Item 8: Nelson Marina
s17A Governance Review
|
|
Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee
3 December 2021
|
REPORT R26108
Nelson
Marina s17A Governance Review
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
consider the various options available to Council for the future governance
structure of Nelson Marina.
1.2 To
approve the preferred option of the formation of a Council Controlled
Organisation (CCO) that manages the Marina with Council retaining ownership of
the assets.
2. Summary
2.1 Nelson
Marina requires significant investment over the next 10 years due to an
historical lack of investment.
2.2 Council
has engaged Wardale Marine Consultants to develop a Masterplan to set out the
Marina Long Term Plan, as per the Nelson Marina Strategic Plan approved by
Council in December 2017.
2.3 Nelson
Marina is accountable to the community through Council, so should be adding
value with the view of providing a return on investment.
2.4 The
potential for the asset is community-wide through placemaking activation and
broader use of the precinct, as well as a return on investment.
2.5 On
July 1, 2021 the management of Nelson Marina was brought in house to Council
with the early termination of the Nelmac Management Contract.
2.6 The
current governance and delivery model is not commercially focused, nor dynamic
enough to fulfil the future development plans for Nelson Marina.
2.7 A
review of the various management options available to Council has therefore
been undertaken to ensure that the governance structure is fit for purpose and
will achieve Council’s goals (See, Attachment 1, Section 17a
Review).
2.8 Based
on the report findings, it is recommended that Council establish a CCO to
manage and operate Nelson Marina on behalf of Council.
2.9 Nelson
Marina is operated as a closed account with no income coming from Council
rates; an opportunity to enhance investment as well as return would be created
through this model.
2.10 Post
workshop further research was conducted on the option of establishing a Limited
Liability Partnership (LLP) as the framework within which the Management CCO
would operate.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Strategic Development and Property
Subcommittee
1. Receives
the report Nelson Marina s17A Governance Review (R26108) and its attachment (A2764091).
|
Recommendation to Council
|
That the
Council
1. Approves the recommendation
of a Council Controlled Organisation that manages the Marina as the preferred
governance model for Nelson Marina; and
2. Approves undertaking
consultation on the proposal to establish a Council Controlled Organisation
as per Section 56 of the Local Government Act; and
3. Notes that undertaking
consultation on a proposal to establish a Council Controlled Organisation
would require additional unbudgeted expense to a maximum of $65,000 in
addition to current budget ($40,000), to formulate the required documentation
and reviews for the new Council Controlled Organisation; and
4. Approves funds, if required
for undertaking consultation, to be sourced from the Marina closed account.
|
4. Background
4.1 Council
owns and has operated Nelson Marina (Marina) since 1 July 2021.
4.2 Prior
to 1 July 2021, Nelson Marina was operated by Nelmac Limited, a general
contracting Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), under a contract with the
Council. Council chose to cancel that contract early as it was determined
that more active management was needed.
4.3 The
Council anticipates significant development of the Marina in the
future. It is currently developing a Masterplan for the Marina,
which it expects to consult with the community at the end of 2021 and adopt in
early 2022.
4.4 Alongside
this, Council is considering the best approach for governance of the Marina
going forward. For this purpose, it engaged Infracure Ltd (Infracure) to
carry out a review under section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA
2002).
4.5 Infracure
has now provided a report that recommends that Council establishes a Management
CCO for Marina governance. (Attachment 1 A2764091).
Section 17A
review summary
4.6 For
the review process, Infracure held several meetings and workshops with staff
and stakeholders.
4.7 Infracure’s
report identifies that there is consensus that the Marina needs development and
more proactive management. For example:
4.7.1 Marina
and Marina support services (e.g., parking, provisioning, repairs, fuelling)
are not integrated,
4.7.2 Current
facilities and services will not meet future demand as boat ownership and
profiles, environmental and health and safety standards evolve,
4.7.3 Land
is viewed as being under-utilised,
4.7.4 Fees
and charges are considered too low for the market, and collections have
historically been low.
4.8 Initial
master planning work suggests that there will be significant changes to both
current Marina operations and the Marina land to meet future need.
4.9 The
report also identified a risk that the Marina’s current governance model
is inadequate to manage the complexity of concurrent change initiatives across
several areas, including:
4.9.1 Marina-provided
services such as fuel, dry docking and storage,
4.9.2 Changing
approach to, and increasing, fees and charges,
4.9.3 Development
of new commercial operations to service all users (boat parts, repairs, food
and sea sports),
4.9.4 Increasing
recreational value for the community i.e., managing the Marina and land as a
destination,
4.9.5 Managing
consequent environmental, health and safety and reputational risks.
4.10 The
report identified that Council’s current reporting and decision making
isn’t appropriately structured or resourced to support:
4.10.1 Management
of the Marina as a commercial business,
4.10.2 Development
of the Marina and land as a mixed use destination for boat owners, associated
service providers and the wider community,
4.10.3 Effective
strategic integration and alignment with boat owning users, other recreational
users, neighbours, Iwi and the Nelson Regional Development Agency (NRDA).
4.11 Following
interviews and a stakeholder workshop, the review identified key themes that
stakeholders would like to see addressed. The key themes are:
4.11.1 The
Marina should be an efficient and profitable business,
4.11.2 The
Marina is undergoing a step change that will secure its value for future
generations,
4.11.3 The
Marina offers amenity and recreation value opportunities for everyone in
Nelson,
4.11.4 Council
as shareholder should get a return on its investment.
4.12 An
analysis was then undertaken of various options available to Council, with the
four options below being deemed to be the best fit for purpose:
4.12.1 Option
1: Council owns and operates the Marina (status quo),
4.12.2 Option
2: A “stand-alone business unit” (SABU) or “enhanced Status
quo” within Council that manages the Marina,
4.12.3 Option
3: A new CCO that manages the Marina with Council retaining ownership of the
assets (Management CCO) (Infracure and Report Recommendation),
4.12.4 Option
4: A new CCO that holds ownership of all assets and manages the Marina (Owner
CCO).
4.12.5 Option
5: A Limited Liability Partnership that holds ownership of all assets and
manages the Marina (LLP)
5. Discussion
5.1 The
status quo (Option 1) has serious limitations and is therefore not the recommended
option. The key issues are the relative complexity of the management of
the Marina, and the lack of commercial orientation and flexibility.
5.2 A
SABU (Option 2) was identified as intermediatory solution and would be an
enhanced status quo option while Council was assessing a CCO in the Section 17A
review.
5.3 While
the SABU model is an option and would go some way to solving the key issue of
the lack of commercial orientation for the management of the Marina, it is not
identified here as the preferred option for the following reasons:
5.3.1 A
significant amount of time and cost would need to be invested to establish a
SABU that would provide the benefits of a more commercial board structure but
would not achieve the goal of independence from Council. There is good
commercial, operating and reputational rationale to move ahead with expediency
to finalise and implement the Masterplan,
5.3.2 A
SABU model does not provide appropriately rigorous structure and is less
consistent with Council’s existing successful governance models and
entities (eg Nelmac, Port Nelson), which have a statutory basis and existing
rules around their establishment and operation,
5.3.3 There
would also be some on-going drawbacks of a SABU model, with the board of a
SABU, for example, being able to engage in contracts and statutory commitments
but with the liability being retained by Council.
5.4 Due
to the need to be commercially focussed, establishing a CCO to manage the
Marina is the recommended option (Option 3: Management CCO).
5.4.1 This
option has benefits as identified above (5.3.1 - 5.3.3), regarding expediency
and a rigorous structure for reporting and liability,
5.4.2 A
Management CCO also draws on a well-established CCO framework, regarding statements
of expectation, statements of intent, regular reporting and accountability,
5.4.3 This
option also means there would be a company structure with a board of directors
appointed by, and accountable to, the Council, along with means for the Council
to influence the way the CCO is operated and governed, with Council-appointed
Board members,
5.4.4 Fiduciary
duty, the duty of care and liability would be assumed by Board Members rather
than Council,
5.4.5 This
structure would provide a good balance between commerciality in the running of
the Marina as a business, and appropriate Council oversight and influence,
5.4.6 LGOIMA
applies but not to meetings,
5.4.7 Profits
derived through the operation of the Marina will be for the benefit of the
asset owners (Council) and will not be subject to corporate tax.
5.4.8 While
establishing a CCO requires consultation, this would not unduly slow down the
process. Establishing a management CCO and establishing a SABU would involve
about the same amount of time and cost (although the SABU could be slightly
more complex).
5.4.9 If
a Management CCO is established, this also leaves future flexibility for the
Marina land and assets to be transferred to the new CCO should Council consider
that to be appropriate in the future (Option 4: Owner CCO) or a Limited
Liability Partnership (LLP)(Option 5).
5.5 For
this reason, the Owner CCO (Option 4) and Limited Liability Partnership
(LLP)(Option5) are not the recommended options at this stage due to the tax
implications to Council. Both options are also more complex to establish,
would require more consultation, and Council’s commercial objectives with
respect to the Marina can be achieved without the transfer of assets at this
stage.
5.6 Option
3, a Management CCO is therefore the preferred option.
Other options that should be discounted because they are
not reasonably practicable:
5.7 Other
governance options for the Marina were also reviewed. On assessment,
these do not meet Council’s objectives and should be discounted as they
are not reasonably practicable options.
For
completeness, these options are:
5.7.1 Subcommittee
– The Council could establish a subcommittee (under clause 30(1),
Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002) to carry out a similar function to the board in
option 2 (stand-alone business unit option). The subcommittee
membership could include external appointees with relevant skills and knowledge
and Council employees and would not necessarily need to include elected members
(clause 31(3) and (4), Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002). This would not
be a reasonably practical option for the Council, as it would not allow for the
‘nimbleness’ and responsiveness in decision-making that the Council
wants to achieve for Marina operations.
5.7.2 Management
contract – The Council could contract out the management of the
Marina to a third party (such as was the case with its contract with Nelmac
Limited). The contract could be drafted to require a more commercial
focus for the Marina. This is not a reasonably practical option for the
Council: first, because this is essentially the structure that has been used to
date (with Nelmac Limited) and issues were identified with this; and second,
because achieving a more business-like operation would be difficult through a
contract only (with the Council ultimately still making any key decisions,
compared with, for example, the board of a CCO).
5.7.3 Incorporated
society – The Council could incorporate a society under the
Incorporated Societies Act 1908 to manage and/or own the Marina. This is
not a reasonably practicable option for the Council because there are serious
limitations with an incorporated society as a structure including that it
cannot operate for pecuniary gain of any of its members (including the Council
if the Council is a member), and there are minimum member requirements (so
parties other than the Council would need to be members of the society).
This structure would not align with the more commercial orientation the Council
wishes to achieve for the Marina.
Benefits of the SABU model
5.8 Benefits
of the SABU model that were identified in the Infracure report (Attachment 1,
p. 7), are also applicable to the preferred Management CCO option (Option
3). These include:
5.8.1 The
Board having an independent chair,
5.8.2 Wider
community recreation interests being represented on the Board e.g., passive and
active recreation, arts and culture,
5.8.3 The
Marina Manager being appointed to the Board as an ‘Executive
Director’…,
5.8.4 The
Chief Executive ensuring the Board has the delegated authority required to
develop and deliver the agreed Masterplan and CAPEX and OPEX budgets,
5.8.5 The
Masterplan being delivered using a benefit led change programme management
construct rather than an outputs driven project management
construct.
5.9 In
addition, it was identified in the report that a programme approach would help
support effective consideration of things such as:
5.9.1 Consolidation
of asset and activity management into a single Marina and Land precinct,
5.9.2 Dependency
management for infrastructure enhancements enabling new fees and charges and
their supporting systems,
5.9.3 Integration
of broader outcomes including environmental and social and cultural benefits
(Attachment 1, p. 7).
6. Options
Option 1:
Council owns and operates Marina (status quo)
6.1 Description
6.1.1 Council
owns the Marina land and associated assets.
6.1.2 Marina
operations are managed by a business unit within the Council, staffed by
officers employed by the Council, including the Manager Nelson Marina.
The officers act under delegated authority, which has been sub-delegated to them
by the Council’s Chief Executive.
6.1.3 The
Marina’s finances are managed through a ‘closed account’, as
the Marina has its own dedicated revenue streams and expenses.
6.1.4 The
following stakeholders have a role in the governance of the Marina:
· The Strategic
Development and Property Subcommittee has the “Marina Precinct” as
one of its areas of responsibility, and the Council has delegated to it the
power to make decisions on the development of policies and plan, and to
recommend these policies and plans to the Council for its approval.
· The Marina
Management Committee, established in 2015, has the purpose of discussing and
providing recommendations to the Council about the Marina facility.[1]
It provides a forum for communication and co-ordination between the Council,
Marina management, and the Marina Berth Holders Association, with its members
drawn from all these entities, as well as Port Nelson.
· The Nelson Marina
Advisory Group was established in 2017 to work with the Council on the
strategic plan for the Marina, but after completion of that plan, was retained
to act as the appointed management committee to undertake management duties at
the Marina (as described in the strategic plan). Aspirations were
to delegate powers for management and financial decisions to the Advisory
Group, but its current delegations are limited to making recommendations to the
Council only. Its members are individuals with appropriate skills
and expertise, who are appointed by, but independent to, the Council.
6.2 Process
This option is the status quo,
so no process is required. (Although the Council might want to consider whether
changes should be made to the Marina Management Committee and Nelson Marina
Advisory Group, to perhaps integrate some of their functions.) There is
obviously no implementation costs or timing implications of this
option.
6.3 Advantages
and disadvantages
|
Option 1: Council owns and operates Marina
(status quo)
|
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
and Risks
|
|
· No process is
required.
· The Council retains
direct control of all Marina land and assets, and operations.
This ensures ‘public ownership’ of the assets, and that any
returns from the Marina ultimately benefit the Nelson community.
|
· Less commercial
or nimble than a private sector agency, as the Council must comply with
decision-making requirements in the LGA 2002 and operate with transparency
and accountability as required under LGOIMA.
· Viewed as less
able to respond quickly and effectively by berth holders and other
stakeholders.
· Given the
significant amount of investment that is likely to occur at the Marina over
the next 10 years or so, it would be beneficial to have involvement from
individuals with expertise and experience in significant capital projects,
and the commercialisation of them. Elected members may or may not
have such expertise and experience.
· Elected members
may be more subject to pressure from those opposing increases to fees and
charges, as compared to independent non-elected individuals. If
pressure campaigns were successful, this could limit the potential returns
from the Marina, and the consequent financial benefits for the community.
· Management of
the Marina is one of many functions carried out by the Council, meaning it
may not get as much attention or dedicated focus, as it would under an entity
that’s sole purpose is to deal with the Marina.
|
|
Time
to establish
|
Costs
to establish
|
|
· The model is
already established
|
· There are no
costs to establish.
|
Option 2: Stand-alone
business unit within Council (Enhanced Status Quo/SABU option)
6.4 Description
6.4.1 Council
continues to own the Marina land and associated assets.
6.4.2 The
Marina’s finances are dealt with through a ‘closed account’,
given the Marina has its own dedicated revenue streams and expenses.
6.4.3 Marina
operations and finances are managed by a dedicated business unit within the
Council, staffed by officers employed by the Council, including the Manager
Nelson Marina. The officers act under delegated authority, which
has been sub-delegated to them by the Council’s Chief Executive.
6.4.4 The
full Council establishes a “board” to provide direction to the
dedicated business unit. The board is, legally, part of the Council
and does not have a separate legal status. It is a subordinate decision-making
body of the Council, which the Council is empowered to establish under clause
30(1), Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002. A subordinate decision-making body does not
have an established statutory regime as a committee or CCO does, so it is
necessarily a bespoke body designed wholly by the Council.
6.4.5 The
board exercises powers delegated to it by the full Council (under
clause 32(1), Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002), enabling it to develop and
implement the masterplan for the Marina, as well as manage its day-to-day
operations.
6.4.6 The
board is comprised of independent individuals with appropriate expertise and
experience, who are appointed and remunerated by the Council. They
are ultimately accountable to the Council, and can be removed by the Council at
its discretion.
6.4.7 The
Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee would have oversight of the
board, and the board would report to it on a regular basis. The Marina
Management Committee and the Nelson Marina Advisory Group would likely not have
any involvement.
6.5 Process
|
Steps to implement Option 2: Stand-alone business unit within
Council (Enhanced Status Quo/SABU option)
|
|
This process would require three sequential reports going
to full Council for decisions.
1. The
first report would require Council to make an in-principle decision to pursue
the stand-alone business unit option (based on recommendation from the
Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee).
2. Following
this first Council decision, the Council would need to:
a) Develop
a draft terms of reference for the board. This would be a bespoke document,
involving the creation of a unique subordinate decision-making
body. There would be significant work in preparing the terms of
reference. Not only would there need to be substantial involvement from lawyers,
but officers would also be called on to make decisions about the design of
the board. The terms of reference would need to address the role
of the board, including the scope of its authority, and set out all its rules
for operation (For example, membership, remuneration, meetings, voting,
application of LGOIMA, reporting, stakeholder relationships, communications
etc.).
b) Develop
draft terms of appointment for members (effectively serving as a contract
between the Council and the members).
c) Develop
a draft delegation to the board, identifying the powers that should
appropriately sit with the board. In doing so, it may be
necessary to clarify the Strategic Development and Property
Subcommittee’s delegations, as the Council’s Delegations Register
currently provides that any cross-over in delegations must be referred back
to full Council.[2]
It would also be sensible to consider what, if any, role there should be for
the Marina Management Committee and the Nelson Marina Advisory Group going
forward.
d) Develop
a draft policy for the appointment and remuneration of board
members. The Council’s policies for appointing and
remunerating committee members,[3]
and directors of CCOs,[4]
would not apply, making it necessary for the Council to develop a one-off
policy to apply to the board (covering qualifications, expertise
etc.).
e) Organise
insurance cover for the board. While the Council should check its own policy,
council policies are unlikely to cover this type of arrangement, making it
necessary to negotiate and agree an extension to the Council’s cover
(likely providing an indemnity to board members, equivalent to what is
provided to elected members). Given the board would be a unique
creation, it is likely that brokers would require additional explanatory
material to understand the board’s status and role.
3. The
second report to full Council would seek, for the purposes of initiating a
recruitment process for board members, approval of the draft terms of
reference, terms of appointment, and delegation, and also recommend adoption
of a policy on the appointment and remuneration of members of the board.
4. Following
this second meeting, the recruitment process for board members would
commence. It might be necessary to negotiate remuneration, and possibly some
of the terms of appointment, with candidates.
5. The
third report would ask the full Council to:
· establish the
board as a subordinate decision-making body, including giving final approval
of the terms of reference;
· appoint the
preferred candidates as members of the board, subject to the terms of
appointment;
· make appropriate
delegations to the board, and effect any necessary consequential changes (For
example, amend delegations to the Subcommittee, and amend delegations or
dis-establish the Management Committee and Advisory Group).
6. There
are no specific consultation requirements in the LGA 2002 for any of these
Council decisions, although the Council would be subject to its standard
obligation in section 78 of the LGA 2002 to consider the views and
preferences of interested and affected persons. It is a judgement
call for the Council to make, but it would likely be appropriate to carry out
some targeted engagement with affected stakeholders (for example, berth
holders) on relevant aspects of its proposals. It may also be
appropriate to seek advice from the Nelson Marina Advisory Group on the
proposals.
|
|
Time
to establish
|
Costs
to establish
|
|
Likely to take about the same
amount of time as the management CCO (but less than the owner CCO option).
Matters that could have an impact
on the timeframe include:
· Likely necessary
for full Council decisions on at least three occasions.
· Creation of all
the draft documents plus engagement with stakeholders.
· The recruitment
process and availability of good candidates.
· Negotiations
with insurance brokers
|
Probably similar cost to set up as
the management CCO but result has few benefits (so less
cost-effective).
· The bespoke
nature of the board as a subordinate decision-making body could require more
work from legal advisors as compared to a CCO establishment.
· If the Council
were to use consultants for the recruitment process, it would incur
consultant costs.
· There would be
some additional premium costs for the Council’s insurance.
|
6.6 Advantages
and disadvantages
|
Option 2: Stand-alone business unit within
Council (Enhanced Status Quo/SABU option)
|
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
and Risks
|
|
· The Council
retains ownership of all Marina land and assets, and operations.
This ensures ‘public ownership’ of the assets.
· In contrast to
the status quo, this option would likely allow for greater speed in some
decision-making. The board would not be subject to the meetings requirements
in Part 7 of LGOIMA, and so could be nimbler that an equivalent committee
could be.
· The board would
enable the Council to have independent individuals, with relevant commercial
expertise and experience, involved in decisions concerning the masterplan for
the Marina.
|
· Less commercial
or nimble than a private sector agency, as the “board” would have
to comply with decision-making requirements in the LGA 02.
· The board would
be a bespoke entity, requiring work to design and establish it.
· The Council will
still have overall responsibility for the marina. As outlined for
option 1 above, this means the marina will still be one of a multitude of
functions being carried out by the Council, and there is still some potential
for political pressure being brought to bear on elected members in relation
to fees and charges.
· There is a risk
that members of the board, who are not familiar with working in a Council,
might not always comply with all the relevant statutory obligations that
apply to councils and their subordinate decision-making bodies
(eg decision-making requirements in the LGA 02, compliance with relevant
council plans and policies etc.). Given the board does not have a
separate legal status to the Council, it is the Council that will bear the
responsibility (and liability) for any mistakes made by the board.
· Having delegated
powers to the board, the Council cannot typically unwind or overrule board
decisions, but will instead be bound by them (eg it will be bound by any
contracts entered into by the board). Again, it is the Council that
will bear responsibility (and liability) for the board’s actions.
· The option
cannot be implemented immediately, even though no particular consultation
obligations apply.
· There are costs
to implementing this option, including legal costs, recruitment costs, and
insurance costs. These to be about the same as for the management CCO option
but less than the owner CCO option.
|
Option 3: Establish a CCO to
manage the Marina (Management CCO) – Recommended Option
6.7 Description
6.7.1 Council
owns the Marina land and associated assets.
6.7.2 The
Council establishes a CCO to manage the Marina operations under contract.
6.7.3 The
CCO has a board and employs staff (including the Manager Nelson Marina).
The staff of the CCO report to the board, and the board is accountable to the
Council as shareholder.
6.7.4 The
CCO manages the marina’s finances (based on the marina’s own
revenue streams and expenses), with Council input as required (eg through
annual budget). Any borrowing for marina development would be Council borrowing
(not the management CCO’s).
6.7.5 The
CCO would incur staff costs, board member fees, some other management costs
(such as IT equipment and directors & officers insurance premiums) which it
would recover (likely on a breakeven basis) from the Council through the
management contract.
6.7.6 The
intention would be that the CCO itself would not return any profits to the
Council through distributions.
6.7.7 The
extent of the CCO’s role and powers in relation to the Marina can be
well-defined through the drafting of the CCO’s constitution, the
management contract, and using mechanisms such as the statement of
intent. Council oversight could be through the existing Strategic
Development and Property Subcommittee.
6.7.8 The
CCO could have a direct relationship with the Nelson Marina Advisory Group.
6.8 Process
|
Steps to implement Option 3:
Establish a CCO to manage the Marina (Management CCO) – Recommended
Option
|
|
This process will require two or
three decisions by Council (depending on how extensive/complete the first
decision is):
1. The
first step would require Council to make the decision decide to pursue the
management CCO option and begin consultation.
2. Following
this first Council decision, the Council would need to:
a) Undertake
consultation in accordance with the principles of section 82 of the LGA 2002
(as required by section 56) to establish the new CCO including developing a
statement of proposal (section 82A of the LGA 2002).
b) Arrange
for the preparation of a constitution for the new CCO and a Management
Agreement to be entered into between the CCO and the Council.
c) Review
and prepare any changes required to existing policies and delegations in
relation to the Marina (including the policy about the appointment of
directors to CCOs under section 57 of the LGA 2002).
d) Post-consultation
(and assuming the outcome of the consultation is favourable to the
establishment of the management CCO), a second report to the Council would
seek approval of the draft constitution and Management Agreement, any changes
required to existing policies and delegations, and for formal approval to
establish the CCO (For example, incorporate a new company and become a
shareholder of it).
3. Following
this second meeting, the recruitment process for board members of the CCO
would commence. It might be necessary to negotiate remuneration,
and possibly some of the terms of appointment, with candidates.
4. At
around the same time, the company would be incorporated, and the management
contract could be entered into.
|
|
Time
to establish
|
Costs
to establish
|
|
This option is likely to take about
the same amount of time (or less) than the SABU option (and less than the
owner CCO option).
Matters that could have an impact
on the timeframe include:
· Two or three
Council meetings are likely required.
· Mandatory
consultation (but unlikely to unduly delay the process).
· Drafting the
constitution, management agreement, and reviewing any changes to the
Council’s existing policies/delegations.
· The recruitment
process for the board.
|
More costly than the status quo,
and about the same cost as the SABU option. Less cost than the Owner CCO
option.
· CCO
establishment is relatively straightforward. The drafting of the new
company’s constitution and the management agreement need not be overly
complex or costly because precedents will be available.
· If the Council
were to use consultants for the recruitment process, it would incur
consultant costs.
|
6.9 Advantages
and disadvantages
|
Option 3: Establish a CCO to
manage the Marina (Management CCO) – Recommended
Option
|
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
and Risks
|
|
· Well-known and
established structure used in local government.
· More
commercially oriented structure (For example, most Council decision-making
obligations do not apply to the CCO’s board) with flexibility to
respond to Council’s non-commercial drivers (including through the
statement of intent).
· LGOIMA applies
but not to meetings.
· CCO would be
able to borrow in its own right (either from the Council or third-party
lenders).
· Council will be
able to appoint board members with relevant expertise and experience.
· Process is
straightforward and requires less bespoke drafting compared with SABU option
(because company law and the CCO provisions of the LGA 2002 provide a clear
regime).
· In the future if
desired the Council could potentially pivot to the “owner CCO”
model by transferring the Marina assets to the CCO.
· Profits derived
through the operation of the Marina will be for the benefit of the asset
owners (Council) and will not be subject to corporate tax.
|
· Consultation
required (although this is unlikely to create any undue delay in
establishment).[5]
· If the CCO is a
company then it would be taxable (although if operated at, or near,
break-even it would have nil or minimal taxable profit).
· The cost of
managing the governance of the Marina through the formation of a Board of
Directors will increase the operating costs of the Marina.
|
Option 4: Establish a CCO to
own and manage the Marina (Owner CCO)
6.10 Description
This option is the same as
Option 3 (Management CCO) with the key difference being a transfer of the
Marina land and associated assets to the new CCO.
6.10.1 The
Council establishes a CCO (For example, a company) specifically to own and
manage the Marina assets and operations.
6.10.2 The
CCO has a board and employs staff (including the Manager Nelson Marina).
The staff of the CCO report to the board, and the board is accountable to the
Council as shareholder.
6.10.3 The
CCO owns and manages the Marina as an operation separate to the Council. The
CCO could borrow in its own right (either from the Council or third parties).
6.10.4 The
Council is able to influence the CCO through well-established channels (including
through the statement of intent).
6.10.5 The
board of the CCO could establish a relationship with the existing Nelson Marina
Advisory Group.
6.11 Process
|
Steps to implement Option 4:
Establish a CCO to own and manage the Marina (Owner CCO)
|
|
This process will require two or three Council decisions
(depending on how extensive/complete the first decision is).
1. The
first step would require Council to make a decision to pursue the
“owner CCO” option and begin consultation.
2. Following
this first Council decision, the Council would need to:
a) Prepare
and undertake consultation in accordance with the principles of section 82 of
the LGA 2002 (as required by section 56) to establish the new CCO including
developing a statement of proposal (section 82A of the LGA 2002).
b) Arrange
for the preparation of a draft constitution for the new CCO and a draft Deed
of Transfer (or equivalent document) for the transfer of the Marina land and
assets to the new CCO.
c) Review
what changes would be required to existing policies and delegations in
relation to the Marina (including the policy about the appointment of
directors to CCOs under section 57 of the LGA 2002).
3. Post-consultation
(and assuming the outcome of the consultation is favourable to the
establishment of the “owner CCO”), the Council would then need to
deliberate on the results of the consultation, make a decision to approve the
draft constitution and Deed of Transfer, and any changes required to existing
policies and delegations, and formally establish the CCO.
4. Following
the second (or third) meeting, the recruitment process for board members
would commence. It might be necessary to negotiate remuneration,
and possibly some of the terms of appointment, with candidates.
5. Once
the CCO is established, the Deed of Transfer would need to be entered into by
the Council and the new CCO, and the Marina land and assets would then be
transferred.[6]
In relation to the Deed of Transfer and due diligence, there could be some
complexities to work through, including the definition of the land (given it
involves reclaimed land, the coastal Marina area, and public reserves).
|
|
Time to establish
|
Costs
to establish
|
|
This option is likely to take the
longest (mostly due to any complexities with the transfer of assets).
Matters that could have an impact on the timeframe
include:
· Two or three
Council meetings are likely required.
· Mandatory
consultation (but unlikely to unduly slow down the process).
· Drafting the
constitution, Deed of Transfer, and reviewing any changes to the
Council’s existing policies/delegations.
· Recruitment
process for the board.
· Due diligence
process (for transfer of assets).
|
The costliest of the options.
· CCO
establishment is relatively straightforward. The drafting of the new
company’s constitution and the Deed of Transfer need not be overly
complex or costly.
· Some cost
associated with any due diligence process required as part of the transfer of
land and assets.
· If the Council
were to use consultants for the recruitment process, it would incur
consultant costs.
|
6.12 Advantages
and disadvantages
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages and
Risks
|
|
· CCOs are a
well-known and established structure used in local government.
· More
commercially oriented structure (For example, Council decision-making
obligations do not apply to the CCO’s board) with flexibility to
respond to Council’s non-commercial drivers (For example, through the
statement of intent).
· LGOIMA applies
but not to meetings.
· CCO would be
able to borrow in its own right (either from the Council or third-party
lenders).
· Council will be
able to appoint board members with relevant expertise and experience.
· Process is
straightforward and requires less bespoke drafting compared with SABU option.
· Marina would be
a completely standalone entity able to be dealt with separately from the
Council.
|
· Consultation
required by section 56 of the LGA 2002 (although this is unlikely to create
any undue delay in establishment).
· May be political
implications if the transfer of the Marina land the assets has the appearance
of “privatisation”.
· If the CCO is a
company or a CCTO (which it would be if it owns and operates the marina on a
commercial basis), then it would be taxable
· The transfer of
land and assets would likely involve more cost and time to achieve (compared
with the management CCO option). For example, it may be a complex issue
to define the land (because it will likely involve reclaimed land, the
coastal marine area, and reserve land etc) and there are requirements in the
LGA 2002 about transferring undertakings to CCOs.[7]
· There may be
complexities around the operation of the Council’s bylaws and other
regulations if the Marina is owned by a CCO, and the role of the
harbourmaster would need to be considered. This would add some cost and
time to this option.
|
Option 5: Establish a Limited Liability Partnership
(LLP)
6.13 This
option is similar to Option 4 (Owner CCO) with the key difference being the
establishment of a limited partnership in addition to a new company, with the
limited partnership to own and control the marina land and associated assets.
6.14 The
Council establishes a CCO (eg a company) to become the “general
partner” in the limited partnership.
6.15 The
Council (as the “limited partner”) and the new CCO become partners
in a limited partnership. This includes entering into a limited partnership
agreement. The limited partnership is itself a separate legal entity (separate
from the Council as limited partner and the other CCO as general partner) and
therefore a CCO in its own right.
6.16 The
Council then transfers the marina land and assets to the newly established
limited partnership to own and manage the marina and its operations.
6.17 The
CCO general partner has a board and employs staff for the limited partnership
(including the Manager Nelson Marina). The limited partnership staff report to
the board of the CCO general partner, and the board is accountable to the
Council as limited partner in the partnership and shareholder of the CCO
general partner.
6.18 The
CCO general partner would be responsible for the day-to-day management of the
limited partnership (and therefore the marina) and, unless the limited
partnership agreement provides otherwise, would be responsible for all the
debts and liabilities of the limited partnership to the extent the limited
partnership cannot meet such debts and liabilities.
6.19 The
Council as limited partner would not be responsible for the day-to-day
management of the limited partnership and would not be responsible for the debts
and liabilities of the limited partnership, provided that the Council does not
take part in the management of the partnership (in the sense set out in the
Limited Partnerships Act 2008).
6.20 The
limited partnership owns and manages the marina as an operation separate to the
Council. The limited partnership could borrow in its own right (either from the
Council or third parties).
6.21 The
Council is able to influence the general partner CCO through well-established
channels (including through the statement of intent) and therefore influence
the way that the general partner manages the operation of the limited
partnership. The limited partnership could also establish a relationship with
the existing Nelson Marina Advisory Group.
6.22 To
maintain the Council’s limited liability position, care would need to be
taken to ensure that such arrangements would not cause the Council to be viewed
as taking part in the management of the limited partnership under the Limited
Partnerships Act 2008.
6.23 Process
|
Steps to implement Option 5:
Establish a LLP to own and manage the Marina (Owner CCO)
|
|
1. This process will require two or three Council
decisions (depending on how extensive/complete the first decision is). The
first step would require Council to make a decision to pursue the
“limited partnership” option and begin consultation.
2. Following this first Council decision, the
Council would need to:
a) Prepare and undertake consultation in accordance with
the principles of section 82 of the LGA 02 (as required by section 56) to
establish the new general partner CCO and the limited partnership itself,
including developing a statement of proposal (section 82A of the LGA 02).
b) Arrange for the preparation of a draft constitution for
the new general partner CCO, a draft limited partnership agreement for the
limited partnership, and a draft Deed of Transfer (or equivalent document)
for the transfer of the marina land and assets to the limited partnership.
c) Review what changes would be required to existing
policies and delegations in relation to the marina (including the policy
about the appointment of directors to CCOs under section 57 of the LGA 02).
3. Post-consultation (and assuming the outcome of the
consultation is favourable to the establishment of the limited partnership),
the Council would then need to deliberate on the results of the consultation,
make a decision to approve the draft constitution, limited partnership
agreement and Deed of Transfer, and any changes required to existing policies
and delegations, and formally establish both the general partner CCO and the
limited partnership.
4. Following the second (or third) meeting, the recruitment
process for board members of the general partner CCO would commence. It might
be necessary to negotiate remuneration, and possibly some of the terms of
appointment, with candidates.
5. Once the general partner CCO is established, and the
limited partnership agreement entered into (with the limited partnership then
being formally established), the Deed of Transfer would need to be entered
into by the Council and the new limited partnership, and the marina land and
assets would then be transferred. In relation to the Deed of Transfer
and due diligence, it is expected that there could be some complexities to
work through, including the definition of the land (given it may involve
reclaimed land, the coastal marina area, and possibly reserves)
|
|
Time
to establish
|
Costs
to establish
|
|
This option is likely to take about the same time as the
Owner CCO option, but there may be some additional time involved in
establishing the limited partnership.
Matters that could have an impact on the timeframe
include:
· Two or three
Council meetings are likely required.
· Mandatory
consultation (but unlikely to unduly slow down the process).
· Drafting the
constitution, limited partnership agreement, Deed of Transfer, and reviewing
any changes to the Council’s existing policies/delegations.
· Recruitment
process for the board.
· Due diligence
process (for transfer of assets).
|
About the same costs to set up as the Owner CCO option,
but there would be some additional cost involved in establishing the limited
partnership.
· The CCO company
establishment is relatively straightforward, and the drafting of the new
company’s constitution and the Deed of Transfer need not be overly
complex or costly.
· The need for a
separate limited partnership agreement and registration of the limited
partnership may add to the cost of this option compared with the Owner CCO
option.
· Some cost
associated with any due diligence process required as part of the transfer of
land and assets.
· If the Council
were to use consultants for the recruitment process, it would incur
consultant costs.
|
6.24 Advantages
and Disadvantages
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
and Risks
|
|
Same as for Option 4 Owner CCO, except the
following:
· Limited
partnerships are less common and well-known in the local government sector
than simple company CCOs.
· The
establishment process and overall complexity would be higher than the Owner
CCO option.
|
Same as for Option 4 Owner CCO, except the
following:
· This option
involves the establishment of two CCOs (the general partner and the limited
partnership itself), and the application of both company and limited
partnership legislation in addition to the LGA 2002, and this adds to the
overall complexity of the establishment process and governance arrangements
for the marina.
· Although the CCO
general partner may be operated at, or near, break-even so that it would have
nil or minimal taxable profit (comparable to the Management CCO option), the
limited partnership itself will likely be a CCO for income tax purposes (Tax
CCO) if it is a CCTO under the LGA (if it would own and operate the marina on
a commercial basis). This means that marina income attributed to the Council
(as limited partner under the ‘flow through’ income tax rules
that apply to limited partnerships) would most likely be viewed as taxable
income of the Council. The proposed local authority tax changes in the
tax bill that is currently before Parliament would not alter this position.
|
7. Recommended
Option Development
7.1 The
recommended option for the future governance of Nelson Marina is through the
formation of a Management Council Controlled Organisation (Management CCO) (Option
3).
7.2 Option
3 (Management CCO) will provide the Marina with a dedicated board of directors
allowing the marina to move forward under the guidance of specialist knowledge
and advice through a more dynamic commercially orientated framework.
7.3 Option
3 (Management CCO) structure does not produce any tax implications to Council
(not subject to company tax).
7.4 The
increased cost of operating a management CCO is estimated at approximately
$107,000 per annum, this would be offset by increased efficiency and operating
revenue.
7.5 Management
Agreement – under a management agreement the new CCO would operate the
Marina on behalf of Council’s interests as the asset owner. The
agreement would have a specific Statement of Intent and provide Delegations
from Council to the Board of Directors of the CCO. The Board of Directors
would report back to the Strategic Development and Properties Subcommittee
and/or Council directly and Council would still have ultimate control over the
management of their assets.
8. Conclusion
8.1 The
recommended option for the future governance of Nelson Marina is through the
formation of a Management Council Controlled Organisation (Management CCO) (Option
3).
9. Next
Steps
9.1 If
the recommended option is approved by the Council, then Officers will undertake
the steps as outlined above.
9.2 This
would include consultation with community and stakeholders, as per Section 56
of the LGA 2002.
9.3 Further
updates will be reported to upcoming Strategic Development and Property
Sub-committee meetings.
9.4 Present
to Council an analysis and recommendation for the best asset owning company
structure for further analysis.
Author: Nigel
Skeggs, Manager Nelson Marina
Attachments
Attachment 1: A2764091 Marina
Governance s17a Review - Infracure - Final ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
Approving the recommended change to a Management CCO
will support local democratic decision making and action to promote the
social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of the Nelson
community.
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
The recommendation is consistent with
Council’s objectives to provide effective governance of community assets.
It will also allow the Marina to enhance the
community Marina assets and provide a return to the shareholders (Nelson rate
payers). The board of the Marina will still be guided by and
accountable to the Council. Council will still retain full ownership of
the assets.
|
|
3. Risk
The primary risks for Council in not changing the
Governance model of the Marina to a Management CCO are both financial and
reputational.
Having a suitably qualified, commercially orientated
Board of Directors with direct responsibility for financial performance of
the Marina will significantly reduce these risks to Council.
A Management CCO model will allow for accountability
of performance through a third party to Council and ensure that a model is in
place to be dynamic enough to achieve said goals in the desired timeframes.
As the Marina develops prices charged for services
will increase. Having a commercial board will help to shelter
elected members from the likely political pressure exerted by some customers
who do not want to see change or prices increase.
|
|
4. Financial
impact
The immediate costs of setting up a Management COO
will come through the cost of consultants, additional Council staff hours,
internal legal advice and outside legal counsel. This will be offset by
improved financial and operational performance into the future.
Ongoing additional costs will come in the form of
Directors Fees, Company Secretary fees and the costs associated with running
the board.
|
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement
This matter is of medium significance as it requires
the formation of a new Governance structure to manage and control a rate
payer owned asset. Regardless of the perceived level of significance
however, consultation is required under Section 56 of the Local Government Act
before a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) is established.
|
|
6. Climate
Impact
This decision does not have an impact on climate
change. Responsiveness to climate impact would become a performance measure
for a new Board.
|
|
7. Inclusion
of Māori in the decision making process
No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in
preparing this report. Iwi would be advised of any upcoming consultation
through usual avenues.
|
|
8. Delegations
The Strategic Property and Development Subcommittee
has the following delegations to consider the future Governance of Nelson
Marina:
Areas of Responsibility:
· Marina
Precinct
Delegations:
· Powers
to decide the developing, monitoring and reviewing of strategies, policies
and plans, with final versions to be recommended to Council for
approval.
Powers to Recommend to Council:
· Approval
of final versions of strategies, policies and plans;
· All
other matters within the areas of responsibility or any other matters
referred to it by Council.
|
Item
9: Strategic Development and Property Quarterly Report to 30 September
2021
|
|
Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee
3 December 2021
|
REPORT R26108
1.
Purpose of Report
1.1
To inform the Subcommittee of the financial and non-financial results for the first quarter of 2021/22 financial year for the
activities under the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee’s delegated
authority.
2.
Recommendation
|
That the Strategic Development and Property
Subcommittee
2.
Receives the report (R26108) and its attachment (A2660062).
|
3. Background
3.1 Quarterly reports on performance are provided to each
Committee on the performance and delivery of projects and activities within
their areas of responsibility.
3.2 The
financial reporting focuses on the year to date performance (1 July 2021 to 30
September 2021) compared with the year-to-date (YTD) approved capital and
operating budgets.
3.3 Unless
otherwise indicated, all information is against “Approved Budget”,
which is the 2021/22 annual budget plus any carry forwards, plus or minus any
other additions or changes as approved by the appropriate Committee or Council.
3.4 Detailed
capital project sheets are included in Attachment 1 (A2660062). Capital project
sheets have been selected if their budget is at least $250,000 for 2021/22, are
multi-year projects with a budget over $1 million, or have been assessed to be
of particular interest to the Committee.
3.5 Capital
project status is analysed based on three factors: quality, time, and budget.
From the consideration of these three factors the project is summarised as
being on track (green), some issues/risks (orange), or major issues/risks
(red). Projects that are within 5% of their budget are considered to be on
track in regard to the budget factor.
4. Financial Results
Profit and Loss by Activity
4.1 Rental
Properties graphs include the following properties:
· Millers
Acre Centre
· 157
Haven Road
· 48
Pascoe Street
· 163
Haven Road
· 199
Bridge Street
· 101
Achilles Avenue
· 225
Atkerson Street
· 81
Achilles Avenue
· Nursery
Land – Atawhai Drive
· 11
Cross Quay
· 252
Haven Road
· 236-250
Haven Road
4.2 Brook
Camp operating expenditure is greater than budget by $94,000. Analysis on these
costs needs to be undertaken, as a portion can be capitalised, as well as spilt
with the Maitai Camp. This work will be undertaken in time for the next
quarterly report.
4.3 Nelson
Marina income is over budget by $3,000 despite being unable to operate the
hardstand during the COVID-19 lockdown period. Expenses are below budget
by $45,000, resulting in an operating deficit of $3,000, compared to a budgeted
operating deficit of $45,000.
4.4 Nelson
City Council uses phased budgets so budget and actual are shown in the same
month ie rates and insurance are all paid and accounted for in July of each
year rather than being accrued or split equally between all 12 months. For
reporting this has been corrected for the monthly operating accounts by profit
centre below. In Q1 Nelson Marina made an accrued operating profit of
$100,000.
4.6 Quarter 1
Commentary by Profit Centre:
Berthing
– Berthing has made a profit of $160,000 in the first quarter. August
income was up by $30,000 as this was accounted for in some annual payments and
adjustments were made on missed billing from Nelmac.
Boat Yard
– the boat yard (or hardstand) made a Q1 loss of $25,000. The team
are working very hard to increase efficiencies in the yard and the results of this
were seen in September, where the yard has made a profit. This is the first
month that a profit has been turned over for the yard in the last three
years. Income was down significantly for August due to COVID-19 lockdown,
when the yard was closed.
Boat
Storage – the boat storage yard has been operating to budget and is
running at 100% occupancy.
Boat Ramp
– In Q1 the boat ramp made a operating loss of $36,000. This is in
keeping with historical figures and is the result of both non-payment of ramp
fees by casual users and the low price for use of the ramp and parking. This
will be addressed by legal enforcement and a proposed increase in fees and
charges for the 2022/23 year.
Commercial
Property – In Q1 the loss from commercial properties was $5,000. This
is the holding cost for the vacant land around the marina that is deriving very
little income.
5. Updates
Campgrounds
5.1 Staff provided an update to the subcommittee on 21 October
2021, which covered an update on the Brook Valley Holiday Park compliance
capital. There is no further update to report on this project.
5.2 Staff have been meeting with the leasee of the Maitai Camp
to discuss the implications of the abatement notice for long term residential
activity.
5.3 The Housing Hui with social agencies continues to meet
fortnightly to discuss progress with compliance at the campgrounds.
5.4 A new lease for Tahuna Beach Camp incorporated was prepared
and adopted for the 28 October Council meeting.
The
Marina
5.5 The
management of the Marina was brought back in house, with new management team
taking over from Nelmac on 1 July 2021. This is the first quarterly report
under the new management.
5.6 Nelson
Marina is now run with eight full-time employees.
5.7 The Nelson Marina office is now manned from 8:00am to 7:00pm, seven
days per week, and is now a full-service marina with dockside assistance during
work hours. Staff are rostered on call for 24-hour emergency cover.
5.8 Q1 was a busy period for the marina from both an operational and
strategic perspective. Key highlights are set out below:
· Reconciled all old outstanding accounts, recovered $32,000 in
outstanding debt, placed 237 customers on direct debit for monthly invoicing.
· Audited all vessels for insurance documents, EWOF, and tag and test
of shore power cables.
· Increased occupancy of underutilised 8m, 9m, and Pile berths, reduced
10m waitlist from 18 months to 9 months.
· Improved compliance, updated security and cleaning contracts.
· Reviewed and amended Fees and Charges for the 2022/23 year.
· Developed new Nelson Marina Logo (see below).
5.9 Quarter 1
Strategic Highlights:
· Masterplan
– the Masterplan process is ongoing and nearing completion. A survey was
released to all marina users with data now received and collated. A full review
of all land-based options has been completed, and work is ongoing to finalise
various options for reconfiguring the marina’s wharves and jetties.
· S17a Governance
review – This has been completed and will be reported separately at
this Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee.
5.10 Quarter 1 Capital Projects
and Improvements
· Reconfigured
marina office with new reception and reception desk in old customer lounge,
repainted office and set up new meeting room with AV system. Installed new
pathways to office and sun protection.
· Gutted old
marina supervisor’s office, that had been abandoned for the previous
eight years, and converted to a new customer lounge with 24-hour swipe card
access and a staff room upstairs.
5.11 Quarter 1 Compliance:
· Reviewed all
resource consents to ensure full compliance.
· Reviewed
Navigational Safety Bylaw.
· Developed and
implemented Hardstand Activity Management Plan to conform with our resource
consent.
· Developed
news rules and health and safety induction process for the safe operation of
the hardstand.
Strategic Properties
5.12 Staff
provided a verbal update to the subcommittee in the public excluded portion of
the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee meeting on 21 October 2021,
which covered activity for the duration of this first quarter report. There are
no further updates to provide in this report.
Activity Management Plan
5.13 The
marina, campgrounds and strategic properties are assets contained within the
Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan (AMP). The final AMP will be
presented to Council on 9 December 2021 for adoption. The final AMP will be
reported directly to Council as the issues it covers sit across more than one
Committee.
6. Key Performance
Measures
6.1 As part of the development of the Long-Term Plan 2021-31,
Council approved levels of service, performance measures and targets for each
activity. There is one performance measure that is within the Strategic
Development and Property Subcommittee’s delegation, Marina berth holder
occupancy, which is reported in this quarterly report.
6.2 Performance
measures are reported on quarterly, with an annual result of
‘achieved’, ‘not achieved’, or ‘not
measured’ given at the end of the financial year. The scale to report on
the performance measures during the year is as follows:
· On track
· Not on track
· Not measured yet
|
What Council will provide
|
Performance Measure
|
Target Year 1 (2021/22)
|
Staff comment
Q1 2021/22
|
Achievement Q1 2021/22
|
|
Marina managed to meet demand
|
Occupation for marina berths
(both permanent and visitors)
|
Greater than 95%
|
Achievement for quarter one is 93%. It is
under the target as there was a berth reshuffle in this quarter. Several
small (9 and 10 metre) berths are now available. All permanent berths over 10
metres are fully occupied.
|
Not on track
|
7. Conclusion
7.1 The
review of performance for the first quarter of 2021/22
for the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee is included in this
report, with project reports and a performance measure attached.
Author: Rosie
Bartlett, Manager Parks and Facilities
Attachments
Attachment 1: A2660062 -
Strategic Development and Property - Quarterly Report Project Sheets
