Electrical Surcharge in Marinas

[ADMPRTR]

Originally Posted by xymotic

This is the applicable law:

California Code - Chapter 2.7: Floating Home Residency Law [800. - 800.306.]

Is this in relation to floating homes or boats? I didn't read the details but it seems to be related to home built on pontoons and not boats. If that is the case then marinas are incorrectly using the law to keep out live-aboards, it would seem.

I am sure marinas don't like live-aboards. They use more resources (water, electricity) and likely represent an increased risk to the marina (meaning higher insurance rates) due to the greater possibility of injury or accidents (i.e. the greater chance of galley fire as an example).

As noted elsewhere on this site, marina operators like people who pay their annual fees and never use the boat.

[doug86]

Originally Posted by ADMPRTR

But regarding this fee, I would prefer that it be included in the transient fee, which is already high enough, generally. But I guess there are boats that are totally self sufficient who would wonder why they have to pay too when the don't plug in at all.

Exactly. On the rare times that I do stay at a dock when traveling the ICW, if there is a choice, I will decline the offer to use their electricity, and I usually use the savings to spurge on a dinner out.

[denverd0n]

Here in Florida, every marina that I am aware of charges extra for electricity. For transients it is usually a "connection charge" for you to hook up to the electrical service. For liveaboards you are usually charged monthly for your metered usage.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by ADMPRTR

Is this in relation to floating homes or boats? ...

California Health and Safety Code Section 18075.55
“... (d) "Floating home," as used in this section, means a floating structure which is all of the following:
(1) It is designed and built to be used, or is modified to be
used, as a stationary waterborne residential dwelling.
(2) It has no mode of power of its own.
(3) It is dependent for utilities upon a continuous utility
linkage to a source originating on shore.
(4) It has a permanent continuous hookup to a shoreside sewage
system...”

Emphasis mine.

➥ California Health and Safety Code Section 18075.55 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by ADMPRTR

I noticed something that appears to be a new trend (at least for me).

Marinas charging extra for shore power hookup. One marina was $9/night. I am pretty sure I used nothing near that to recharge my batteries so I guess it is to compensate for the people who run their 60AMP air conditioners all day when they aren't on the boat.

Is this a new trend or was it just the marinas I happened to visit?

It has been common in Florida for as long as we've been here (since '92). The problem I have with it is that the flat rate charge often doesn't take into account actual usage. When we're sitting in the Galleon Marina with a 42' sailboat only pulling enough amps to run a battery charger and keep a small FrigoBoat cooling unit in service and we're being charged the same as the adjoining 46' power-boat that's running two 20K BTU air conditioners 24/7 something is a bit off. At one spot we were charged for power even though we didn't hook-up to the power post. The harbor master explained that they charge for the availability of power, not use. Sub-metering would seem appropriate but one harbor master explained that in Florida, they were not allowed to put metering devices on the power-posts.

FWIW...

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by xymotic

This is not true in all cases, notably a few marinas in Sausalito tenants do have rights and CANNOT be evicted without cause, and those causes are codified into law:

(a)The Legislature finds and declares that, because of the high cost of moving floating homes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of floating homes, and current government policy limiting the availability of floating home berths, it is necessary that the owners of floating homes within floating home marinas be provided with the unique protection from actual or constructive eviction afforded by the provisions of this chapter.

(b)The management shall not terminate or refuse to renew a tenancy, except for a reason specified in this article and upon the giving of written notice to the homeowner in the manner prescribed by Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to remove the floating home from the floating home marina within a period of not less than 60 days, which period shall be specified in the notice. A copy of this notice shall be sent to the legal owner, as defined in Section 18005.8 of the Health and Safety Code, each junior lienholder, as defined in Section 18005.3 of the Health and Safety Code, and the registered owner of the floating home, if other than the homeowner, by United States mail within 10 days after notice to the homeowner, addressed to the legal owner, each junior lienholder, and the registered owner at their addresses, as set forth in the registration card specified in Section 18091.5 of the Health and Safety Code.


When you are the victim of a constructive eviction, you learn all kinds of neat things like what is "constructive eviction"

Perhaps I'm in error but I believe the case law with respect to the foregoing citation pertains to "house boats", not yachts.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by svHyLyte

Perhaps I'm in error but I believe the case law with respect to the foregoing citation pertains to "house boats", not yachts.

The citation refers to "Floating Homes", as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 18075.55, as cited in post #19.

You're right, it does NOT refer to Yachts.

[John A]

I agree with Gord that there is a difference in California between a floating home and a person living on a boat.

I left the SFBay in 2000, but there had always been a problem in Richardson Bay and Sausalito, so I Googled it.
Interesting! When you consider the fear of people to go cruising in third world countries, because of safety issues.

This occured last Sept 27.
http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_18989783

[AnchorageGuy]

For the first time, we were told by a marine in south Florida that they charge a monthly $15.00 fee to hook up to electric PLUS metered use. We said "no thanks you" and found another local marina. These situations are unfortunate given the fact that many marinas are sitting with empty slips, as this one was. We were looking for a long term rental and not transient. I just can't for the life of me figure out what these people are thinking. Chuck

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by GordMay

California Health and Safety Code Section 18075.55
“... (d) "Floating home," as used in this section, means a floating structure which is all of the following:
(1) It is designed and built to be used, or is modified to be
used, as a stationary waterborne residential dwelling.
(2) It has no mode of power of its own.
(3) It is dependent for utilities upon a continuous utility
linkage to a source originating on shore.
(4) It has a permanent continuous hookup to a shoreside sewage
system...”

Emphasis mine.

➥ California Health and Safety Code Section 18075.55 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws

This is true, the problem lies in that if a marina has more than 10% liveaboards, then the marina itself becomes subject to this law. And so that and that alone is why marina's in CA are 'limited' to 10%, they are limited because they chose to limit it, not because they are 'forced' to.

There are an enlightened few dockmasters who realize that liveaboards for a community and that the community does things to make the marina's nicer, and in fact more profitable. But they are VERY few.

As a boater, I'd much rather put my boat somewhere where they have 30-40 full time security guards walking the docks 24/7

[doug86]

Originally Posted by ADMPRTR

I am sure marinas don't like live-aboards. They use more resources (water, electricity) and likely represent an increased risk to the marina (meaning higher insurance rates) due to the greater possibility of injury or accidents (i.e. the greater chance of galley fire as an example).

This is a common misconception and it's false. Marinas do like a few liveaboards around. Liveaboard boats rarely sink in their slip. Liveaboards report problems like cords dangling in the water, boats sitting low on their waterline, and are usually the first on scene to a dock fire. I have put a few fires out myself as a liveaboard. Most boat fires I've seen are from an unattended boat that has a 120v heater left on. Galley fires are usually put out by the cook post haste.

What marinas hate are folks who aren't really boaters but find that living on a boat is a cheap alternative to paying shoreside rent. The tend to have flithy, poorly maintained older boats, rusty bikes and potted plants everywhere, and their boat is generally an eye sore. In effect, they turn what was a good boat into a floating home, and the boat never leaves the dock.

[sarafina]

Originally Posted by xymotic

This is not true in all cases, notably a few marinas in Sausalito tenants do have rights and CANNOT be evicted without cause, and those causes are codified into law:

The marinas that you refer to in Sausalito are specific houseboat marinas and do indeed have a different set of regulations than marinas for boats. Those facilities are all liveaboard and were reluctantly grandfathered in under the current let of regulations.

With out exception all marinas in the SF Bay serving the boating community are subject to the 10% law.

Originally Posted by xymotic

This may well be true but if it is it's isolated to the bay area.

SF may indeed have other regulations, however I have a feeling that these agencies are more likely named as the 'boogey man' when a dockmaster wants to deflect. FWIW, I can't find any 10% "law" but I see 10% bandied about by LOTS of people with various positions in 'officialdom'

Perhaps these links will assist you.

SFBCDC - San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
State Water Resources Control Board - San Francisco Bay

As annoying as I find the bcdc they are not boogey men, and harbour masters are understandably nervous about any easily spotted breaches.

For instance I know of a case where the boater keeps two boats at adjoining slips. One is a liveaboard the other is not, but between the two leases the boater has 6 nights at the marina that are legal. Which seems close enough for government work...

It's not always about curmudgeonly harbour masters.

[ADMPRTR]

Originally Posted by GordMay

California Health and Safety Code Section 18075.55
“... (d) "Floating home," as used in this section, means a floating structure which is all of the following:
(1) It is designed and built to be used, or is modified to be
used, as a stationary waterborne residential dwelling.
(2) It has no mode of power of its own.
(3) It is dependent for utilities upon a continuous utility
linkage to a source originating on shore.
(4) It has a permanent continuous hookup to a shoreside sewage
system...”

Emphasis mine.

➥ California Health and Safety Code Section 18075.55 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws

So it is incorrect to apply this rule to boats with live a boards.

[ADMPRTR]

Originally Posted by doug86

This is a common misconception and it's false.

I stand corrected, thanks.

Originally Posted by doug86

What marinas hate are folks who aren't really boaters but find that living on a boat is a cheap alternative to paying shoreside rent. The tend to have flithy, poorly maintained older boats, rusty bikes and potted plants everywhere, and their boat is generally an eye sore. In effect, they turn what was a good boat into a floating home, and the boat never leaves the dock.

That might partially explain why a local marina that accepts live aboards enforces a requirement to have recent survey for all boats that apply to stay at the marina (except transients). This requirement applies to both recreational users and live aboards and is something that I have not seen else where.

I have also heard that their winter hydro rates will make anyone who is thinking of a cheap place to live to look elsewhere.

[Don1500]

Originally Posted by ADMPRTR

So it is incorrect to apply this rule to boats with live a boards.

+1 The rules should NOT apply to a boat capable of navigation. We are extended cruisers, not living aboard a floating home.