New Lake Development... Input Wanted

[Gar]

Seems it may be better to keep a pipeline of new boats coming and sell them when they get about 250 to 300 hours perhaps more trouble but maybe an easier sell with a current year boat with transferable warranty hopefully,

[Such_a_brett]

@gar you could be right that 1500 hours might be too used to sell easily. In my experience, 300 hours is like new still on the high end boats. I think they could get easily to 800 hours with a charter service before they begin to lose their resell appeal.

 

Most boats I'm familiar with can transfer the warranty to 2nd owner but not third. We had intended to pick up slightly used boats, so resell to 3rd owner would void warranty.

[Gar]

Go the new route and keep turning them quickly get a buyer let it eliminate all but minor maintenance, always have fresh boats, develop a reputation for caring for the boats to perfection and in the long run should be a win win situation.

[MISkier]

@Such_a_brett, I'm not sure of the sand composition. The site is only 12 miles from the Lake Michigan shoreline, which is loaded with sand. I suspect the Placed Waters sand is closely related and/or part of the ancient lake bed.

[Drew_Wright_OBXtoFl]

You cannot wake surf in 10 feet IMO you need as close to 20 as you can get I also agree the lakes are likely to narrow to wake surf. Gald to see the project though

[Such_a_brett]

@MISkier it is probably the sand I'm talking about. The silica composition and strength of that sand makes it perfect for fracking so it sells at a premium. Wisconsin mines a lot of it. If there are any cranberry fields nearby, then it's exactly what I'm talking about.

[Such_a_brett]

@OBXtoFl thanks for the input. It sounds like surfing is just going to be a no go. We aren't willing to dig that deep and it would make the skiing worse anyway.

[Kelvin]

If you allow the surfboats on the water, an inferior surf setup won't stop them from trying to surf.

 

[BraceMaker]

@Such_a_brett it's the duality, boats displace water down into the ground which in turn compresses and lifts a boat. Best slalom skiing is just deep deep enough to run boats and ski safely. Bit more for 3 event. Wake sports need deeper lakes, the private lake experience doesnt specifically improve as much for wake as it does for your ament skiing.

 

But if you did a tournament lake and a deep bowed surf wake pool combined...

 

Maybe find a private ski lake similar to what you are proposing and try to surf it?

[6balls]

My best advice would be don't do it. We live on a public lake, and have access to another that is never used so doubles as our private lake. 2 courses on the private...beyond that we tube/ski/board/surf/foot on the public.

 

If you don't need a granite counter top smooth lake for buoys or other tourney pursuits...a big public lake makes way more sense and has instant resale. If you are not super serious about buoys but want all the other watersports stuff a public lake still makes sense...get a permit or do a portable or submersible and ski early mornings etc to get the glass.

 

Not trying to be a downer, just my honest perspective. If you are not a hard core, tourney skier homes on public lakes are awesome.

[Such_a_brett]

@6balls I don't think you understand the reality. There are no public lakes to live on here.

[Such_a_brett]

@Kelvin @BraceMaker

 

I don't mind giving up surf, just can't give up wakeboarding. Surfing is just for messing around, but wakeboarding is by far the biggest demo out here.

[oldjeep]

Interesting. Don't see too many people wakeboarding around here any more. Seems to be 90% surf and tube.

[Bookm_dano]

Wife and I have considered purchasing on a private ski lake. The top things that make it desirable are 1) a slalom course 2) lack of wake boats and surfers 3) convenient access to our own boat.

Your plan might work fine but you will need to find, as @Than_Bogan put it, enough people-who-are-not-me.

[drew]

Exciting to read about, and great to see the energy and initiative for more sites. Some obvious thoughts come to mind. First, the size of our sport, in terms of participants, is somewhat correlated to the number of controlled sites. Just as alpine racing depends on a closed and controlled area, our sport, to a fair extent, depends upon controlled conditions. Therefore, any prospect of growth of competitive water skiing is dependent upon more sites. Build it and they will come? Maybe, and as long as there is a reasonable demand forecast, it is worth a shot. Next, other water sports disciplines do not share the same need for protected water. Starting with tricks, and going through the disciplines to wake, wake skate, surf--these events, to a better extent, can handle more open and public water (slower boat speeds, more "portable" i.e. can utilize different shorelines based upon wind, etc.). So, some of the comments made thus far in terms of skier preferences seeking ski specific sites are certainly with merit. If an objective of a slalom skier is to find a more controlled environment away from boat traffic, bringing some wake events to the skier honey hole can detract from the allure. Even tricks is often better on open water. But tricks is much more easily reconcilable with slalom; tricks does really well between the boat guides and turn buoys (so long as driver is skilled). Wake and surf are very challenged by narrow lake with a slalom course.

[BraceMaker]

Ya interesting wakeboard to me is almost a dead sport. I'm sure it's not but up here I see way more people surfing.

[Such_a_brett]

@oldjeep i personally think the prevalence of surfing is directly correlated with prevailing water conditions. Contrary to popular opinion, even wake sports prefer smooth water whever available. Novice riders don't really notice the difference but advanced or expert wakeboarders essentially want the same conditions that slalom wants. It's really difficult to do advanced wake tricks when there are rollers everywhere. Surfing, like tubing, is plan B. If there is too much chop, break out the tubes and add to the chaos. I guess surfing also has the appeal of being much easier than the other disciplines. But I still think surfing evolved as a way to overcome poor water conditions common at most public sites.

[LoopSki]

There are are two sites that I know of in Northern California that are wake/ surf specific. May want to reach out to them to see how they handle erosion. One is The Farm in Nicholas, the other Villa Lagos in Red Bluff. The biggest problem I see is the amount of homes. I can see waiting all day and never getting a ride. Plus friends and family that come over . We have 9 lots and 6 homes. Works perfect !

 

[Such_a_brett]

@mjnelson it's funny that you mention american wave machines. My first plan included a 2 acre wave pool from them, very similar to the one at BSR in Waco. In fact, we are currently drafting up plans for a resort community with 2 ski lakes and a wave lake like that, but in a warmer location. We were concerned about the short season here being able to support the expense of a wave lake.

[owennibley]

Living in northern Utah and having a pretty good idea of were you want to build this, I think it would be a difficult undertaking. In that area there are very limited lakes to have quality watersports, even on weeknights the local lakes are extremely crowded so your target buyers would have to be pretty dedicated to only watersports or weathly.

 

I have to disagree with the wakeboard popularity here. Most if not all boaters I know don't even own a wakeboard from the past 10 years. Most surf/tube, some wakeboard, some ski, some kneeboard/airchair. I haven't run any numbers like you have but I just don't see a demand for the type of community you are proposing. And the people who would be interested would be die hard boaters and I think you would run into capacity issues...?

 

Lastly, the driving on public lakes in Utah is laughable bad. Power turns a plenty here among other safey issues. Unless you would require driving etiquette lessons on how to drive properly on a small privite lake I would hard pass on a "do it all" lake.

 

This is just my opinion, which doesn't amount to much but hey if the numbers work, then rock on. I have family and good friends in the Valley so it will be interesting to see if/when this develops.

[Not_The_Pug]

For the driving aspect of the lake there are two options. First, pay to have a driver available. Second anyone who wants to drive on the lake goes through and maintains at least a trained driver rating. I know of a lake that is requiring this for all their members. If they want to drive the club boat, they have to take and pass the course. There are guidelines for basic driving, but you can modify for each specific lake set up.

[Such_a_brett]

@owennibley thanks for the input, but I don't understand your post fully. You correctly identify that even on weeknights the local lakes (reservoirs) are pretty much at capacity, which creates terrible conditions. But from that you infer low demand for private lakes with near perfect conditions. Wouldn't the general overcrowded nature of public venues here create higher demand for private venues? Why would the opposite be true?

[owennibley]

Yeah sorry for the confusion. Normally I just lurk and keep my fingers from typing but I got excited when I realized where you were talking about. ;)

 

I guess what I was trying to get at is that it doesn't really solve the supply and demand problem. The people who would be interested in a private lake community in that specific location would have to be incredibly dedicated to watersports. So if you get high volume of people (100+ homes and 210 multi-family units, potentially 1000+ persons!) all wanting the same thing and paying a premium for it, it creates the same problem that was existing before: Too much demand, not enough resources. Say I have a family of 5. Thats at least an hour for each to have 1 turn. What about the other 25-30 families that want a turn that same night? What if I wanted to invited friends for a tug? I mean, you could say that maybe only 500 of 1000 people actually want to use the lakes. Thats still 500 people to share 2 lakes in 5ish months of warm weather.

 

This is how I look at it. Lets say the lakes are open from 0700-2100, 14hrs per day, 7 days a week. Thats 98 hrs of availability a week, times 2 for each lake, so 196 hrs total. Divide that by the 500 people 196/500=.39hrs, each person gets just under 25 minutes a week. That absolute best case scenario. Most people have jobs, kids have school, etc. and are only available in the evenings/weekends. Wind/weather restrictions as well. So in reality its much less that 25 minutes per person each week. You'd be lucky to get in 1 turn a week in my opinion. But it all depends on how you set it up I guess.

 

Hard core waterskiiers have 3 courses and private lakes within 30 minutes of the valley that they could potentially have access to. Plus, no permanent slalom course on the lakes... you most likely won't sell to any skiers. So your audience would be the average Joe who is an avid wakeboard/surfer or who is really weathly who could afford the homes and take an occasional tug. I just don't see how the balance of cost vs. time on lake pans out. That area has many other activities (snow ski, MTB, Hiking, rock climbing, dirt bike, RZR) that families could put their money into and just deal with the crowds at the local lakes.

 

But again, I haven't researched or marketed that area for this specific thing so this is just my obvservations/opinions. If it works out, I'm all for it.

[Such_a_brett]

@owennibley thanks for the clarification. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. We are definitely still figuring out the best density and use dynamics. This will certainly need to be well managed in terms of scheduling and pricing. One thing to keep in mind is that many people buy waterfront property without any intention of using the water. Historically, it is a very good investment with great appreciation.

 

In terms of water use, I would do the math in general terms like this on a monthly basis...

 

Over decades of observation our region gets on average 353 hours per month of direct sunlight during waterski season. Higher during June, July, and Aug. Lower during late-Apr, May, Sep, and early-Oct.

 

It doesn't do a lot of good to apply daily or weekly periods to the population because you have to use the most applicable periodicity. IOW, on one extreme we would use hours as the period and say, "there are 1,000 residents and only 10 available sets, so 990 residents are left unsatisfied." On the other extreme we say, "there are 21,000 available sets per season, so everyone gets 21 sets." Obviously both of those are unrealistic. It seems that the most realistic periodicity is monthly because a large portion of residents would struggle to get on the water weekly, but would enjoy use at some point during the month.

 

(353 sun hours per month) * (5 sets per hour) * (2 lakes) = 3,530 possible sets per month.

 

I think your example is optimistic regarding anticipated use per person. If there were 1,000 residents, I believe fewer than 100 will attempt to maintain your suggested schedule of 2 sets per week. Best of intentions, but life and ambition get in the way. I can literally start naming off families with boats that see the water less than twice a month. When I go boating with them, we typically spend about 6 hours on the water and everyone on average gets about 2 sets in. Some adults get zero and some kids do 3 or 4. During my 15 minute sets I spend about 50% of the ride time bouncing through rough water, unable to attempt anything serious. (10 minutes on glass where I can ride full out and I'm spent)

 

Getting back to the demo analysis... I believe that about 500 of 1000 will virtually never have a ski or board touch their feet; too old, too young, too out of shape, too busy, traveling during summer, etc. Another 200-ish are light use and will average two sets a month. So 70% of residents will graciously occupy about 11% of available sets, completely satisfied with their personal access. I assume there are about 50 of 1000 who will average 7 sets per week. They will consume 40% of available ride time. That leaves about 25% of residents in the modest usage category. I'm sure it's a sliding scale, but I would anticipate desire within this group to average about 4 sets per month (equivalent to going boating twice a month).

 

With those assumptions, we have already eliminated bad weather (including overcast but not raining) and we are at 79% use. Reviewing the numbers I think that I might even be aggressive in my usage assumptions. Keep in mind that there will be use fees per set. If 2 people in a household average 4 sets each per month, that'll be about $160/month. The diehards getting in 28 sets per month would be spending $560/month/person. The cost will certainly reduce usage to some extent, despite the fact that for virtually everyone it is still cheaper than owning a private boat and making trips to the lake.

 

Your point about evenings and weekends is valid. The evenings, weekends, and holidays only make up 55% of total availability if scheduled perfectly. There will absolutely be times where people would like to get a set or two but the schedule is full. But keep in mind that we are proposing lots at very reasonable prices. If people want perfect conditions with unlimited availability, they can spend $350-450k for the lot and $75K+ for a boat to be at one of the low density private lakes. We are targeting $185K for the lots with boats provided.

[Such_a_brett]

Interesting feedback from local real estate brokers... they are very disappointed that we plan to retain and lease the condos rather than build and sell. Universally, the feedback is that they would be a very hot commodity and would likely all pre-sell before buildings are completed. But as of now we are looking at those being more of a long term play unless it is decided later that we cannot charge sufficient rents.

[eleeski]

@Such_a_brett What's your goal? Get an awesome site for you to ski on? Develop waterskiers? Create a prime site? Make money?

 

These are very different goals requiring different lakes.

 

Private site for you? It's very cool. But a vanity toy. A big private gym for the workout we are passionate for.

 

Ski school lakes will develop new skiers. As will a connection with colleges. Very small market. You have to love teaching. Kudos to Sunset ranch, Travers, Cory and the other wonderful schools. Utah does not have the optimal weather for a ski school.

 

Make a top tournament lake? Copy Broadside in Boise, Ski West in Bakersfield, Okeheele in West Palm Beach or any other Nationals site. Small market but we will come. For a couple weeks a year.

 

Make money by ignoring the ski aspect. OK, a specific area set aside with a course is a good marketing tool. Maybe critical for the dreams. But the lake for fishing, paddleboarding, rowing, boating or just walking around is the real draw.

 

I live in one of those shacks on the beach in San Diego. I go in the water 10 days a year. I walk on the beach once a week. And I am more active using the beach than most. I do look at the water every day. The water is just an attractive feature necessary for a fancy development.

 

Surfing is a fad. Wakeboarding is too hard on the body so by the time your demographic has enough money, their wakeboarding knees are gone. Slalom skiers do last for a while but the passion fades (when did @Horton last ski Nationals?). Waterskiers aren't the best target market.

 

Weekends are too crowded. Anytime else is empty. Wild West circle drive open lake with a separate competition area is the successful Canyon Lake model - as in they sold many premium lots and have a solid tournament presence. Or the Placid Waters redo could work. Tournament ski focus might not attract enough interest.

 

You'd better have an angle on the water source. Isn't Utah a desert?

 

Come buy my Mecca lakes in the Southern California desert and make them into a dream playground.

 

Eric

[man0seven]

As a resident in the area and a potential buyer of this type of site, I am very interested in seeing how this turns out. I do see a few things that I personally would like and dislike but I wish I had a lake from WI but live in UT. :)

[cfgunnell]

Having gone through the process of building a personal ski lake in northern Utah it is a difficult process. State approval was the easy part... county approval not bad...Army core of engineers---good luck. It was a very difficult process with a lot of hoops to hop through, however it seems like you may have already started the process with your first post. Now if you are just paying someone to do it all for you... may not be that bad of gig. we are not developers so... there was a lot of learning happening during the process. There are certainly things we think we would have done different but it is still a lot of fun. I worry that your depth will not be deep enough, i was under the impression for a good wave for surfing you had to have a minimum of 20'. The shoreline will most like get destroyed especially if it is going to be the sand that you talk of bringing in. Our shoreline is very thick clay and it is has its ledges from a Mastercraft Prostar. I am not an avid surfer or wake boarder so take that information as a grain of salt. I am a skier... our lake was built to ski and get the family out learning to ski and enjoy. The safety of a personal lake is amazing and love taking my family out there. We do get some wakeboarders out there and they seem to have a good time, I could get exact dimension of our lake if you need it or it would be helpful. Our lake is 7-14 (deep end is where the dam is). We have water shares so that during the hot months we can let water in... let water out etc. There are a couple people in the valley that would probably be more than happy to explain the process. May be worth looking into. I'd like to know where you are looking at doing this.

[man0seven]

In addition to all these challenges, you run into the same problem with the boat. There isn't ONE boat that meets all those desires either.

[BraceMaker]

@man0seven youd be surprised for anything short of really talented wakeboarders you can get a DD to throw a good sized wake. Not really for them surfers.

[Such_a_brett]

@eleeski

 

The short answer to your question is that this is first and foremost a resort development with a unique draw. Not unlike a private golf community, but with better ROI. I'm a developer, and would not even be considering this if the return was much better just building townhomes on cheap land. But, I prefer to develop projects that I can be proud of.

 

The lakes are meant mostly for the weekend warrior crowd. I don't ever intend to host events. They need to be more than adequate for slalom and wakeboard, because those are the main demo. Doesn't need to be able to accommodate surfing. I want deep enough to satisfy the wakeboarders, but not so deep it kills the skiers. 10-11ft seems about right.

 

I agree with you that surfing is a fad and mostly popular because water conditions typically suck and it is more forgiving. In reality it is kinda boring if you are advanced at either skiing or wakeboarding.

 

Wakeboarding is hard on the body, but it's the kids of the money who fill that demo. Sure, dad might slalom, but he buys a house on the lake for the 3 teenage kids.

 

We intend to have designated time slots that are no-wake recreation. It's easy to control when the only boats allowed are charter boats operated by charter employees. We can even block out an hour right in the middle of a saturday without worrying about some jerk running people over to steal a set.

 

Water isn't a concern at all. It is very cheap here and water rights are plentiful. We don't get much rain (second driest state) but we get a heavy snowpack that fills a huge aquifer.

[Such_a_brett]

@BraceMaker I completely agree! Unless someone is doing advanced inverted tricks, the vast majority of people don't need to bring out the big guns. Once you eliminate surfing, most boats we are talking about serve an all-around objective pretty well.

 

IMO, most would be very happy with Malibu 20VTX, MC XT20, SN GS20, etc. Only the most hard core skiers would complain.

[Wayne]

I feel the lake will need annual shoreline and bottom contouring work after being subjected to the wave action from a v-drive. Even the current crop of 20-foot v-drives unballasted throw a big wave running 15-24 MPH. If you want to keep the long term maintenance costs down I would forget about sandy beaches for property owners adjacent to the lake. Just the winter freeze, even with lowering the lake level, will form a curb at the shoreline.

 

There is a lake community here in Michigan (Hidden Lake near South Lyon) that is very similar to what you plan but I think lot prices are $300k and most homes are over $900k plus there are condos. Some homes have private boats and there is a “marina”.

 

The shore is all crushed rock lined. However the lake was formed by reshaping a gravel pit and is pretty deep. Most of it is over 20 feet.

 

It had a pretty slow start but got caught up in the 2008-2009 housing market crash. I think it’s doing well now.

[Such_a_brett]

@man0seven

 

I look forward to your continued input. Feel free to be honest. Our ultimate targets are;

$185k waterfont lot price (ave)

$75 per month HOA

Comp level boats and drivers provided

Large community dock/beach area with swimming pools, hot tubs, BBQ, TV, firepits, boathouse/lounge, observation deck, etc

Resident lockers/showers

Full size gym and clubhouse

Full time property management and grounds crew

[Horton]

@eleeski I placed 7th at Nationals in Kansas in 2018. Pretty sure we saw each other there.

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

[oldjeep]

On your number 2. $75 HOA is paying for boats, drivers, insurance, fuel and upkeep on all the amenities you have listed in 3-7?

 

That seems insanely cheap.

[Such_a_brett]

@Wayne

 

It seems like Hidden Lake is designed to have multiple boats running at once. Is that true, and doesn't it really get choppy on them?

[Such_a_brett]

@cfgunnell

 

I welcome any input you have!

 

We actually won't have a problem with Army Corp of engineers because we aren't building a dam like you did. Flat land with clay soils, just digging a giant pit in a controlled fashion.

 

In terms of construction, yes it will be hired out. So we won't be running into problems of not having the right experience or equipment to execute the plan. A benefit of doing a large high-density resort community is that it doesn't need to be done on a shoestring budget. Far more people bearing the expense, both initial and ongoing. Obviously, I'm not looking to throw money away, but I won't be grabbing a friend with an old D7 and moving dirt around for 4 months.

 

Intended location is in Cache County, Utah. Where are you? Are you guys the ones who did Last Chance Lakes?

[Than_Bogan]

It seems clear that this forum is mostly the wrong audience for this project. Do you have a way to find the right audience? If so, are they enthusiastic about it?

 

This is slightly reminding me of a cautionary tale in the gaming industry that was a driving battle game called Auto Assault. It had a huge budget and the involvement of top publisher NCSoft. It didn't survive one year in the marketplace. I recall reading a detailed post-mortem and the part that really stuck out was that the development team was working long hours to meet milestones but not actually playing the game. The common refrain was "Well, it's not really my type of game." Fair enough. But they neglected the step of making sure there were people for whom it WAS their type of game. As it turned out, there were no such people.

[Wayne]

@Such_a_brett based on the historical pictures I’ve seen of the area, Hidden Lakes shape was more determined by what they excavated for the mining operation. The developer just did some contouring then did riprap on the shore.

 

I’ve been on it when 2 v-drives were running boarders and it’s a fricken mess. If you want quality water it’s a one boat lake. One wake boat will rock the marina. The moored boats get bounced all over the place.

 

Based on your 2 lake design are you planning to run more than one boat per lake? 220 feet wide isn’t enough for more than 1 boat at a time per lake.

[eleeski]

@Horton Oops. But you did offer your lake house for sale. You don't do that, you buy if your passion is growing. Kids, injuries and age affect us all.

 

Mecca needs a passionate buyer.

 

Eric

[Such_a_brett]

@oldjeep

 

No, it is paying for a pro rata portion of the upkeep on amenities and a pro rata portion of the boat depreciation/insurance.

 

The intent is to have the boats owned and operated by an independent charter company that will operate out of the community boat house rent free. The HOA will pay a fixed membership fee of about $6500/month to the Charter Co; SFR (single family residences) will be contributing $20/month towards that membership fee which is only meant to cover boat depreciation, insurance, and minimal overhead.

 

Use fee of about $22 per set (+tips) pays for driver, fuel, and boat cleaning/maintenance. I'm figuring $8/set for fuel, about $3/set capex allocation toward maintenance, and $11/set for driver.

 

The lions' share of amenity expenses are born by the MFR (multi-family); only 1/3 of lake, grounds, and amenity upkeep is born by the SFR. I've estimated this at about $55/month. The breakdown there is about $25/month to vertical upkeep (structures), and $30/month to horizontal upkeep (lakes and grounds).

 

You gotta realize that the multifamily portion is completely self-sustaining. If I just did another typical garden style condo resort with 200 units (no lakes) it would still have a pool area, clubhouse, gym, offices, parks, etc. All of this would be nearly identical to what is proposed with the lake concept and it wouldn't need a contribution from the additional 112 SFR to achieve a 60% net operating income on rents. In the lake project, the SFR and MFR groups are just lightening each others load. The MFR amenities that would've been included anyway get an additional $33,000/per year from the SFR, and the SFR doesn't have to pay $300/month to maintain the lakes and additionally has access to desirable amenities that wouldn't otherwise exist.

[oldjeep]

22 for 10 minutes? Put down the crack pipe. So for a family of 4 you are at $88 for one 10 minute ride a day (10 minutes is crazy short for anything but blasting through a course). So your average watersports enthusiast who would live on a lake wants to go maybe 3 days a week min (grand total of 30 minutes a piece a week behind the boat)? So you are at $264 a week for 2 hours of boat use. $1056 a month. That is nuts

[Wayne]

@oldjeep most ski schools in Orlando run $50-$75 for a set which is 6-8 passes. Some places include coaching for that price.

 

$22 isn’t robbery.

[oldjeep]

It is if you live on a lake. Go on vacation, expect to pay through the nose. Live on a lake and pay a grand a month for minimal boat usage?

[Such_a_brett]

@oldjeep

 

I already addressed this concern in a previous post. But go ahead and break it down further yourself...

 

The fuel is the fuel regardless of setting. When pulling a rider I went with the assumption of 13gph and a $3/gal fuel cost. That comes out to $7.8 per 12 minute set. They are paying that whether skiing this private lake or the local pond. If the fuel is less than that, we'd charge less, but currently it isn't.

 

Maintenance also costs money regardless. Boats are subject to wear and tear and have to be cleaned and maintained. The hypothetical family in your post would be contributing ~$700 per year towards upkeep. Do you think they'd be spending less than that on their own boat? That would be less than 1% of the value of the boat.

 

The above costs are going to be incurred regardless of circumstance unless playing for free on a friend's boat. The remaining use fee is for the driver. The hypothetical family here is spending a total of ~$2900 per year on the boat/driver/insurance package. Are you claiming that this same family in real life would expect to spend less than that for their boat and insurance? I mean, maybe if they bought a 12 year old boat.

[Such_a_brett]

The problem is that most people are used to amortizing the expense of this hobby over an entire year. They are paying for the boat 24/7/365, so in this context they feel like they are only paying $0.07/set. It's the sunk cost syndrome. People don't usually bother to add up all the unused sets and apply the expense to the rides they actually take. Every time I do the math it comes out to more than $22/set.

 

Again, walk out my back door and jump on a brand new GS20 with a quality driver three times a week, for less than 2 months worth of boat payments and insurance? And I don't have to trailer, clean, or maintain the boat? Sign me up baby!

[oldjeep]

@Such_a_brett For some comparison

Insurance 300K liability on a 60K privately owned boat $250 a year

Boat - basically nothing. Since my 2012 still sells for what I paid for it in 2014 even with the additional hours on it.

Maint - under $100 a year - any monkey can change oil, trans fluid and impellers

Fuel - $3-4 a gallon, and I'll be honest I fill it when it need to be filled and don't keep track

Usage - any time I like. I'm not fortunate enough to live on a lake but we put 4 hours plus on it when it is in the water once or twice a week.

 

I am clearly not your target, but do you have actual people willing to plunk down money for these places, knowing the actual cost of things? This reminds me of this crazy timeshare presentation I went to in Vegas where they seemed to be geared towards the math challenged.

[Such_a_brett]

@scotchipman

 

I agree, keeping costs below $20/set would be great. The intent is not to make a profit on the use charge. The intent is to break even and prevent the heavy users of the boats from leaching off the other residents. The reality is that those who don't use the boats at all are already paying an equal share of the boat and insurance. If it wasn't for the driver charge, each residence would only be paying $20/month for a brand new high end boat. That is ridiculous. The one caveat is that we cannot have some monkey running said boat into the shoreline, so a certified and insured driver must be paid. It could work out that $11/set is too much pay. Maybe fuel ends up around $6/set, maintenance $1/set, and we can find quality drivers for $8/set. If that is the case, I have no problem charging $15/set. I just don't want to be in a situation where the HOA board has to assess special HOA dues on everyone because we undercharged for use.

[Such_a_brett]

@oldjeep

 

I don't think you are being intellectually honest in your assessment. The average boat owner cannot reasonably expect zero depreciation after 500+ hours of use. Typically that $60k boat will have depreciated at least $12K during that period.

 

Even if it didn't depreciate, the interest on the loan would be $3K/year because very few owners pay cash. Even if they did pay cash, the opportunity cost of that cash would be greater than $3K/annual.

 

The average owner of a $60K 6 year old boat doesn't spend $100 per year in upkeep. (bust-out-another-thousand)

 

It isn't fair to just say you don't keep track of fuel cost and act like it is nothing. According to your claimed usage of 5 hours twice a week (and assuming 5 months a year) your fuel costs would be at least $7K annually unless most of your 5 hours is idling.