Petersburg may impose new fees on inactive and inoperable boats

The Petersburg borough assembly is considering an ordinance that would impose requirements — including storage fees, a marine condition survey and proof of insurance — on vessels that don’t leave their moorage stall in the harbor for 12 consecutive months.

The ordinance aims to discourage using stalls for vessel storage, especially for boats that may be inoperable.

An inactive or inoperable boat may deteriorate as its condition worsens; removing derelict vessels is expensive and historically burdensome for the borough, officials said.

The ordinance will be scheduled for a public hearing before the assembly.

The Wrangell Port Commission and borough assembly considered a similar ordinance earlier this year but dropped the idea over concerns about costs to boat owners, enforceability and how to set insurance requirements.

Under the proposed Petersburg ordinance, a vessel that does not, by its own power, leave its moorage stall and the harbor for more than a day within a year is deemed “inactive.”

According to the borough, there are more than 100 vessels on the waitlist for permanent moorage space in Petersburg’s harbors, and inactive vessels using moorage spaces add to the backlog.

Under the ordinance, inactive vessels would be subject to a storage charge in addition to its moorage rate.

If inactive for two years, vessel owners would need to provide a marine condition survey to the borough. Any safety threats identified by the survey would need to be remedied, otherwise the vessel would be declared derelict.

For vessels that remain inactive for three years after they are initially deemed inactive, the owner would be required to provide proof of insurance to the borough, otherwise the vessel would be considered derelict.

“Under this ordinance ... it takes three years to actually determine whether a vessel is derelict or not, or whether it needs to be moved,” Assembly Member Bob Lynn remarked. “If a vessel hasn’t been moved in one year, it seems to me that at that point we need to have some kind of proof of insurance on that boat.”

Noting the high cost to the borough for removing derelict vessels, Lynn expressed interest in moving up some of the third-year requirements to after the first year of inactivity.

 

Reader Comments(0)

 
 
Rendered 12/08/2024 11:22