Marine industry professionals fear a new bill will place crippling limitations on charter yachts registered abroad. The boats pictured above right are at The Moorings. File photo: FREEMAN ROGERS

Yachting industry stakeholders were relieved to learn last week that legislators heeded some of their concerns about a recently passed bill that raises cruising permit fees.

A Gazetted copy of the bill’s final draft, which was published Friday, revealed that lawmakers adjusted the previous draft’s definition of a home-based charter boat, eliminating the need for such vessels to be flagged in the Virgin Islands.

Marine industry professionals fear a new bill will place crippling limitations on charter yachts registered abroad. The boats pictured above right are at The Moorings. File photo: FREEMAN ROGERS
The local flagging requirement has technically already been on the books since the passage of the 1992 Commercial Recreational Vessels Licensing Act, but has gone largely unenforced since then, according to Captain Raman Bala, acting director of the VI Shipping Registry.

Industry professionals worried that including the same definition in the 2017 bill might have spurred government to start enforcing the registration requirement — a bleak prospect for local charter fleets with high percentages of United States-flagged boats.

Should each of those vessels suddenly be considered a foreign-based boat, the same 1992 law would have limited them to only seven charter pick-ups a year, a potentially dramatic slash to their workload.

Instead, the final draft of the law, which was passed on June 6, just requires home-based vessels to be operating in the VI; generally maintained in the VI; and managed by a company or any other legal entity registered, incorporated or licensed in the VI.

Many boat owners have resisted flagging their boats here for various reasons, including potential difficulties securing a mortgage from a US bank, as well as the inconvenience of having to form a company in the territory before they can register.

“We are very happy with the fact that [legislators] heard the industry and that they changed the definition,” said Janet Oliver, executive director of the Charter Yacht Society.

The CYS had written a letter to lawmakers outlining their concerns in the weeks before the bill’s passage, and Ms. Oliver said she also spoke with a legislator about them on June 4.

Fee increases

Not all the changes to the law were so ideal for the industry, however.

In addition to removing the flagging requirement, lawmakers also eliminated the previous draft’s off-season downtick in cruising permit fees, instead choosing to install high-season charges all year.

Upon implementation, the act will require home-based charter vessels to pay $6 per person per day and their foreign-based counterparts to pay $16 per person per day.

The previous draft had required smaller fees for the months of May through November, charging $2.25 per person per day for home-based boats and $8 per person per day for foreign-based vessels.

At the bill’s House of Assembly debate in May, Education and Culture Minister Myron Walwyn publicly criticised the off-season downtick.

“It should just be one seasonal rate, and the rates of $6 and $16, I think, are reasonable rates throughout,” Mr. Walwyn (R-at large) said at the time. “Because the very same issues that we have to address, we have to address them all year round. So why should we be afraid to charge for what we have?”

Cruising permit fees are currently mandated by the 1976 Cruising Permit Ordinance, which charges $0.75 per person per day on VI-based charter boats from May through November; $2 per person per day for VI-based charter boats from December through April; and $4 per person per day for foreign-based charter boats year-round.

Day charters

The 300-percent fee increase on the foreign-based vessels may affect the number of USVI charters that visit the territory.

Diane Davis, owner of the St. Thomas-based Daydreamer and Coconut Day Sailing, said she is already cancelling trips to the VI and will likely have to cancel more in the future.

“Maybe they don’t want us over there,” she said.

{fcomment}