Work to develop a marine precinct at Sulphur Point is gaining momentum with the appointment of a project manager and a temporary office established at the site.
The Tauranga Marine Precinct project involves construction of a purpose-built marine servicing facility and related infrastructure on the 3.56 hectare site, formerly the Baigents site on Mirrielees Rd.
Tauranga's Deputy Mayor Kelvin Clout, in front of the site expected to become the focus for Tauranga's commercial marine industries.
Tauranga City Council property manager Anthony Averill has been appointed project manager and says should the $10 million project obtain approval in TCC's 2014/2015 annual plan, the first tenders called will be for the sea wall, hard stand and the travel lift facilities.
Currently, the total development allows for about 17 lots in ranging sizes, with stage one of construction planned to commence in the 2014/15 financial year.
That would involve laying the hard stand round the 100 tonne slip, which will be converted into the dock for a minimum 200 tonne vessel hoist.
The project is expected to create 195 jobs, generate $15.12 million in added value to the regional economy each year, and make $46.95 million revenue per year in the economy.
The site is currently zoned as Port Industry and is owned by Tauranga City Council.
Earlier proposals from the Tauranga Marine Industry Association failed to go ahead because of tenure issues on council-owned land.
A new approach is possible following Bay of Plenty Regional Council assigning $5 million towards the project from its infrastructure development fund.
TCC's contribution of $5m is expected to be raised in part through sale of nearby land.
At TCC's annual plan hearing this week, TMIA chairman Robert McAllister expressed his support, saying the profit figures are not over-optimistic.
'We have very good basis for our estimates. Fifteen years of a thriving marine industry at the 600 tonne slip and 100 tonne slip.”
The 600 tonne slip was removed in 2007, to allow construction of the second harbour bridge.
The commercial-sized travel lift is expected bring back many commercial boats that have had to go elsewhere for inspection, refurbishment and repair since 2007.
'Over recent years we have seen the degradation of these marine assets to the point where service options for many vessels are no longer available in Tauranga,” says Robert.
'Many boats which were being serviced here are now are still working in the area, but are forced to travel to Whangarei and Nelson to access suitable slipway facilities.
'Marine-focussed businesses have also suffered, due to the lack of facilities, with many businesses closed and others unlikely to continue as their owners retire.”
The development will also include a commercial marina development between the current jetty and Cross Rd, to cater for workboats and the fishing fleet.



8 comments
Annual Plan consultion a rort?
Posted on 10-05-2014 10:01 | By Murray.Guy
Clearly Council have predetermined their decision on the use of ratepayer funds (Over $5-million) and assets by establishing an office and appointing a project manager. Why the 'smoke and mirrors', wasting the time of the many who have made submissions in good faith not shared by elected members? Most appear to support a Marine Precinct but not one as proposed that impacts so hugely on ratepayers. Conveniently NO mention of any business case, the fact that the last boat lift facility went bankrupt owing ratepayers many $thousands, that an on-going ratepayer subsidy will likely be required! No mention that the actual marine industry would prefer to invest in and manage their own future!
Talk about predetermination Mr Guy?
Posted on 10-05-2014 11:56 | By Councillorwatch
I too share concerns about this Marine Precinct. I'm worried it will become a ratepayer subsidised "business". But as for predetermination, did former Cr Guy ever show "predetermination"? Do a google search on previous annual plan processes and judge for yourselves. Also remember the confidential $$$ that went into buying a Speedway business. And as for $5million wasn't that about the amount ex Cr Guy's council "loaned" to Baypark? Give the new councillors a chance. At least they don't seem to have mindsets as yet.
Councillorwatch continues the spin,
Posted on 10-05-2014 13:42 | By Murray.Guy
I DID NOT support the acquisition of Baypark by the City Council. I voted against the speedway club relinquishing the lease! Once purchased it became evident the purchase agreement was seriously deficient putting at risk the $42,000,000 investment in the new Arena. The Council had NO option but to purchase the 'speedway business' to secure control of the total site. NO LOAN was made to Baypark of $5million. Baypark took over the debts of the ratepayer. Please get some help if these comments confuse you as they clearly have in the past or find yourself an dart board. The speedway business should NOW be sold, and an agreement in place that doesn't put ASB Baypark at risk!
again
Posted on 10-05-2014 17:31 | By Capt_Kaveman
you lot voted them in
Please answer these specific questions ex Cr Guy
Posted on 10-05-2014 18:01 | By Councillorwatch
Because your comments may not tell the whole story. As a councillor, did you vote for or against Council purchasing the Speedway business from the promoter? To vote against the club relinquishing the lease is quite separate - does that mean you were a member of the club? News report of 27 January 2012 says that Council agreed the day before to a $5 million injection of capital into the company that ran Baypark. Did you vote for or against that? It would be good to get answers so we can determine what is spin? I want to compare the use of ratepayers funds that you now complain about, to the use of them in regards to Baypark and how you actually voted.
Councillorwatch
Posted on 10-05-2014 21:27 | By Murray.Guy
Councillorwatch, this is not the place to pursue your personal issues. You continually seek to corrupt a story in pursuit of your anonymous misguided and misinformed mission to discredit me. You remind me of a former Councillor who also struggled to think rationally and responsibly at times. You are welcome to email or phone. Please try not to be offended when I ignore any further abuse of these on-line opportunities.
Murray Guy
Posted on 11-05-2014 11:33 | By Councillorwatch
Since when is answering a question or two that may be inconvenient, abuse? When someone accuses a group of predetermination, what's wrong with questioning if the accuser shows predetermination? What's wrong with asking whether you voted for or against a $5 million "injection" to Baypark? What's wrong with asking whether you voted for or against the purchase of a Speedway and even catering business? You should answer these questions publically so the public can compare with your statements about the current council. Can the minutes of meetings be search at the library?
Councillorwatch
Posted on 11-05-2014 13:17 | By FunandGames
Having read both yours and Murry Guys posts it appears to me that your questions in your last post were answered even before you asked them. You do not help your credibility here.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.