Heads Up for Those with Boats in Washington State

Is that just a mole on GW's butt or something that should be checked?
Click to expand...

It's funny because this has a lot of boaters from both Oregon and Washington on the Columbia River worried. GW: Your name is NOT Calvin Klein, You are NOT a playgirl model. Have some respect and pull your pants up!!:grin:
Click to expand...

Geesh guys, I've been gone all weekend doing some serious examination of GW on our boat and this thread has turned into one of the biggest pi$$ing matches on CSR since Wayne left.

Tom's right. My name is not Calvin Klein, it's Tommy Hilfiger and so states on the waistband of my thong undies which happened to be lying next to the pool. Sorry Tom, I didn't know you'd be looking or I'd have covered up the name.....but not me! And after the weekend of close examination of GW I'm pleased to report that she's fine. No, actually she's HOT! YEAH BABY, YOU GO GIRL!!!
 
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Jefferson...

MM
 
Gofirstclass said:
Tom's right. My name is not Calvin Klein, it's Tommy Hilfiger and so states on the waistband of my thong undies which happened to be lying next to the pool. Sorry Tom, I didn't know you'd be looking or I'd have covered up the name.....but not me! And after the weekend of close examination of GW I'm pleased to report that she's fine. No, actually she's HOT! YEAH BABY, YOU GO GIRL!!!
Click to expand...

Thanks Buddy! Just wanted to make sure!:grin:
 
Back on track here. While I don't like the tax situation in Washington, I think it is pretty bad that the State has now made the marina owners and Yacht Club Commodores the state enforcement arm for Dep't of Revenue. That part really sucks...
 
I suspect you're going to see a major pushback from the marinas and ports because this is an unfunded mandate.
 
Gofirstclass said:
I suspect you're going to see a major pushback from the marinas and ports because this is an unfunded mandate.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every law or regulation that requires anyone to do anything without also granting compensation falls under this category, by the loosest definition of "unfunded mandate".

I don't know about marinas in WA, but around here, the list of required information is also required on every slip agreement I've ever seen, and most of it was collected for transient (1 or 2 night) stays as well. Is it the general practice to just exchange some cash with a handshake in your neck of the woods? Also, this law requires the information to be collected with a new or renewing long term agreement. It's a form change, period. Can you explain how this places a special burden on marinas and ports?

I understand people not liking the law. There's always someone who doesn't like any law you can name. But a lot of the reasons, beyond the basic battle cry of "Liberty, Yo!", don't seem to be well supported by actual logic from my point of view. If your reason for not liking it is "Liberty, Yo!", that's great. But if you are going to step beyond that and actually say "this law is harmful for reasons", and I have asked before, what are the specific real harms that outweigh the good it can do (i.e. help track down derelict boat owners and hold them accountable)?

And I have already granted that yes, someone somewhere might lose their boat because they technically abandoned it without intending to. That is a real, potential harm. I suspect it will be very rare, and it can already happen anyway (see earlier discussion about asset seizure for collection of debt, old and settled law, which this law actually clarifies). Beyond that, I haven't seen anything solid.
 
For those in Washington who are members of RBAW (Recreational Boating Association of Washington) will be holding a special meeting to deal with this issue. The meeting will be Friday, July 18 from 2-3:30 PM at the Seattle Yacht Club. If you want the information, send me a PM with your email address.
 
Here is the email I sent to RBAW this morning. I plan to attend via conferance call. If you want to attend, PM me and I will send you the info.

Email:

Thank you Steve. I will plan to attend via conference call and will contact Barb. I did get your voice mail and apologize for not getting back to you as I have been extremely busy.

Just to be clear, I am not the commodore of the Longview Yacht Club. I have forwarded you email (and CC here) to Ken McAlister, who is the Commodore.

My personal position on this issue is that the State is now requiring yacht clubs, marinas and others, such as an owner of a private dock to report all boats at their docks. The State is wanting neighbor to report neighbor. It seems a little like Nazism of WWII. I f I own a dock (private) and have a friend bring his boat up this fall for fishing on the river, the State requires me to report my friend if his boat is at my dock longer than 30-days. This is a ridiculous requirement and a violation of personal rights. I feel RBAW should have been on the top of this from day one, not after the fact.

Again, thank you for yours and the boards consideration.

Thomas Teseniar

A "Veteran" whether active duty, discharged, retired, or reserve, is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check payable to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to, and including his/her life." That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country today, who no longer understand that fact.
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you did not do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover" - Mark Twain
 
Thought I would complete this thread.

Well the meeting happened this past Friday. The meeting was specifically about section 501 of the law. This is the reporting part.

The board of Directors for RBAW invited the Washington State Department of Revenue and Department of Compliance. Most everyone that had attended by phone was against section 501 and had nothing to do with derelict vessels. In fact there were marina owners that were just plain angry.

The state folks acknowledged that this was a move to get money into the general fund by requiring marina owners and yacht clubs to create records and placing enforcement on their shoulders. They had a "don't care attitude."

One of the board members stated that from what he could tell most to all of the members that have attended the meeting were against section 501. Another board member stated there were plenty of folks for section 501 such as the Seattle Yacht Club, City of Seattle etc. However he was set straight by the first board member by stating this folks were not due paying members of RBAW. (I am).

A motion was made to neither support 501 nor opposed it. A vote was held and it was 14 in support and 1 vote against. So no action. King County (Seattle) rules again and those like us along the Columbia River are irrelevant and RBAW takes the easy way out. Many of us along the river are now considering if we want to support such an organization.
 
AKBassKing, can you help me understand why 501 has created such a strong reaction? I just re-read the section, and while I don't expect people to love it, I don't see a huge burden being placed upon the marina owners. As far as I can tell all that is really required is a (possible) change to the information collected on the slip/mooring agreement form, and that the forms be held for 2 years and made available to the authorities if necessary. It doesn't even require the marina owner to keep the info up to date within the term of the agreement, so I just can't see this being a big burden. Isn't executing a slip/mooring agreement and keeping those business records already a normal part of doing business?

And to head off any "Freedom, Yo!" argument, I understand that perspective, but if you are already in the business of renting out slips/moorings, you are already executing agreements and (hopefully) following acceptable business practices. I really am at a loss to understand why this is being presented as a massive burden on the marinas, when it just doesn't appear to be one. If it's more than "Freedom, Yo!", I honestly would like to understand it.
 
src said:
AKBassKing, can you help me understand why 501 has created such a strong reaction? I just re-read the section, and while I don't expect people to love it, I don't see a huge burden being placed upon the marina owners. As far as I can tell all that is really required is a (possible) change to the information collected on the slip/mooring agreement form, and that the forms be held for 2 years and made available to the authorities if necessary. It doesn't even require the marina owner to keep the info up to date within the term of the agreement, so I just can't see this being a big burden. Isn't executing a slip/mooring agreement and keeping those business records already a normal part of doing business?

And to head off any "Freedom, Yo!" argument, I understand that perspective, but if you are already in the business of renting out slips/moorings, you are already executing agreements and (hopefully) following acceptable business practices. I really am at a loss to understand why this is being presented as a massive burden on the marinas, when it just doesn't appear to be one. If it's more than "Freedom, Yo!", I honestly would like to understand it.
Click to expand...

Good points. It about enforcement (not the money). In the past it was up to the Dep't of Revenue and the state to perform enforcement and the State pay employees to perform this task. Now it is the Yacht club Commodores, dock owners and even private dock owners who are now in the enforcement realm. For instance if I have a friend bring his boat to my dock and he stays for 31-days, I am required to gather all this information, some of which is privacy act information. Some of the Yacht Clubs in the area have been here since the 20's and 30's and now the club is required to collect all this information. Most are volunteers and will quit before they do this kind of job. Some see it as ratting out their friends. If the State wants to enforce their tax and registration laws then state employees need to perform this task not regular citizens.
 
AKBASSKING said:
Good points. It about enforcement (not the money). In the past it was up to the Dep't of Revenue and the state to perform enforcement and the State pay employees to perform this task. Now it is the Yacht club Commodores, dock owners and even private dock owners who are now in the enforcement realm. For instance if I have a friend bring his boat to my dock and he stays for 31-days, I am required to gather all this information, some of which is privacy act information. Some of the Yacht Clubs in the area have been here since the 20's and 30's and now the club is required to collect all this information. Most are volunteers and will quit before they do this kind of job. Some see it as ratting out their friends. If the State wants to enforce their tax and registration laws then state employees need to perform this task not regular citizens.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that makes more sense now. As I read it, I thought it was aimed at commercial enterprises which already execute slip/mooring agreements, but I can see how it could be applied to anyone who allows someone else to moor a boat on their property. I understand now that some people who don't currently execute those agreements will be responsible for collecting the information.

Not sure I follow the "rat out their friends" argument fully since the information isn't automatically given to the state, but only provided upon the state's request, and frankly one would think they could already do that (make the request). The real difference being that before this change the property owner could say "I don't know" to some of the questions, and now they would have to have the info.

I appreciate the help in understanding the situation.
 
Meeting Minutes:


RECREATIONAL BOATING ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON

The Voice of Northwest Boating

Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors

Thursday, 18 July 2014

Commodore Room, Seattle Yacht Club

The 18 July 2014 Special Meeting of the Recreational Boating Association of Washington Board of Directors was convened at 1403 by Steve Greaves, President, followed by an explanation of the purpose of the meeting and a review of the proxies returned to the Secretary. A quorum was present. Bob Ranzenbach and Barbara Erickson were acknowledged for their efforts in setting up the meeting. Self-introductions of attendees and a thank you from Steve to all who were present was given. The following Officers, Directors, Delegates and guests were present or on the conference call. Onsite:

Steve Greaves President RBAW
Bob Ranzenbach 1st Vice President Seattle YC
Paul Thorpe 2nd Vice President Gig Harbor YC
Barbara Erickson Secretary RBAW
Loyd Walker Treasurer Port Orchard YC
Bill Field Director RBAW/Queen City YC
Bernie Hedeen Director RBAW
Doug Levy Lobbyist
Cal Coie Delegate Clover Island YC
Mary Coie Member Clover Island YC
Stan Harris Department of Revenue (DOR)
Beau Perschbacher Department of Revenue (DOR)

In Conference:

Drew Erickson Director Tyee YC
Bob Fisher Director Queen City YC and Navy YC, Everett
Mary Nye Meyers Director Corinthian YC
Bob Wise Director Tyee YC
Ron Evans Longview YC
Ken McAlister Longview YC
Thomas Teseniar Longview YC 2

Proxies received from and given to:
John Sipkens Director, Navy YC Everett to Bill Fields;
David Kutz Director Emeritus, Kingston Cove YC to Secretary;
Donald Howell Director, Tyee YC to Secretary;
Wayne Gilham Director, Gig Harbor YC to Paul Thorpe;
John Dawson Director, Tacoma YC, Carver Cruisers to Bob Ranzenbach;
Gary Ritzman Director, Meydenbauer Bay YC to Secretary;
Robert Murphy Immediate Past President, to Secretary;
Chuck Gay Director, Day Island YC to Secretary;
Gus Decock, Director, Meydenbauer Bay YC to Secretary.

Excused:

Ray DeBuhr, Dolphin YC, Ron Barrow, Navy Yacht Club Everett, Phil Osterli, Poulsbo YC and
Bob Wheeler, Bremerton YC

Topic on hand: Discussion of Section 501 of the 2014 Derelict Vessel law (SSHB 2457) and should the Board develop a policy position concerning Section 501. Steve Greaves began the discussion by setting ground rules. The meeting is a Special Meeting of the RBAW Board. Guests are invited to participate. The Board wants to hear from the membership. The plan is to attempt to hold the meeting to the scheduled 1 hour and 30 minutes.
Doug Levy suggested that the initial discussion be limited to what the law says, what is intended, and how the law is being implemented with discussion of possible future changes to be held until later in the meeting.

Beau Perschbacher, DOR, began with a general description of Section 501 and its implementation. There are three parts to this section: (1) pertains to the collection of certain information about vessels in long term moorage by the moorage provider; (2) pertains to requirements to provide information about registration requirements and tax requirements as part of long term moorage agreements for vessels not registered in the State; and (3) pertains to maintaining of these records by the moorage provider for at least two years, and provides for the records and the facility to be inspected by the State.
Stan Harris, DOR Compliance, described that DOR desires a good working relationship with marinas, and their intent is not to disrupt that relationship. They will be instituting one point of contact for all the written requests in Section 501, although very few requests are anticipated due to manpower shortages.
Longview YC members identified a variety of concerns.

 Privacy concerns about data falling into the wrong hands. DOR responded that they have experience in handling confidential information and the same standards will be applied.

 Concerns about volunteers at yacht clubs becoming “agents for the State” and intrusion on private property. DOR responded that DOR could request an audit of records before Section 501 for businesses in the State. For ease of collection, it was suggested that some of the requested data could be incorporated into the moorage agreement.

Clover Island YC members asked about boat houses. If DOR can walk the docks, do they have authority to inspect inside boathouses? DOR responded they did not. 3

MOTION was made for the RBAW Board not to take a policy position on Section 501. Bob Ranzenbach/Paul Thorpe.
Discussion of the motion included:
 Vessel registrations have declined in the past four years.
 Many moorage owners already collect much of the required information.
 Commercial marina operators may have concerns thus there may be an opportunity to work with Northwest Marine Trade Association to further review Section 501 this coming Fall.

After discussion of the motion the vote was taken. Motion passed: 14 Yes, 1 No.

Stan Harris provided his contact information in the event issues arose with any Section 501 requests --- email: stanh@dor.wa.gov and direct line: 360.704.5816.

Longview YC members thanked the Board for the opportunity to voice their concerns.

The President thanked all attendees for their time and their work on boating issues.

Meeting was adjourned at 1525.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara J. Erickson Minutes Approved: ____________
Secretary
 
AKBASSKING said:
Heads up Washington State boaters! They are looking for tax money!

2014 Legislation-Derelict Vessels was implemented on June 12, 2014.

On June 6, 2014 every private and public moorage which includes Marinas, boat houses, yacht clubs, harbors, docks, landings, resorts and ports in the State of Washington received a letter from the Department of Revenue. Effective July 1, 2014 each marina and yacht club which has long term moorage (defined as 30 days or more) is to gather and report the following to the department:

  1. The name and legal owner of the vessel
  2. Local Contact person for the vessel to include phone and physical address
  3. Owners phone number and address
  4. Vessel’s HIN
  5. Vessel USCG numbers if applicable
  6. Vessel’s home port
  7. The date on which the moorage began
  8. Vessels country or state registration and registration numbers
  9. Proof of vessel registration, a written statement of the moorage lessee’s intent to register the vessel, or exemption affidavit certifying that the vessel is except from state registration requirements.

A moorage provider is required to maintain these records for two years and upon request from Department of Revenue or the Department of Natural Resources or their agents the moorage provider must surrender such documents and if requested be provided access to the moorage for verification and inspection of said vessels

I am currently trying to get the letter scanned in a PDF document. If you want a copy PM me with your email address and I will send it to you.
Click to expand...

I read the entire thread and don't understand the initial problem. Is it that Washington requires out of staters to pay Washington state taxes if they boat in Washington waters for more than 30 days?

As to a records keeping solution, when asked for the records, tell the "Department of Revenue or the Department of Natural Resources or their agents" that you sent all the records to Lois Lerner for safe keeping.
 
dpmulvey said:
I read the entire thread and don't understand the initial problem. Is it that Washington requires out of staters to pay Washington state taxes if they boat in Washington waters for more than 30 days?

As to a records keeping solution, when asked for the records, tell the "Department of Revenue or the Department of Natural Resources or their agents" that you sent all the records to Lois Lerner for safe keeping.
Click to expand...

Hey David,

That is part of the problem. If your boat is in the State of Washington long termed, defined as more than 30-days, you must pay sales tax, excise tax and registration fees. The law also requires all marinias, yachet clubs, dock owners etc to report to Dep't of Revenue all boats with a list of information that is at the docks for more than 30-days. Said another way, the Yacht clubs, marinias and dock owneres are now required to do the Department of revenues work of enforcement. That is the big rub. The State of Washington is not recreational boat friendly.

I also thought thought RBAW represented recreational boaters, but after this meeting they represent on King County (Seattle) and are in the pockets of the State.
 
AKBASSKING said:
The law also requires all marinias, yachet clubs, dock owners etc to report to Dep't of Revenue all boats with a list of information that is at the docks for more than 30-days. Said another way, the Yacht clubs, marinias and dock owneres are now required to do the Department of revenues work of enforcement.
Click to expand...

This is the part I keep having trouble with. My reading of 501 leads me to understand that the marinas/etc. have to collect the information, but there is no requirement to "report", just to provide records upon a request for inspection.

I may seem to be splitting hairs, but you aren't required to proactively report on slip-holders - you don't have to send this information to the DNR whenever you execute an agreement, or even on an annual basis. Yes, they can come and ask for the records, but that's a whole different issue, and could already be done prior to 501 (something I had assumed before, and validated by the DNR guy at the meeting). All 501 really adds in these cases is a specific set of information to collect.
 
Beau Perschbacher, DOR, began with a general description of Section 501 and its implementation. There are three parts to this section: (1) pertains to the collection of certain information about vessels in long term moorage by the moorage provider; (2) pertains to requirements to provide information about registration requirements and tax requirements as part of long term moorage agreements for vessels not registered in the State; and (3) pertains to maintaining of these records by the moorage provider for at least two years, and provides for the records and the facility to be inspected by the State.
Stan Harris, DOR Compliance, described that DOR desires a good working relationship with marinas, and their intent is not to disrupt that relationship. They will be instituting one point of contact for all the written requests in Section 501, although very few requests are anticipated due to manpower shortages.

I'm indoor rack stored this section does apply to our marina the state told them to comply they will need to haul every boat out of storage for inspection at the marinas cost, that means our moorage fees will go up. Take a look at the 6 story facility there are roughly 180 boats that will need to be pulled.

http://www.fosslanding.com/star-services-amenities/star-services-amenities.htm
 
Bob & Sue said:
they will need to haul every boat out of storage for inspection at the marinas cost, that means our moorage fees will go up. Take a look at the 6 story facility there are roughly 180 boats that will need to be pulled.
Click to expand...

If true, that's incredibly messed up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,357
Messages
1,431,083
Members
61,211
Latest member
Dorealm
Back
Top