New marina charges upset boaties

Press, 29 July 1978, Page 23

New marina charges upset boaties

Nelson reporter Boa t-owners renting sheds and marina berth at Picton and Havelock have protested strongly o the Marlborough Harbo*r Board against the high rent rises recently. The board ra=ed shed charges 90 per <?nt, and berth rentals 200 per cent.

The new charges will lift berth fees to an average of $284 a year (from an average $95) anl boat shed fees to an aveage of $334 (from a sl7* average). The cheapet boat shed will be $236 a year, and the dearest $520. The cheapest berth will be $l2-x (from $4l) and the dearest $557.

From this, tie board will recover $,2,693 annually from berths, $38,477 from sheds and about $5OOO ii launching ramp fees — a total of $86,170, compared with the estimated income for 1977-78 of $33,982 The board has had to accept the responsibility for the increases, but statistics of income derived from the marina at Picton over the years shows the board is being iccused of the sins (of onission) of previous boards The responsibility for the increases should rest with previous boards who failed to raise rentals to a level where m adequate return should have result- 1 ed from the capital invested. The rresent board is now trying to balance the budget. Nobody around the board offices wants to point the fnger at pre-< vious boards, but the figures speak for themselves.

The treasurer (Mr R. A. Tonkin) hat some difficulty finding returns from rentals in the early days of the Picton marina (1969-70). but he thought they weft the same as those for the 1973-74 year. From 19*9-70 to 1975-76 the incone, against total spending, showed healthy balances, (except for one year. But in 1969-70, for

example, with a marina capital cost then of $424,713, the board estimated that the annual return required to repay capital over 30 years and the interest (then at the highest rate of 6 per cent), would have been $30,854. Income was only $10,679 from the facilities and spending $7898, leaving the board with $28,073 deficiency.

So it went on through the years with the deficiencies growing steadily. The harbour board tried to overcome them two years ago by raising rentals 50 per cent and by another 10 per cent last year. But these were stop-gap measures.

Board officiers have said that it is difficult to negotiate new general wharf charges — particularly with the Railways Department, from which the main income is derived — when it appears as if higher general charges are necessary to prop up deficiencies at the marinas.

In a circular letter sent to all the berth and shed holders, the board said it had to take into consideration capital costs of developing the marina. At September last year, the capital cost of developing the Picton marina was about $523,000. The construction costs had been financed from revenue which had not been gained from boating sources, the letter said. Since the Picton marina was built, the board had raised several loans for other work totalling S3M at interest rates ranging from 6 per cent to 10.5 per cent. Had the marina development not proceeded, interest charges and other costs of about $326,000 would have been saved, the letter said.

The increased charges were aimed at recovering intere/t on capital, to defray charges arising from interest on other capital spending and marina administrative and running expenses.

Some of these, board officers have said, are hidden charges, such as the security patrols that spend part of their, time patrolling the marinas, a fulltime custodian, power charges, rubbish disposal, and fresh water for boat washing. To keep boat interiors dry, some shed users left electric heaters on continually and the board had been footing the bill at industrial power rates. This, too will be changed. The boat owners were far from satisfied with the figures produced as the basis for the new charges, and a deputation representing five boating clubs recently waited on the board’s finance committee. It made submissions and ended these with 10 points on which it based its argument that higher rentals might be justified, but not at the level the board charged.

In reporting to the board, the chairman of the finances committee (Mr B. J. Dalliessi) said the deputation made several points which the committee should look into. Two points he mentioned were submissions that the capital costs had been overstated and that no effort had been made to apportion this among marina tenants, day users and the public; and that the board would have to provide cheap berthing for those unable to afford the higher charges. He was supported by another committee member, Mr G. S. Fuller. The board resolved that the finances committee should consider the points raised, review the figures where necessary and present an answer to the next board meeting. The board has written to 400 existing or prospective users of the marina. Of these, 160 on the waiting list had replied that they still wished to remain on the list. Few replies had been received from existing users that they wished to vacate the berths or sheds because of the new charges.