North Haven Boat Ramp Closure ?????

[trihull 177]

I overheard some information yesterday, that the CYCSA is at loggerheads with the State Government and local Council, on funding for a Breakwater extension and public access to the ramp area, that a closure of the North Haven Boat Ramp, could now end up as a definite possibility.For those in the Port Adelaide / Enfield Council area, I would keep a keen eye out for an article being published in the local Messenger......You heard it first here ............................... :c :c :c

[Ugly4Life 41]

Okay here's the info on what's going on here (to the best of my knowledge):The CYC are a non-profit community club. Raising money for them is actually a lot harder than you would imagine with all those big boats parked in there. So far they have raised $1 million towards the extension of the breakwater, which will cost around $2 million. They are asking the government chip in the rest of the funds and in exchange they are guaranteeing the North Haven Ramp will stay open to the public and be maintained until 2023. However, the government want them to guarantee that the ramp stays open until 2070! 67 years! To me that seems like a very unreasonable request, especially since the other option for the CYC is to simply shut the ramp.If the CYC were to close North Haven, they could easily generate the funds needed to extend the breakwater. The ramp does not generate even close to what you would think per year and using that space as boat storage or something similar would be a better option for the CYC, financially, however they don't really want to do that. They are happy to continue running it, but feel that the government should shoulder some of the financial responsibility.The editorial in the latest SA Angler also has quite a lot of info about this and why it is an absolute necessity to extend the breakwater. Many people are up in arms about the government possibly using money from the boating levy fund to pay for this, because it's private property. However, the owners of most of the craft in the marina have been paying into the fund for years, typically about $250 a year each which is more than the average trailer boatie pays (around $50ish per year) and so it doesn't seem so unreasonable to chip some of that money back in to benefit everyone.Recs get a prime boat ramp. The CYC and its members get an extended breakwater and safer marina and the government gets a public service run on their behalf, guaranteed for 10 years, for basically nothing. Seems like a no-brainer to me personally.

[trihull 177]

Today's Newspaper Page 31..... small article... I see no problem for the ramp to have even a 99 year clause, after all, CYCSA is a "non for profit" organisation.This is probably the best Public Boat Ramp in Adelaide, let alone SA.The last thing needed is for this to go, and housing be put up in its place.....Rough estimates put that car park and water frontage worth around the $20-30 Million mark

[Ugly4Life 41]

I see no problem for the ramp to have even a 99 year clause' date=' after all, CYCSA is a "non for profit" organisation.[/quote']Doing that means that the CYC have to finance maintenance for 99 years. I think that it's entirely unreasonable to ask for a 99 year free ride for a $1 million investment (which in the scheme of governments and corporations is not a lot of money). 10 - 15 years is a far more reasonable offer. Especially since this money would be coming from the fund that both CYC members AND rec boaties have been paying for years, both of whom benefit from the ramp being kept open... It's not as if the government is being asked to cough up money from somewhere else.

This is probably the best Public Boat Ramp in Adelaide, let alone SA.

It's a private ramp, open to the public and completely owned by CYCSA. The distinction being that the CYC are sacrificing land that, as you say, could be used for housing or heaps of other things that would generate revenue and offering it to the public instead. I think they should be given some credit for that. Thy're under no obligation to keep it there or keep offering the services to the public but they do...I'm not saying they're doing it solely out of the goodness of their hearts, but surely the fact that they could have closed it down to make more money ages ago has to count for something in this debate? It certainly shows that they have no intention of doing it simply out of greed or spite.

[Squid Flaps 5]

Totally agree with everything you've wrote U4L. 99 years is an insane commitment. I think 10-15 years is a fair trade for a $1m grant.

[fishnuts 55]

I may be off the mark but I seem to recall a fair while ago the Yacht club land was given to them by the Government or maybe someone else. I may be wrong but I recall seeing something about this when they made the last lot of changes down there. Please let me know if this was not the case.Cheers Dazz

[Ugly4Life 41]

I may be off the mark but I seem to recall a fair while ago the Yacht club land was given to them by the Government or maybe someone else. I may be wrong but I recall seeing something about this when they made the last lot of changes down there. Please let me know if this was not the case.Cheers Dazz

This is what it says in SA Angler: "It is no longer a stated owned facility, but one that was built by the Dunstan Government back in the '70s and sold off quite early in its 40 year history." What the deal was surrounding that transaction I have no idea.

[wisdom 0]

You are very much all of the mark. There is ten years and more of aggravated history surrounding the CYC, SARFAC and the SABFAC, and most of it very dirty.I cannot repeat what I know here, but happy to do privately, but I can say that the CYC doesn't, give two hoots about anglers, and by the way that ramp was built with SABFAC funding and Minister Conlon did you all in at the last set of changes.It's all about the big end of town and their mates ! try the GM of BIASA, he along with myself know all the dirty history.

[Moggy23 625]

Talking to the Mayor, Gary Johanson this morning & stated the same facts as Ugly4Life, but he went on to say there is an agreement or something like a caveat on the boat ramp, that it is to stay as a boat ramp & a car park.The only way CYC can build and change the zoning of the property is through council approval and I get the feeling that wont happen as the council & the Government won't let it happen. I don't have a problem if the Government chucking a million dollars at the break water & let the CYC run the boat ramp, It's a cheaper option than building another new ramp, which is what the government have been looking at, then found out they don't own the proposed site.

[Ugly4Life 41]

I cannot repeat what I know here' date=' but happy to do privately, but I can say that the CYC doesn't, give two hoots about anglers, and by the way that ramp was built with SABFAC funding and Minister Conlon did you all in at the last set of changes..[/quote']I fail to see the difference between saying what you know here and repeating it to anyone who asks you privately...? If you're not bound by some sort of confidentiality agreement then what is the issue with letting us all know the information? What's to stop someone asking you privately and then repeating all the information here?

[Ugly4Life 41]

Here is a letter from Craig Evans posted on the CYC website here: http://www.cycsa.com.au/events/north-haven-inner-breakwater-and-boat-ramp

The Club has recently received a number of enquiries and concerns about the future of the CYCSA owned North Haven Boat Ramp that we make available to the general public.Many of our members that have friends that use the North Haven Ramp are looking for answers to the growing rumours and innuendo surrounding the future of the ramp. The following statement explains the Club’s current position. We want to keep the boating public informed on two things:• Our commitment to improve the safety of North Haven Marina• Our desire to continue to offer public access to our boat ramp – the most popular ramp in the State – and our other boating facilities.Right now, we are negotiating with the State Government to achieve fair and reasonable arrangements that meet our needs and those of the wider boating community.As a not-for-profit community sporting club that exists to advance boating, our first priority is to satisfy the needs of our 1200-plus members and safeguard their interests. This drives our approach on all matters, including our negotiations with the State Government.First some background. Every boat owner pays an annual Facilities Levy to the South Australian Government’s Facility Fund for boating, established in 1996 to help establish, maintain and improve recreational boating infrastructure throughout South Australia.The CYCSA in 2009 for the first time discussed with the State Government the need for improved breakwaters at North Haven. After two years of discussions and investigations, the Club applied for a contribution from the Facility Fund to pay half the cost of a necessary $1.9 million (excluding GST) extension to the inner breakwater at North Haven Marina. The application was in partnership with the City of Port Adelaide and Enfield and met the requirements for facility funding.The Government-appointed South Australian Boating Facility Advisory Committee (SABFAC) receives applications and advises the Minister of Transport, Mr Koutsantonis, on whether they should be granted.Following our three-year negotiations with SABFAC, the CYCSA agreed to provide additional benefits for the general boating public as part of a funding arrangement for the extension of the inner breakwater. These benefits featured a 10-year guarantee from CYCSA to maintain public access to our boat ramp, public access to our pump-out facility – the only such facility on the metropolitan coastline – and emergency mooring facilities for vessels in distress and volunteer and government vessels involved in safety or emergency operations.As a result, SABFAC recommended to Minister Koutsantonis that he approve a contribution of $950,000. The Minister accepted some of the SABFAC recommendations but rejected the 10-year guarantee for public access to the Club’s boat ramp. Instead, he sought a guaranteed period of 57 years in return for a $950,000 contribution from the Facility Fund. This is 47 years more than was agreed in negotiations between SABFAC and the CYCSA.The CYCSA is unable to agree to this. It is inconceivable that we would agree to lock up for 57 years an asset worth millions of dollars in exchange for $950,000. It could financially strangle us.CYCSA met Minister Koutsantonis on 3 September 2013 to try to resolve this impasse. The Club’s position and the Minister’s position could not be reconciled at that meeting but we remain hopeful and will keep our door open to work positively with the Minister to achieve an outcome that maintains the boat ramp for public use.If the CYCSA is forced to proceed alone to extend the inner breakwater within North Haven Marina and take on the full cost, that will force us to review all aspects of our operations, land and assets, including the boat ramp. We made this clear to both the Minister and his Department.The land upon which the boat ramp is built is worth vastly more than what it generates as a boat ramp. It also is worth vastly more than a $950,000 contribution from the Facility Fund.We just can’t give what the Minister asks. To do so would irresponsibly compromise the finances of the Club and impose insurmountable burdens on our members as we strive to maintain the precinct and pay the looming cost of marina facility replacement.If we have to, we will examine alternative uses for the boat ramp that better reflect the value of the land that it occupies.This is not our preferred option. We readily appreciate that many people rely on the North Haven Boat Ramp. We want to continue to enable the public to use our boat ramp for the next 10 years.We commit, therefore, to continue to negotiate with the Minister and the Department to find an arrangement that accommodates everybody.We will keep you informed of progress and developments in our talks with the Minister.CRAIG EVANSChief Executive OfficerCruising Yacht Club of South Australia

[wisdom 0]

Two things ugly, if someone else goes public on what I may have said, then that's their problem.Besides if you really have a desire for the truth then ring me, or ring who I suggested. Is that so hard. or are you just lazy?u

[Ugly4Life 41]

No, not lazy at all, but neither am I inclined to call you. We've spoken to Craig Evans directly about the topic in a lengthy meeting (as it directly affects our business) and I'm happy to take Moggy on his word about the things Gary Johanson had to say. Surely if the information is confidential and you tell me and then I repeat it, it's on your head as much as mine?I'm just wondering why you would choose to come here to comment on something like this if you have nothing you can actually contribute to the thread other than cryptic messages? If I recall correctly this isn't the first time you've alluded to having special 'inside information' on a topic that you 'couldn't share with the public'. You can call it healthy skepticism if you like.

[wisdom 0]

If you choose not to talk to me Ugly then I don't care but you should read the CYC file held in SARFAC. It has all the history collected over the last ten years including letters between the then Minister, CYC and the town planning committee. See the current Chair of SARFAC, he has been briefed on it all as well over several years and should be willing in the interest of anglers to pass the info onto you for a read.Trust me anglers are being screwed again, this time by the big end of town......again !Altogether now I have given you three people that can fill you in on this and preceding events to these issues. Get all the facts , then comment I will concede however you are entitled to an opinion, but be informed.

[Ugly4Life 41]

If you choose not to talk to me Ugly then I don't care but you should read the CYC file held in SARFAC. It has all the history collected over the last ten years including letters between the then Minister' date=' CYC and the town planning committee. See the current Chair of SARFAC, he has been briefed on it all as well over several years and should be willing in the interest of anglers to pass the info onto you for a read.Trust me anglers are being screwed again, this time by the big end of town......again !Altogether now I have given you three people that can fill you in on this and preceding events to these issues. Get all the facts , then comment I will concede however you are entitled to an opinion, but be informed.[/quote']So inform us. Why are you dodging and hand-balling me off to other people when you have all this information yourself?

[Squid Flaps 5]

You have to enter a special bunker and walk through 10 inch metal doors like the ones at the opening credits of "get Smart" and then you shall find the file, right next to the 8 inch plus RFL file...Gotta ask why SARFAC/RFSA senior members don't communicate on forums like this to the people they claim to represent? Oh that's right, they couldn't run a brothel in an army camp.

[wisdom 0]

They don't Flaps because I advised some time back " to never get involved in Chat Forums" and for once it seems SAFAC must have taken this advice.

[Squid Flaps 5]

Uh huh...

[Jack. 10]

They don't Flaps because I advised some time back " to never get involved in Chat Forums" and for once it seems SAFAC must have taken this advice.

Mate, whats the story? Do you have anything positive to contribute? Stick up a decent fishing report and please god save me from organisations established to represent the rec angler! Personally, i think its only a matter of time before the carpark goes and residential buildings riseim just not really that clear on who would pocket the $25mil.

[Tacklebags 404]

I couldn't give a rats razoo about the history. It's the outcome of this mess that needs fixing.Reading all the crap stored in Sarfac, pirsa or most other organisations dusty safes would be a waste of my life.Send a quick email off to Tom Kousantonis and tell him to stop saving all the revenue to pay off his speeding fines so we can keep the ramp going!

[Squid Flaps 5]

Brilliant Jack and TB....oh the change is for his speeding fines and the bulk is new doors for the Adelaide oval dunnies...

[Squid Flaps 5]

They don't Flaps because I advised some time back " to never get involved in Chat Forums" and for once it seems SAFAC must have taken this advice.

Trevor, can you inform me on which file to ask for re the 8 inch plus RFL document, who to see about it and any pertinent chapters to read? I intend to pick up from where "Just Me" left off...Thankyou.

[wisdom 0]

There are three files on the RFL held in SARFAC, most likely held at the BIASA office Flaps.The Chairman must know in which cabinet they are stored. There are two ring binder files (very thick), and one other bound document which was given to the Labour Party before it's annual conference some time back to endeavour to change the Parties policy on this issue, but unfortunately failed. All documents have the history from the NSW and Victorian start-up. Included are calculations on expected revenues and other interesting data.The CYC file is in a five drawer A4 plastic drawer set under the heading CYC. So many changes. In the last two years may have left the filing system in a mess.Ring the. Chair and arrange to meet him at BIASA office, you will be surprise at what you will read. Those files took ten years of a persons and others lives.u

[Savage 297]

Forgive me if i have missed something, but where exactly would the extension of the breakwater take place??

[Moggy23 625]

Forgive me if i have missed something' date=' but where exactly would the extension of the breakwater take place??[/quote']It's all here for ya, application from the CYC & the plans are near the bottom of the document http://www.portenf.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/703_11-cat3not.pdf

[Savage 297]

cheers for that Moggy Hopefully the Gubment come out to play.....

[trihull 177]

Forgive me if i have missed something' date=' but where exactly would the extension of the breakwater take place??[/quote']It's all here for ya' date=' application from the CYC & the plans are near the bottom of the document http://www.portenf.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/703_11-cat3not.pdf[/quote']All of this carrying on for what ....... looking at the plans and scales, approximately 50 -55 metres of breakwall extensionThis is just bureaucracy gone mad...........................

[Tovo64 0]

I just wanted to comment on the "not for profit" aspect of the CYC as I think it's something that is often misunderstood. Not for profit organisations still need to make money, the only difference is that the money they raise is not distributed to shareholders, but rather reinvested in the business. My point is that arguing that the CYC doesn't need to worry about signing a (very) long term lease because it is a not for profit isn't logical. Like any business, CYC needs to make money to survive and thrive. It would be bad business to lock themselves in for such a long period. Personally I think their position is entirely reasonable and I also think that the State Government will eventually see sense and reach a compromise position with CYC for the benefit of all. Just in case someone wonders, these thoughts are only mine and I have no connection whatsoever with the CYC.

[Lexi 14]

I intend to pick up from where "Just Me" left off...

I was wondering if the Vegamite had been packed in a Marmite jar......

[Tacklebags 404]

and I also think that the State Government will eventually see sense and reach a compromise position.

May be waiting for a day for that one I suspect. :whistle:

[Knackers 696]

Why do they want to extend the breakwater? Not mentioned in the planning documents.

[4THALOVE 45]

the new berths cop it hard when it gets wild down there the actual extension is bugger all but would certainly dull the force of the waves coming straight up into the berths as it currently is

[Knackers 696]

That makes it clearer. A privately run club wants public funds to extend a breakwater and if they do not get their way they will shut the boat ramp used by the public. Sounds like blackmail. Even before they put those new berths in they would have known it got rough there. The extension should have gone in first, then the berths. I can see the governments point exactly.

[Ugly4Life 41]

Why do they want to extend the breakwater? Not mentioned in the planning documents.

As well as the births, it's also damaging the properties on that side deeper into the marina.

[wisdom 0]

I will try and get this right, lost my memory a week ago and have been in an induced coma. Now in Wesley hospital in Brisbane awaiting some form of heart surgery.Why am I saying this is because not looking for sympathy, but struggling to remember things.I get so angry with the CYC , it's CYC first and bugger anglers.Trying to blackmail anglers on this over their own design failures is morraly wrong . There was also a covnenant at the top end of the ramp which guaranteed this turn-around space. For many years, guess what.... Pat Conlon overturned it and in all my real estate dealings, never heard this ever happening before. And it was simply because the CYC got greedy and built another apartment on it. ( CYC first, bugger anglers.)This parcel of land was being saved to provide access to the new marina area.Two things I would like anglers to see through the self interest. Of the CYC and remember The ramp was paid for out of the levy , so if they want to go down this blackmail path, then give the $ 800 000 back that was provided by SABFAC !You should all be standing behind koutsantanis on this as he is looking after anglers and good on him. He has my support. Despite that I never warmed to him.SABFAC, had a lenghty meeting on this issue about 2.5 years ago and after some hours flately refused the application for the reasons aforementioned.What has changed, new chair ?, and what is SARFAC doing to protect anglers ?You should all be writing to the Minister supporting him, but I know that won't happen as most anglers are lazy and don't want to get involved.