, which they believe could enhance the long-term planning and resilience of the marina. They argue that this option would provide financial returns in the form of dividends, thereby offering a tangible benefit to ratepayers. Additionally, there is a call for improved accountability and effectiveness in how council-controlled companies manage and report on financial returns, suggesting the establishment of specific dividend targets and annual public reporting on these targets.
Economic Benefits		Tourism (1 comments) --- The comment highlights the potential for the Marina to enhance its role as a key attraction in Nelson City by incorporating additional features such as a fish market, cages, and restaurants. This development is seen as a way to transform the Marina into a vibrant community hub that attracts both locals and tourists, thereby boosting economic benefits. The integration of these facilities is expected to extend the Marina's appeal beyond just being a storage area for boats, contributing to a more dynamic local economy.
Environmental Benefits		Ecosystems & Biodiversity (1 comments) --- The argument supporting Option 2 emphasizes that transferring management to a specialized, dedicated organization while retaining council ownership could enhance the quality of marine areas. This improvement is contingent on the organization prioritizing environmental well-being and biodiversity over profit-making objectives. The commenter advocates for a democratic approach in management to ensure that the marine environment benefits from these changes.
Environmental Benefits	Sustainability (1 comments) --- The argument supporting Option 1 emphasizes concerns about the sustainability of expanding the Marina, given the potential risks associated with sea level change and inundation. The commenter argues that transferring assets to an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation (AOCC) is counterintuitive when considering the environmental implications of such expansions. They express apprehension that the proposed extension goes beyond practical needs and could be environmentally irresponsible, especially if managed by those who might disregard scientific evidence on climate impacts.	Sustainability (1 comments) --- The comment highlights a need for change in the management of the marina, acknowledging that the current system is inefficient. The respondent supports the council's proposal for an Asset-Owning CCO but emphasizes the importance of further developing a plan that addresses both community needs and environmental challenges, such as sea level rise. Concerns are raised about the affordability and accessibility of new facilities, suggesting that high costs could exclude certain community groups, thereby not fully serving the broader community's interests.
Environmental Benefits			Waste (1 comments) --- The comment highlights the importance of upgrading the Marina to include modern facilities that cater to the evolving needs of boat owners, specifically focusing on improved sewage and waste management systems. The respondent supports Option 3 as it promises the provision of these essential services, which are crucial for maintaining environmental standards at the Marina. This approach aligns with broader environmental benefits, ensuring that the Marina operates sustainably while meeting the demands of its users.
Operational Considerations		Legal and Regulatory Compliance (1 comments) --- The resident supports Option 2 for the Nelson Marina's transition to an Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation, emphasizing the efficiency of streamlining operations and the financial capability of the Marina to manage and pay off its debt more effectively than the council. However, there is a strong insistence on ensuring that the Marina remains permanently under council ownership, highlighting concerns about the potential future sale of the asset. This reflects a desire for both operational efficiency and stringent legal safeguards to maintain public ownership and prevent privatization.	Legal and Regulatory Compliance (1 comments) --- The resident expressed concerns about the potential for future sales of Marina assets without proper consultation with ratepayers, highlighting the need for safeguards against such actions. They questioned the ethical operation of the Council Controlled Organisation, citing examples where similar models have led to substandard employment practices and a lack of accountability to the community. The comment calls for a model that ensures the council remains accountable to ratepayers and residents, ensuring that community interests are prioritized and protected throughout the project.
Operational Considerations	Stakeholder Engagement (6 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 1 express a preference for maintaining the current management structure to ensure community control and direct oversight of financial decisions, despite acknowledging its inefficiencies. They fear that transitioning to an Asset-Owning CCO could lead to prioritization of profit over community interests and potentially facilitate the sale of public assets, which they strongly oppose. Additionally, there is a concern about the adequacy of information provided to the public to make an informed decision about the proposed changes.	Stakeholder Engagement (7 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 appreciate its potential to balance commercial returns with community values, emphasizing the importance of reinvesting profits back into the Marina to benefit both users and the broader community. However, there are concerns about reduced democratic oversight and public accountability, with suggestions for implementing safeguards to maintain these aspects under the new model. Additionally, there is a strong call for ensuring that community and user group voices are represented within the Asset-Owning CCO to support diverse interests and enhance decision-making processes.	Stakeholder Engagement (5 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 3 emphasize the importance of periodic review and adjustments to the management strategy through a right of renewal lease every 25 years, ensuring alignment with community needs and council oversight. They advocate for maintaining 100% council ownership to ensure continued accountability and alignment with public interests. Concerns are also raised about the need for safeguards against the sale of Marina assets without ratepayer consultation, and the necessity for ethical operation practices to ensure the Marina serves the community's interests effectively.
Operational Considerations		Technical Feasibility (3 comments) --- Residents recognize the potential of the Marina Masterplan to enhance the marine industry and regional development, viewing the Asset-Owning Council Controlled Organisation as the most effective structure to facilitate this growth. Concerns were raised about the current infrastructure's ability to handle increased demand, emphasizing the need for improved management and expansion. However, there are reservations about reduced democratic oversight and accountability, with suggestions for safeguards and clear communication regarding fee increases and funding for projects benefiting the broader community.