By Mercury Bay Community Board Chair
These have become an important issue for our commercial boat operators in Whitianga, and I think it is worth explaining why Council introduced the changes.
As part of the 2026/27 Annual Plan process, Council looked at how we could reduce pressure on rates while still paying for the infrastructure and services our communities rely on. This involved looking at where those who directly use Council facilities could make a greater contribution towards their costs.
I supported that principle through the Annual Plan process and still do. Appropriate user charges can help reduce some of that burden.
Council has also advised that revenue from harbour charges is ring-fenced for harbour infrastructure, contributing towards maintenance, safety, upgrades and renewals, consent requirements and operating costs such as water and power.
However, the biggest concern raised by Whitianga’s commercial operators has been the consultation and implementation process.
Zinnia Harris, co-owner of Ocean Leopard, and Mark Jones of Glass Bottom Boat were among those who raised concerns. For Ocean Leopard, the annual commercial-use fee increased from $513 to $720 around 40 percent. On top of that came a new $1 per-passenger charge for passengers aged five and over, together with requirements to record passenger numbers for monthly invoicing.
Operators were notified on 19 June that the new charging structure would take effect on 1 July, less than two weeks later.
While the proposed fee increases had formed part of Council’s wider Annual Plan consultation, the operators felt they had not been directly engaged about how the new charging model would work in practice. For businesses with forward bookings and prices already set, that short timeframe gave them little opportunity to understand the implications, raise concerns or adapt.
They have also raised questions around passenger reporting, commercially sensitive information and how the passenger levy itself was determined. Importantly, Zinnia and the operators have not argued against user-pays. Their concern is about what represents a fair contribution and the process by which these changes were implemented.
The wider economic picture that shouldn’t be overlooked is
Whitianga Wharf is also part of our public waterfront and is used by locals and visitors for fishing, swimming and enjoying the harbour. Commercial operators are beneficiaries of the wharf, but they are not its only beneficiaries.
The charter businesses also contribute considerably to the wider Mercury Bay economy. As Zinnia has pointed out, collectively they take thousands of visitors onto the water each year, employ local people, purchase fuel locally and use local trades and suppliers. Their customers also stay in local accommodation, eat in our cafés and restaurants and spend money with retailers.
That relationship works both ways: the wharf supports these businesses, while the businesses support employment, tourism and economic activity throughout Mercury Bay.
Zinnia and Mark brought their concerns directly to the Mercury Bay Community Board on 12 August and asked us to advocate for a review and meaningful engagement with Council. They took those concerns directly to Council’s Infrastructure and Finance Committee the following day and I spoke at that meeting as Community Board Chair to advocate on their behalf.
Since then, our Mayor and Councillors have continued to engage on the issue, alongside senior Council staff. The concerns around charging arrangements, consultation and implementation are being looked at again.
Comment on Pontoon replacement
Verna Carr has captured the history and importance of the wharf really well.
There is just one piece of context that I think is important to make clear, particularly as there has been a bit of confusion in the community about where the pontoon replacement has suddenly come from and whether this is a new cost arising from the recent discussions around the wider Esplanade redevelopment.
I have checked this against the Council information. The pontoon replacement is not a new project. It has been planned and budgeted for some time and was specifically provided for in the 2024–2034 Long-Term Plan, with $976,000 identified for the pontoon replacement. There was also separate funding identified for safety and operational improvements to the existing wharf.
The important distinction is that this work is separate from the wider proposed Esplanade redevelopment.
So although people are now seeing a significant amount of construction happening and may understandably wonder where it has suddenly come from, the pontoon replacement itself has actually been on the books for some time as a planned and budgeted renewal of existing infrastructure.
