Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. N

Refer to attachment.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YAP

Redevelopment Financing Raises through the LGFA to on-lend to Port Marlborough to invest in Picton, future for Port Infrastructure. Realise higher dividends for all ratepayers. Reduce the cost of borrowing for the port. Support the Port to cement a 60 deal with its largest client kiwi rail. I wish to speak on the consultation Options and Alternative 2 if the Project doesn't proceed. I also wish to speak to the consultation process. It is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT to consult with taxpayers and ratepayers on issues that affect them. As this proposal has already been fast tracked as a non-notified application will this consultation be considered or make a difference? It's all very well to ask for consultation, but, what sort of consideration is then given to each submission? Having listened to the Zoom meeting I'm concerned with the comment. The income, in turn, will contribute to REDUCING the need for future rate increases. While I hope that's true, there's no way anyone in Council today can look into the crystal ball with clarity. While I appreciate the necessity for the redevelopment, the consultation process hasn't been open and transparent. I hereby ask that the progress being made on this development is readily available to all affected parties and not only put on your website. Utilising the print and or social media would be excellent.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YAP

Picton Business Group in principle support Marlborough District Council raising Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment . The committee has had some concerns that as Port Marlborough is not funding and subsequently building of the new terminal, what if Kiwi Rail sell out to a private concern or what if a "New Independent Player" appears and wishes to access the facility? Could that create a problem in the future? Some of these concerns have been somewhat allayed by recent discussions with Port Marlborough, but we still consider them worth noting. With changes in this modern world who knows if there is going to be passenger or freight ferries powered by some method not yet invented (that require access)? Cruise Ships for example needing availability of the Terminal Berth. They will come back (even if not by the same numbers) and changes may be required to provide shelter, especially for marshaling passengers. We are in uncertain times but look forward to an exciting future with many changes and advancements. Will Port Marlborough have the ability to carry out these changes freely in the future if they do not own the terminal building?

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. N

In Support of Alternative 2. Refer attachment.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. N

Submission; MDC funding of Picton Ferry Terminal development to accommodate new Kiwi Rail Ships. As someone who has followed the development of the Interisland shipping line for the last 25 years, I have got to say the management decisions made by the successive companies have been very questionable. Following Richard Prebbles pathetic Save Rail campaign, NZ Rail, originally owned by NZ Govt Railways, Rodgernomics, necessitated the privatization and subsequent fire sale to US owned corporation Wisconsin Rail who renamed it Tranzrail, they just asset stripped it, they inturn sold to Australian corporation called toll Holdings, who’s core business was with trucking. Toll wasted no time in putting the future direction of the company on Trucking rather than Rail freight, they in time purchased or leased new ships like the Kaitaki, and recently the Kaiarahi. That do not even carry rail They redeveloped the rail yard in Picton pulled out most of the shunting roads and made it into a yard to accommodate trucks and trailers. In 1993 they made the disastrous decision to purchase the first Fast Ferry called Conder 10, that they purchased along with the Aratere built in 1998, which was built in Spain, you could write a book about the breakdowns and modifications needed to keep this vessel operational. Toll holdings run the company into the ground as well as devastating the intertidal zone and marine life of Totaranui by stripping all the sand off our beaches, smashing our wharves , jetties, boat sheds and any boats that were unlucky enough to get caught along side a wharf when the fast ferries past by. The Sounds community had enough of the destruction and safety risk posed to sounds users and challenged the operation, they first had to convince the MDC to create a Bylaw to slow them down, they opposed because of their vested interests in Port Marlborough and it took 10 years to finally convince them , then work alongside them to stop this environmental vandalism. Toll holdings sold out Tranzrail to the NZ Govt in 20…… they will rightly say that we cannot blame them for the decisions made by the previous companies, however our experience over the consultation with the Picton and Sounds community over this development has been deliberately deceptive and had many short comings. They have displayed a similar level of arrogance that we experienced with the previous companies, at the first meeting which Guardians had to initiate, when we heard thru the grape vine about the new development ( How could they make these plans without first consulting with the Sounds community. ) They told us that they intended to build 2 new ships that would be 3 times the displacement of the original Aratere, that they would have to make 3 return trips per day, with one hour turn arounds, to achieve that they would have to travel at 25 kts thru the Sounds ! then insulted our intelligence by saying that the faster the ship travelled the smaller the wake. Hull design may flatten out a wake, but it will still be displacing 50,000 tons of water, when that wave hits the shallows it will rear up like a surf break, just like the fast Ferry wake did, its about wave energy not wave height. This was not a consultation it was an ultimatum, we were shocked at their lack of knowledge about our recent history of devastation by the fast ferries ( only 10 yrs ago, ) and the arrogance, by not asking us our opinions , but making decrees. We told them that for starters they should not bring those mega ferries up thru Kura Te Au and should use the Northern entrance and there is no way that the Sounds community will allow these huge ships to exceed 15 kts and stop kidding yourselves, you will never unload and load a cargo of that size in under one hr and expect the Sounds environment to subsidize your delays. We said to them , you know that the system works well with 3 ships, why change to 2 ? they said that 2 was all that the Govt would fund and had been told to make the system work with 2. This whole project is based on a flawed concept , and nothing can change the fact that for their operation to work effectively they need 3 ships, all the planning is like the old concept of moving deck chairs on the Titanic. last month 2 of their 3 ferries were broken down, dead in the water , this happens, if with a two ship operation one of them broke down, one ship would be unable to carry enough freight to keep the country functioning, if one was away in Australia on survey and the other broke down, there would be No Service. Imagine the disaster if one of them was sunk ! and because of the size of these mega ferries, if one was broken or sunk they wouldn’t be able to do what they have done in the past and lease a ship from Europe because of the berths and linkspans they wouldn’t be able to hire a replacement that would fit the berths. For reliability they need to stick with the 3 ship concept. I also question the use of the Azimuth propulsion system, they say that they have adopted this system because it is more efficient and more manoeuvrable, that’s true and it is probably the only way you can manoeuvre these Mega Ferries around in narrow harbours and be able to berth them without tugs, but there is a huge down side to them, they are designed like a sail drive, or stern leg, they are extremely technical with lots of moving parts, good when new, but very problematic and unreliable when they wear out. If you think the current old ferries are unreliable, just imagine the future issues with these azimuth drive systems. Kiwi rail are learning this lesson right now with gearbox problems with two ships that are nearing the end of their service life, this is when they are likely to fail. The other issue is with conventional propulsion system, with rudders, if you lost power coming in the entrance the ship would have enough way on to enable you to steer it up and beach it in Wekenui, with the Azimuth drive, as soon as it loses power it loses steerage ! ROAD TRAFFIC; Then we look at the traffic plan that they didn’t consult with locals on, and at no point have we been consulted by Marlb roads. The original plan that was supposedly consulted on had the off loaded cars travelling up Kent Street, this has now been completely changed, now most all the cars off the ships will be travelling up Auckland street. And the development plan stops at Broadway, what a disaster ! This will mean that Picton will be gridlocked for 2 hrs every day while they unload the ships ( a convoy of 600 cars ! ) plus 65 truck and trailer units that will need to merge together at the Kent Street intersection. During this time, No traffic from the Eastern side of Picton and Waikawa will be able to go from one side of town to the other nor will they be able to merge into the out going convoy because there will be no breaks in the traffic. There is only three ways that this can be achieved: 1 ; Put a traffic light by the Dublin St turnoff , by the Bakery , problem with doing that is that because it is less than a mile from the ship, if the light goes to red they will have to stop unloading the ship. 2 ; It would be OK if they had a marshalling yard to hold 600 cars. Which they don’t. 3 ; The only other way would be to have a traffic operator at the linkspan to stop the traffic flow every 20 cars to allow a gap for local car traffic to cross town or merge into the south bound flow. Closure of Broadway: This is a very divisive and poorly thought out plan, if they try to close this street the towns people will revolt & instigate protest action. Closing the street to the town would only gain about 15 metres of shunt yard, but would severely limit the transit of traffic from one side of town to the other. We are told that this crossing in dangerous, nonsense this has been a functional road for 150 yrs, yes it would be better with a 2 lane bridge and we suspect that Marlb roads would rather close the road than renew the bridge., Is this their idea or Kiwi Rails ? Look to the name of this Road, Broadway, it was designed as a Boulevard, it is the widest road in Picton not only is the street wide but the grass verge is about 12 metres wide, with large trees. Dublin Street , the one that has been designated for a fly over, only has about 3 metre parking and as it has been designated an industrial area, all the ferry traffic will make it very difficult for businesses to entre and leave their premises while ferries are unloading. Do Not block the towns direct access to Broadway !!! Then there is the whole issue around Nelson Square becoming a truck stop, the MDC or Marlb Roads handling of this issue has come to nothing, Port Marlb’s so called truck parking area is a farce , truck and Trailer units cannot manoeuvre around in there so don’t use it, every street verge between Nelson Square and the railyard has become truck parking, this goes to show the degree of lack of planning , why don’t they turn whats left of the old rugby grounds into a big truck stop and get these rigs off our streets. With the advent of new ferries and terminal, Nelson sq will become a roundabout, truckies are already doing this, they divert from Kent street and around the square to give them right of way up the elevation without having to stop at the Kent street intersection. Somehow there will need to be a roundabout built at the Kent St intersection that has two out bound lanes that merge into one , this however is not part of the development, ( it needs to be.!) Question how do you gain room for extra lane without having to purchase private property ? I am no expert on traffic management , but I have been driving these streets for 50 yrs. I remember as a teenager a rooster by the name of Bill Betts, he owned most of the land in Shakespear Bay, he was an earth moving contractor and advocated building a motorway up and out of the Bay and merging into the top of elevation, to convey all the inbound,( including trucks and the rising number of logging trucks rumbling down thru our town. ) and out bound ferry traffic, it fell on deaf ears, he was ahead of his time, the land today is owned by the Port Company, they should do it and keep all the ferry traffic out of the town. I think that the ideal scenario would be to get a couple of tunnelling machines down from Auckland that have been used for the Britomart project , barge them into Shakespear Bay and poke two tunnels thru the hill to meet up with the rail at mount Pleasant, one for trains and the other for trucks. The cut has aready been excavated between PTN and Shakespear, the land is owned by Port Marlb, there is already a shunt line around the West Shore, the head of shakespear could be developed into a large car ,truck and railyard. The Elevation is the steepest incline on the South Island mainline, which severely limits the size of trains and efficiency of the rail network, the redundant rail track could be developed into a one way motorway to keep the ferry car traffic off our streets and expedite the unloading of the ships. The Viaduct would easily handle the conversion to road traffic, it is in the perfect position and because of the rail reserve land either side of the track they could build a one way highway that would merge with the main road at top of elevation,cars driving into Picton would still come down the elevation I raise these ideas because its obvious that planners are going to have to come up with concepts to cope with flaws in the current plan, it will gridlock our town and we will have to live with it for the next 30 yrs. This plan has been presented as a Shovel ready project under the Covid 19 Emergency Legislation , as such it doesn’t require Resource Consent, these planners have taken high handed liberties , not asking the town peoples opinions, just telling us what they have planned. Guardians are not opposed to the ferry operation, but we are practical people , I have spent 30 years trying not to get run down by ferries in the Sounds, and being proactive in trying to convince the shipping companies and MDC to put bylaws in place to protect the Sounds community and natural world . If they come up with a workable plan that doesn’t disadvantage our towns transport needs we will support it. If the MDC agree to fund this development and Kiwi rail run these new mega ferries thru Kura Te Au and the Sounds at 25 kts , this will confirm that their commitment to the environment is nothing but Green Wash and they will of sacrificed their responsibilities of health and safety of the Sounds community and Sounds users in favour of commercial gain yet again. How can the Sounds community ever put faith in the council that is compromised to the tune of 110 million dollars to do the right thing in regards to its regulatory duties in looking after Navigation safety and health and safety of sounds residents and users. I worked for 15 yrs as an engine driver on the Railways, much of this time was spent shunting and loading ferries, as a young feller I worked for the company constructing the linkspan, and for 25 yrs have worked as a Boat builder , marine engineer and tourism operator so have a practical understanding of hull shape and design. Local people have a much better understanding of this ferry operation than we are given credit for. We would back this project if it was well planned, but its not, this submission has identified many of the short comings in this plan and strongly recommend that the MDC do not use our rates to fund a project that is that poorly planned, it is doomed to failure. The inevitable plan changes, the cost overruns and budget blowouts would subject rate payers to too much risk, this is not the function of a regulatory body like a Borough Council. We believe the Council should adopt option 2: risk should be shouldered by the Port Company, and if the risk is too great for them, let the Govt bank roll the whole project . At a recent public Guardians meeting that was attended by council, a feller got up and said , all this talk is about Kiwi Rail, you are forgetting about Blue Bridge, he was right , they are the so called Elephant in the room. They have just been purchased by a foreign multinational, If this corporation has deep pockets and a desire to wrest control of the Cook Strait shipping service by building 2 big ships , how would this impact on Kiwi Rails plans ? Don’t lose sight of the fact that the only reason that Blue Bridge exists is because of the inefficiency and poor management of Kiwi Rail and their predecessor’s. Is there enough freight for two well equipped shipping companies or is one of them doomed to failure. Remember that whoever controls the Cook Strait ferry operation is the key player in NZ’s transport network. Do we want this to be controlled by a foreign owed corporation, both Wisconston Rail and Toll proved to us that this is a mistake. The other issue that councillors need to take into consideration is what impact will the future development of coastal shipping have on the interisland trade ? I suspect that in the future we will see the coastal shipping trading directly from Auckland – Lyttelton, Auck- Dunedin, Wgtn – Lyttelton, Wgtn- Dunedin, Wgtn – Nelson directly. Planning for this is already underway and will definitely have an impact on the Cook Strait operation, Kiwi Rail have said they will commit to a 30 yr tenure using the Picton terminal, is that a written contract ? in the past the Interisland company proved by pushing the development of Clifford bay that they have no loyalty to our town .I would want to see that commitment in contract form. We believe that the MDC Risk Management is flawed, so much so that Guardians Of the Sounds produced their own and submitted it to the Harbour Master and the MSA, Kiwi rail should of long before now come up with a Safety Case to outline what their responses and responsibilities would be if one of their ships especially the proposed Mega ferries was wrecked in Tory channel entrance. Why have council not insisted on this. If this proposal goes ahead in current form and all the Picton and Sounds community warnings have not been heeded, then in the court case that would inevitably ensue, the MDC would be liable for damages, Could the MDC survive a legal challenge of this magnitude ? This reminds me of an issue raised by the shipping companies back during the fast ferry campaign when the shipping companies threatened to sue the councillors individually ! Remember also that when the Mikial Lemintov sunk the Russians looked to sue the Marlb Harbour board ! The MDC need to think long and hard about allowing Kiwi Rail the right to transit Tory channel after all the warnings you have had about the safety risks involved. If one of these ferries sinks in the channel, ( within Harbour Limits, ) the environmental cleanup would be epic ! ( who Pays ! ) and if there is loss of life , lawyers would be very unforgiving. I propose that the MDC decline to finance this proposal and suggest that it be funded by central govt so as not to expose the ratepayers of Marlb to financial risk and potential litigation, I also propose that all of our concerns re traffic grid locks and road closures be taken heed of and strongly suggest that to retain a reliable service they need to have 3 ships not 2. That rather than act like a banker and landlord the MDC get the govt to bank roll this disaster and look to its regulatory role and implement a new By Law that bans all shipping from using Kura Te Au , using instead the Northern entrance within the bounds of a shipping lane with all shipping within Harbour limits , limited to 15 kts, no technical wave height / wave energy just a straight 15 kts that we all know is acceptable for both navigational safety and the environment. We support option 2 . that Govt fund the entire project.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YAP

Submission to agree in part as per Picton Ferry Redevelopment Financing It is appropriate that the ratepayers invest in this development providing there are conditions that protect both the financial investment and the community interests and concerns. With regard to the investment I do not believe it is appropriate to have the Ferry terminal building owned by any company other than Port Marlborough as it belongs to the ratepayers. There are two reasons for this :- The use and building size could be expected to give concern to the views of the surrounding community as per use etc. If in the future KiwiRail become more commercialised or indeed sold off either in NZ or overseas then at least the Ferry Terminal would remain the property of Marlborough ratepayers and be used for community rather than private good. The second reason for wanting the ratepayers investment to have "weight" is so that the concerns of the local community and the many holiday homeowners who are also ratepayers are given weight. Consultation by Port Marlborough and KiwiRail has been considerable but we do need a legal understanding that the matters of major concern arising from these consultations are given weight in the future. There appear to be six major issues of concern to the effected community namely: - 1. Increased road traffic and the effect on the local township. 2. Safety issues with regard to local schools and kindergarten plus full commitment to the Dublin St overbridge prior to the operation of the first larger ferry. 3. Environmental Issues as per native tree planting. Monitoring and control of adverse effects on sea birds, marine mammals etc. 4. Concerns with respecting and maintaining the close to shore social sea activities on all occasions. These include the yacht and rowing lessons and races particularly for the younger generations. 5. Establishing in conjunction with the Harbour Master and others with long-term knowledge of the entrance to the Sound an appropriate Navigational Safety Plan which should include a recommended navigation route. 6. Ensuring that now and for the term of life of these vessels monitoring effects via the wake and other issues are undertaken. The monitoring oversight must include local community volunteers. I hope that Council will give consideration to the above thus ensuring that the concerns of the community and the intrinsic value of the Sound is upheld.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. N

I firmly object to the council being involved in arranging a huge loan for Port Marlborough. If there was no risk, I don't see why the council needs to be involved. There has to be a cost and risk involved for ratepayers. The council is quick to dis-associate itself from Ports Marlborough when it suits. Exorbitant boat launching fees and it's failure to be involved in the treatment of the Picton aquarium come to mind. Let them arrange their own loan. I view this as outside the remit of the council

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YAP

Funds are needed but the assumption that they must be debt funded must be examined. The following is text from the attachment... Submission to Marlborough District Council on Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment Financing - February 2022 From: Top-of-South Region, Social Credit NZ (www.socialcredit.nz) "Private enterprise does best when there is good public infrastructure." 1. Alan Blinder, U.S. Economist Firstly we must congratulate Council for securing a long-term arrangement with KiwiRail so as to ensure continued usage of Port Marlborough. The benefits to this region's economy are obvious, even though there is still a valid case for a service direct to Lyttelton - something for future consideration. We support the aim of future-proofing Port Marlborough's infrastructure, especially as geo-political developments are likely to require more coastal shipping as we come to depend more on self-sufficiency. Therefore it is vital that the port be entirely locally owned - no shares being sold to private entities. What concerns Social Credit and a growing number of academics in overseas universities is the assumption that funds for public good projects must be sourced privately. There is more than ample proof that central banks have the powers to arrange nil-interest credit-lines and loans. Back in the 1930s our newly nationalised Reserve Bank funded the building of state houses, bridges and roads at an average interest rate of 1%. More recently a $5 billion credit facility was afforded the systemic banks to ease them through the 2007-2009 credit crisis - and it is no secret that over $63 billion has been pumped into bank reserves in order to encourage more lending during the current Covid pandemic. The proposal to borrow the sum of $110 million per the Local Government Funding Agency is understandable, considering the interest rate would be slightly lower than if borrowed elsewhere. And it is sensible to borrow from one agency - as Council maintains. For this reason it would be even more sensible to obtain a credit-line from our RBNZ with no interest. The savings would benefit Council's ratepayers far more than the small dividend envisaged. A decent dividend implies maximising freight and passenger charges which would flow onto costs for producers and consumers alike in our region. We recognise that legislation currently requires councils to borrow mainly through the LGFA, but we recommend that the RBNZ be approached for the sum required. In no way can Council be penalised for taking such a logical and ethical initiative. Finally we thank Council for this opportunity to share our policies and would like to speak at any proposed hearings. Written for Top-of-the South Region, SCNZ by Heather Smith, B.A., Dip.Soc.Sci.(Econ) Authorised by Jack Collin, Regional President and member of SCNZ Executive

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YAP

During your presentation the MDC provided a variety of sectors to speak about the impact of the new ferries on Picton and beyond. I am very concerned about the traffic situation at Picton and travelling towards Blenheim. With a fatality this week on this road it is obvious changes need to be made.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YAP

I only agree in part to the proposed loan at the present time as there is limited published information in respect to risks associated with the loan. The MDC consultation document does not provide sufficient detail in respect to how the financial modelling has been prepared, what sensitivity analysis has been carried out, what peer review/independent assurance has been conducted. The public presentation 17 Jan 2022 only provided a high level overview of the risks, despite the Mayor noting that ‘full, free and frank consultation information has been supplied to inform submissions’. The invitation to seek further information in this regard on MDC website was fruitless, and this information should be readily available with the consultation documentation. It would be helpful if MDC provided a copy of the Business case for the $110m investment. Ignoring existing loans, this new proposed loan of $110m is in excess of 50% of Port Marlboroughs' asset value, and results in a highly geared organisation, and there does not appear to be any further changes to governance/assurance measures to carefully monitor such a large change to the business. It would be very helpful to have a peer review of the projected increases in Port Marlborough projected dividend increases. Other key financial elements of the project have not yet been finalised such as Kiwi rail contributions to the culvert upgrade, where it is noted there is only and agreement in principal to their contribution which represents another significant risk. Further information would be helpful to understand the risks (similar to information on the top 3 risks) and therefore determine whether or not to support the loan proposal fully.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. N

I am opposed to the proposed method of financing the new Ferry Terminal requirements. My reason is that Council have glossed over the risks. I am not opposed to the Development itself and look forward to Council ensuring the wake impacts are less than now. I have heard those promises before for Fast Ferries and look what eventuated. Council has not properly assessed the risks. No mention is made of what happens if KiwiRail defaults or is liquidated within a short time after this loan is taken out and spent by the Port. This is not necessarily a remote possibility. If the Crown restructured KiwiRail and created a new operating entity Port Marlborough’s contract will be worthless and there is then no security for payment to Port Marlborough who in turn will default on the loan from Council KiwiRail’s Bankers will rank ahead of Port Marlborough. The Crown can easily force access to the Port for the new entity. What investigation has been made on the funding of the boats themselves? As I read it none. Why would the Crown do the above? Someone in Treasury or elsewhere may decide KiwiRail’s operating costs are too high and use this mechanism to cut costs. The Crown refuses to guarantee this KiwiRail contract so any prudent person would look at the Crown’s previous conduct in these situations. One only has to look at the Crown’s behaviour with Solid Energy. The Crown refused to honour its debts so Banks took a large haircut. The Crown has therefore done what I suggest before so won’t feel any guilt over doing it again and making the ratepayers of Marlborough fund the “haircut”. This will impact on Rates. Many of the Banks who took a haircut with Solid Energy announced at the time they would never trust lending to a Crown entity again and yet Council ignores that lesson. So the soft lender becomes the Council and therefore the Ratepayers. There is a better option and that is to refuse to fund without a Crown Guarantee. It is mentioned that if this isn’t funded the Crown might force a takeover. That is speculation and unlikely in my view. In any event Council should not “punt” with borrowed money that could impact on ratepayers.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YA

We presume that the Council CEO and Councillors have engaged staff who are better qualified in accounting and financing fields than us to assess all the pros and cons of this 'deal' and we wish to support the improvement of the port facilities at the most reasonable cost and returns for ratepayers.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YA

The aging infrastructure needs upgrading in Picton

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YA

This project is important for Picton, important for Marlborough and important for New Zealand

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YA

With ceiling of borrowing at $110M and lease agreement it would be irresponsible not to proceed with loan in Council name and onlending to Port Marlborough

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YA

Firstly, the whole project is great for both Marlborough and also NZ. Drilling down into the detail provided at the presentation in Picton on 19/1/22, on the basis of what has been disclosed (I recognise there are commercial sensitivities at play) its is clear PMNZ has worked hard to create a commercial deal that is not only very good to PMNZ (and thus by extension MDC) but also many (maybe all possible?) opportunities to mitigate potential risks have also been addressed. And thirdly...while the scale of this project is large, clearly the age/condition of both existing facilities (rail yard/wharves/terminal) necessitates some strategic and longer term thinking to develop a solution that will take us through for another 60+ years.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YA

Agree that it is in the best interests of the Marlborough community to invest in the port infrastructure at Picton, so that it is able to accommodate larger and more environmentally friendly ferries. It therefore seems sensible for the MDC to obtain the funding for this development, which lowers the group's external interest cost, and on-lend these funds to Port Marlborough. The benefits of this investment will be received over time, both through revenue from KiwiRail and also through non-financial benefits, including cleaner air and improved infrastructure.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YAP

I do not see any benefits for Blenheim. I am extremely concerned at the inadequate roads south from Picton and also we need a bypass for heavy freight.(and trains) How will longer trains effect the intersection flow which is so compromised now . ? I wish to see these issues craised Road repairs are inadequate and permanently ongoing instead of being done properly the first time.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. N

I Michael Jacomb are the Board Chairman of the New Nation Party, NNParty. I wish to put the Ports of Marlborough on “ firm notice not to borrow this $110m nor any similar amount “. The reason being with the likely hood of NNParty being part of the next 2024 Parliament. We will strongly be advocating 80% of all trucks and goods are sent direct from Wellington, via ferry to the Port of Lyttelton. It’s more than likely under these new legislated guidelines only 50% of Cook Strait ferries will becoming to Picton. Please advise you have received to notice and warning via return email.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YAP

The council fully owns the Port so any risk ultimately affects the council anyway therefor I strongly support any structure that retains that ownership while reducing the financing cost of the upgrades. Council has a greater ability to easily raise the money and at lower interest rates. However the reason that I ticked partial support is that I would like to see the opportunity for some of that money to be raised locally through an infrastructure bond available only to NZ citizens.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YA

It makes good financial sense for the region and the economic pay back will far exceed the initial loan

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YA

No cost to ratepayers, and increases our dividends. The programme has been largely de-risked, with payback on the loan over 30 years. This is a no-brainer.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YA

Agree this is the best option to secure the funding and cement a long term working relationship with Kiwi Rail.

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. N

Our rates are very high already this will raise them even more. Our roads need more repair Water infrastructure needs repair More places for the children are needed. The community needs should be above the business

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YA

Picton needs it!

Do you support Council raising debt for Port Marlborough’s share of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment?
If you do not support the preferred option or only partially support it, please specify which aspects of the proposed investment you do not support. YA

The development is going ahead anyway at this point. The project will provide great local stimulus to Picton and Marlborough from construction and through the long term operation of the new wharf. MDC 100% owns PMNZ and can access much cheaper interest rate financing so they should get the loan.