Stand in Ecoworld hearing
Welbourn said he interpreted as refusal. After more discussion in 2016, they still could not agree on some points.
At a meeting in 2017 Reuhman said the future development clause prevented investment and growth. But until the ferry terminal redevelopment designs were confirmed, the port could not remove it, Welbourn said.
After an email in 2018, they did not hear from Reuhman about the lease for three years. As the lease expiry approached, Welbourn decided to seek board approval for funds to manage the aquarium’s closure. The board agreed to make a payment to Ecoworld to help rehome the wildlife of up to $100,000. That was on top of up to $400,000 the port expected to pay to remove the building. The port would also contract a manager and maintain the aquarium system for up to 12 months during the rehoming or release of the wildlife.
Ecoworld’s lawyer, Toby Gee, said Welbourn had been misleading in his report to the board on a few points, such as that Reuhman would not pay market rent.
But Welbourn said Reuhman repeatedly said his rent was too high. Gee also criticised Welbourn’s report that he ‘‘informally canvassed’’ public sentiment about Ecoworld and Reuhman, when there was no actual survey.
Welbourn said he was trying to politely add that he had been approached by ‘‘more than a few’’ people with strong opinions against Reuhman and the aquarium. ‘‘We have inferred from that, that the amount of local support for Ecoworld is . . . limited.’’ Gee said he thought the thousands of signatures on a petition to save the aquarium suggested otherwise. Given the port’s values of transparency and partnership, Gee asked why Welbourn didn’t just ‘‘pick up the phone’’ and make a final offer to Reuhman. ‘‘You have allowed someone to carry on thinking those offers were in existence, then pulled the rug out.’’
Welbourn said after so many offers had failed over the years, he did not see the point and time was running out, so he needed to give the board the options.
He was ‘‘in disbelief’’ Reuhman had refused their offers of help and then claimed they were forcing him to slaughter animals. Reuhman had refused to leave and filed the court proceedings claiming his 10-year right of renewal. Port Marlborough cross filed, seeking possession of the property, and costs to cover the rehoming or release of wildlife and removal of the building. The hearing is scheduled to end on Wednesday.