Harbor and boatyard rate hike gets first hearing

After many months of preparation, higher rates for Wrangell's harbor and boatyard users passed a penultimate hurdle on Tuesday.

The City and Borough Assembly approved on first reading Ordinance 917, amending the fee schedule for Wrangell's Harbor Department. The proposal will return to the Assembly for its second and final reading on June 14.

Approved by the Port Commission at its May 5 meeting, the increases being put forward would institute a 10-percent increase to outside and inside dock face moorage, storage, port development fees and most boatyard rates. These would also incorporate a built-in mechanism to account for inflation, set at two percent per year.

Transient moorage rates have been rescheduled, shifting from flat per-foot rates to a sliding scale based around 0-30, 31-55, 56-100 and 101-up feet ranges, with the per-foot rate increasing as the vessel gets larger. Reserved moorage rates have also been restructured, based around three ranges of 0-30, 31-55 and 56-plus feet.

Comparatively speaking, the rates bring Wrangell more in line with the rates other neighboring communities charge for services. Categorically, its annual mooring rates are lower than Petersburg's by around 20 percent. Transient rates and others shifted to the sliding scale tend to run about average with other communities for smaller and medium sized boats.

Larger boats will have to pay more, which harbormaster Greg Meissner explained made sense when one considered the floats and facilities needed to accommodate them cost more to maintain.

During the public hearing portion before and during the meeting, Wrangell residents were given the opportunity to speak their mind on the rate increases. Unlike previous hearings at the Port Commission meetings, no one taking the lectern expressed disapproval of the idea.

“I'm not technically a resident of Wrangell but I'm here most of the time, and I pay taxes,” prefaced Bill Goodale, owner of the Stikine Inn and a harbor user. He felt it would be important for the city not to sacrifice services for low taxes and user fees, framing it as a false choice. While he had a number of suggestions for where additional revenue could come from (see story on budget), he expressed support for the Port Commission's decision to raise harbor rates.

“In order to keep our harbors up we're going to need to have more money,” he said. Goodale brought up the state of Shoemaker Bay Harbor, describing it as a mess. Currently the $10.7 million replacement of its facilities is on hold, unless matching grants of close to half can be obtained.

Port commissioner Walter Moorhead also came forward to speak in favor of the rate increase proposal.

“The Port Commission was very deliberate in this,” he commented. Moorhead said he and fellow commissioners had approached the idea hoping an increase would not be needed. After more than a year of exploring the department's budget and future maintenance needs, they had determined the current rate structure was insufficient.

“All of us are voters, all of us are boaters, all of us wanted to come to that conclusion,” he said. “Even with the increases we're still very competitive.”

Some wondered if the increases would be sufficient.

“I'm worried that this isn't enough to cover what you're having to do,” Assembly member Stephen Prysunka told Meissner. Insurance costs for the department's staff of six are likewise going to increase by 38 percent, other rises in salaries notwithstanding.

The harbormaster admitted the increase mainly would go toward covering much of the costs for future float replacement.

“We haven't really tackled (Operations and Maintenance),” Meissner said. “We're really operating on pennies still.”

Citing the Shoemaker project as a prime example of what happens when projects are not forward-funded, Prysunka expressed concern that improperly deferred costs could pose liability problems for the city in future years.

Borough manager Jeff Jabusch pointed out the community's resistance to fee increases was a longstanding one, and suggested Wrangell's small contributions to maintaining the harbors when they were state-managed may have contributed to their being transferred to localities nearly a decade ago.

“We were probably one of the driving forces behind the state turning these over because we weren't pulling our weight,” he said.

Even after taking over management, most of Wrangell's harbor fees had remained unchanged for the past eight years.