Comments of BoatU.S. regarding City of St. Augustine proposed anchoring ordinance
Thank you for the opportunity to review the 10/18/11 draft of the proposed anchoring ordinance. BoatU.S. has several substantive comments, as well as some minor technical tweaks that would make the ordinance easier to understand and serve to increase boater buy-in and their resulting compliance.
1. Based on the current draft ordinance, we would suggest that the City use an aerial photo of the harbor and waterways encompassed by this ordinance and indicate municipal boundaries, where the mooring fields are located and where other provisions of the ordinance (particularly the provisions in Section J) would apply. This illustration will help show where anchoring is allowed indefinitely as well as where anchoring is allowed for a limited time. It would be infinitely useful for the agencies, organizations, and boaters to comprehend the net effect of the proposed ordinance.
2. BoatU.S. cannot support the current language in section J (6), which currently restricts anchoring outside of a mooring field for more than 10 days. We see no rationale or justification for such a time limit. This provision is extremely inhospitable for anyone who lives or travels on a boat and would likely force them to either leave the area, or rent a mooring. In order for the pilot program to be successful, the choice to utilize a mooring must be left up to the skipper of the boat. Some will eagerly embrace the opportunity for a mooring. Others want to be alone, in essence, to camp in the woods instead of a campsite alongside others. They want the freedom to choose.
3. We are concerned that the “Safe Harbor” clause (last sentence of J (6)) can only be invoked by a city employee, and leaves no discretion to the vessel’s skipper. As a result, we recommend the following language change in section (6) starting on line 199:
“After midnight of the tenth consecutive day, the person shall relocate the vessel to a mooring field or to a location outside the municipal boundaries of the City, unless the Safe Harbor condition is invoked by the City Manager, his or her designee, based on consultation with the boat captain.”
4. Based on recent conversations, we would encourage the City to publicize their maintenance plan and commitment with regard to the durability and security of the mooring field equipment. Given that many mooring agreements require vessel operators to agree to “hold-harmless” clauses, boaters are substantially concerned that they will be forced to use unsafe moorings and will then have no means of redress.
5. We are quite concerned about the provision which forces the skipper or his/her designee to provide confidential personal information. Florida has a broad public records law and exemptions can only be provided by the Legislature. We suggest changing the sentences found on lines 220-223 to read:
“This information shall only include the same information made public by the state or jurisdiction of domicile of the vessel’s owner. This information may be subject to disclosure as a public record pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, unless otherwise legally exempt.”
Below are additional suggestions and questions that would help clarify the ordinance and serve to improve the ordinance’s acceptance by boaters:
Line 57: Please explain the current concern on the San Sebastian River regarding the marine infrastructure and navigational safety (to help justify this section.)
Line 58: We’d suggest you define “marine infrastructure” and move that definition to the definitions section.
Line 62-64: Did the FL Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Services require this language? If so, under what justification? What other anchoring or mooring sites have they employed this protocol upon?
Line 130: What problem/issue does this extensive definition of “person” address? Would this be contrary to maritime law? Why is it included? We recommend deleting this and referring to the owner/operator of the boat instead.
Line 111: Definition of an “Occupied” vessel. How will enforcement agencies ascertain whether the boat has been occupied or not, and when it was occupied?
Line 156: While the intent of this section is self-explanatory, there are times when ground tackle will not come up and must be left behind. (This is not something the boater wants to do, because they may be leaving behind hundreds of dollars of equipment that must be replaced.) This language should be softened so that it is not subject to penalty.
For example “The vessel operator is expected to make all reasonable attempts to remove all ground tackle upon leaving the anchorage.”
Line 176: Does this mean that it remains legal to anchor in Salt Run during the day?
Comments of BoatU.S. regarding proposed City of St. Augustine anchoring ordinance October 19, 2011
Line 185: We recommend that the definition of “marine structure” also be placed in the definitions section.
Line 198: What are the municipal boundaries? How will they be marked, so that local as well as transient boaters can know where they are?
We’d like to share our perspective, based on conversations with an array of boaters, that the ten day arbitrary time limit chosen for this anchoring restriction will create the perception within the boating community that the City is no longer a place to visit.
What percentage of the mooring fields is for local vs. transient boats?
What happens to those local citizens who work in town, and live aboard boats? Are you ready to have them move away if they chose not to pay mooring rates?
Has the City contacted the jurisdictions to the north and south of the city to determine the impact of this regulation on those jurisdictions?
Line 199: (see explanation/recommendation in #3 above) recommend the following language change in section (6) starting on line 199:
“After midnight of the tenth consecutive day, the person shall relocate the vessel to a mooring field or to a location outside the municipal boundaries of the City, unless the Safe Harbor condition is invoked by the City Manager, his or her designee, based on consultation with the boat captain.”
Line 206: This provision outlines on at least 2 occasions a year, in February and August, a boat shall get underway. An earlier draft of the ordinance said “once” yearly and did not specify a month. It seems this changed provision will require enormous time and paperwork on the part of the harbormaster. Requiring this inspection only once a year should be adequate to address concerns about abandoned vessels.
What is the justification for having a specific month for a vessel to complete this task? Boat owners should not have to plan their schedules around a subjective date. The city should provide a rolling due date for this requirement. What happens if a boat is unable to obtain an inspection within February?
Would this apply to those boats anchoring in all jurisdictions of the city or just those in a certain proximity to mooring fields?
Comments of BoatU.S. regarding proposed City of St. Augustine anchoring ordinance October 19, 2011
Line 211-233: This provision says the marina staff will collect information on the owner if they are anchoring outside the mooring field, and that others could obtain this information as a matter of public record.
We have significant privacy concerns over this provision. We also expect some boaters will have concerns, to the extent that they may refuse to provide the information. We would recommend that data collection remains optional for the boat owner who has privacy concerns. This information shall only include the same information made public by the state or jurisdiction of domicile of the vessel’s owner. This information may be subject to disclosure as a public record pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, unless otherwise legally exempt.
Line 238: What mechanisms will these enforcement agencies use to notify a boat owner that they have violated one of the ordinances and to coordinate their ticketing with other law enforcement agencies listed?
Line 259: This ordinance will be more acceptable to the boating public if there is a more gradual enforcement scheme that includes education, and a warning before the issuance of fines. As a result, we’d recommend on line 259 that the word “may” be inserted to replace the word “shall.”
It is currently unclear what violations could be prosecuted under this section. We recommend this section enumerate the specific provisions of this law that could be prosecuted.
Line 262: Given that these penalties could impact individuals of modest means, we believe that the fines are excessive and should be lowered.
Are there offenses which are less onerous and which result in a lesser fine?
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input on these ordinances. We believe our suggested changes and clarifications will increase the likelihood of boater acceptance of these proposals and allow St. Augustine to remain a desirable destination for boaters.
Margaret Podlich Senior Vice President BoatU.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment