Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0612.008 2004-2006 Patrick Cunningham, Chair „<Y O. Pernflsh o aol.com rp;,,~~ ; Phone No.: (808) 938-0101 ~,la~, i• KawikaMarquez, Vice Chair bigdsbluesCa~hawaii.rr.com •o~ HAWAII COUNTY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SMALL BOAT HARBORS AND BOATING FACILITIES ` 75-5706HanamaPlaee, Suite 109 r. _ Kailua Kong Hawaii 96740-1713 ~ ~ - June 1, 2006 fJ'. Chairman Stacy K. Higa - and Members of the Hawaii County Council County of Hawaii ~ - Hilo, Hawaii 96720 ~r_ Dear Chairman Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council RE: Final Reports of the Ad-Hoc Fact -Finding Committee on Small Boat Harbors and Boating Facilities This Committee was impaneled by resolution 233-06 of the Hawaii County Council in February 2006. Our mission-- to consider the offer made by Peter Young, Chainnan of the Boazd of Land and Natural Resources, to transfer Management authority over small boat hazbors, launch ramps, mooring areas and other small boat facilities on the island of Hawaii to this County. The Committee met biweekly and delegated several of its tasks to sub-committees that considered everything from various legal issues raised by such a transfer, to what fonn a new management entity might take. It is important to note that from the outset, responses to some of the Committees' questions to various State agencies were not forthcoming. Nonetheless, this is our fact finding reports based on answering the nine specific questions posed by the Council in resolution 233-06. Sincerely, ~1~~/~ Pat Cunningham, Chair Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee PC: Attachments I.Z.$ Gomm. No. Ref. Tot Ref. Date Huwui`i County /s An Erluul Opportunity Provider And Employer HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL'S AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON SMALL BOAT HARBORS AND BOATING FACILITIES FINAL REPORT, May 25, 2006 Purpose: Resolution No. 233-06 adopted by the Hawai i County Council on January 5, 2006, established a Temporary Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee to review prior communications from Governor Linda Lingle and Mayor Harry Kim, review testimony from public hearings held by the Hawaii County Council, open dialogue with the Governor, Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), Hawaii State Legislature, Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), to determine if the County of Hawai i should assume management of eleven (11) small boat harbors presently under the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR), State Department of Land and Natural Resources. SMALL BOAT HARBORS AND BOATING FACILITIES Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee attempted to follow the specific directions provided by the Hawaii County Council in order to be able to more capably and completely advise the Council of the advisability of Hawaii County accepting the offer made by the DLNR Chair Peter Young, that the county take responsibility for managing the State's boating facilities on the Big Island It is important that the Council understand at the outset that we were unable to get answers to many of our questions from various State agencies (DLNR, DOBOR, AG, OHA, etc.) Nonetheless, based on the information we were able to obtain in the time allotted, this is our fact-finding report, based on answering the nine specific questions posed by the Council. We look forward to answering any questions about our work and conclusions from all Council members. This is the fact-finding report, based on answering nine questions. Objective #7--Determine whether it is feasible to transfer the harbors, piers and ramps over to the County A. It is not only feasible, but also in the opinion of the majority of our Committee, highly desirable to pursue the transfer of the harbors, piers and ramps and boating facilities to the County of Hawaii. Objective #2- Determine whether the Legislature must approve/disapprove any transfer of the recreational boat harbors, piers, ramps, and related submerged lands presently under the control of DLNR, DOBOR; A. We sought this information. However, it was not forth coming. The County should follow up and obtain the legal opinions that we have requested. SB 2150 has passed the legislature and, at the date of this report, awaits the signature or 1 veto of the Governor. This bill would place aone-year moratorium on the potential transfer in the absence of express statutory authority' Objective #3 Determine whether the County should request anon-profit entity orform anon-profit organization, an "authority'; or any other specific type of organization to provide management and operation of the harbors, piers and ramps; A. The majority of the Committee members are positively disposed to this type of organization. Asemi-autonomous, public-private partnership is our preferred recommendation, with the understanding that State or County governments should be removed from boating facilities management. Further, a citizens' commission or citizens' advisory committee should be established to provide stakeholders oversight over the operation. Objective #4-- Determine the extent of assuming the transfer of the harbors, piers and ramps, and determine whether the State will still be involved in any way should a transfer occur, including any hidden costs, fees or charges; A. The State will terminate its' authority and responsibility to operate, manage or audit after the transfer. No interests in real property would be transferred, but the County would have plenary authority to operate, maintain, reconstruct, remodel or otherwise reorganize all of the facilities, both as to buildings and as to land areas. The County would assume law enforcement functions in and around the facilities. The State may retain some regulatory authority and responsibility. Further, we believe that the transfer of these facilities should come without any hidden costs. Objective #5-- Determine the transfer and use of submerged and fast lands at harbors, piers and ramps that are essential to the use of these facilities A. All related adjacent and submerged lands at harbors; piers and ramps are deemed to be essential. Other lands and facilities that are non-contiguous lands are also essential to the successful management of some small boat facilities on the island. ~ The Committee reviewed SB 2150 and discovered Article V, Section 6 referred to in this bill absolutely appears to have no bearing on the ability of the state to transfer responsibility for management of small boat harbors, ramps and moorings to the Counties. I-IRS 200-3 also mentioned in this bill appears to contain no prohibitions against transfer of the responsibility of management to the Counties. 2 Objective #6 Determine whether present DOBOR civil service employees can be transferred over to the County, in consultation with the Hawaii Government Employees Association and United Public Workers, and if so, the process needed. A. Yes. We have determined that any civil service employee may be transferred to the county and that procedures are already in place for considering any such transfers. Objective #7-- Determine whether the State will provide financial support for improvements presently in the State budget for DOBOR facilities A. Yes as stated by Peter Young, chair for DLNR. This Committee requests the State of Hawaii shall honor all financial commitments and works in progress. Objective #8. Determine the funding required for management, maintenance and repairs of all facilities; and A. We are unable to completely answer this question until the complete income stream generated from these facilities can be determined. Based on the information we have been able to review, the Committee believes there appears to be adequate funding from the fees. Additional funding could be generated by the proposed increase in boating facilities fees and the incorporation of several other funding opportunities that will become available by way of this change, as well as increased efficiencies, resulting from the proposed change of management. Objective #9 Determine the ceded land issue: whether all facilities are on ceded lands and the process for payment to Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) from income derived. A. This Committee recognizes that twenty percent (20%) of the income-derived from the operation of the facilities on ceded lands shall be paid to OHA. The majority of these boating facilities appear to be on ceded lands. Conclusion: It is highly desirable to pursue the transfer of the harbors, piers and ramps and boating facilities to the County of Hawaii. The Committee to the County of Hawaii strongly recommends and encourages the County Council create a boating facilities commission to continue the work of the Committee, in order to facilitate the expeditious transfer of the state boating facilities to the County. 3 Ad Hoc Committee on Small Boat Harbors and Boating Facilities Report of The Facilities Sub-Committee Final Report To: Pat Cunningham, chairman, Kawika Marquez, vice-chairman and Members of the Ad Hoc Committee From: Barry Bolln and Jane Bockus Re: Current condition of Facilities As of March 13 2006 all faciltiies have been personally inspected and investigated. On 8 March, the committee had a very informative two-hour meeting with Nancy Murphy, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR), and District Manager. The following is a compilation of all these findings. Puako Ramp This is a small, 16' wide ramp with a loading dock/pier and multiple wash down spigots and, in pretty good condition. Parking is cramped and limited, but sufficient as long as the Kawaihae ramp is operational. Kauhako (Ho'okena) Ramp There are no active boating facilities. Shoreline use is limited to recreational use of this County Park. Milolii Landin¢ DOBOR is only responsible for the fish hoist landing. The local community maintains the ramp. The hoist appears operational and in fair condition. The concrete steps from upper to the lower level are broken, dangerous and require repair. The rub rail also needs repair and tires replaced. New cleats are also needed. Kaulana (South Point) Ramp This is described as a twenty-foot (20) wide, single-lane ramp. No wash down or pier or landing. The concrete ramp is in good condition but unusable due to sand intrusion. The County Fire/Rescue Dept. cannot launch a search and rescue vessel under the present conditions they must come from Pohoiki or Keauhou. Local fishermen require use of this ramp. 1 Current condition of Facilities Pohoiki Ramp A million- dollar renovation is funded for next year. The fisherman said," the ramp is fine-don't mess with it-use the money for the people. Use it to create a flushing pond so families may enjoy the ocean without swimming at the ramp." Swimmers and surfers are presently in great danger from colliding with fishing boats entering the ramp in high wave action. In high seas, these boats have little room for error. Wailoa Sampan Basin and Boat Harbor The general condition appears to be pretty good. A major problem occurs at 5-10 year intervals and we are near that point now. A sand bar builds up in the entrance channel due to winter storms and threatens to close off access. I would suggest this dredging be done before the County takes over. Reed's Bay, Radio BaX Radio Bay is not part of the package offered. Reed's Bay lists twenty-four (24) moorings that are privately owned and maintained. There are no facilities that require maintenance. Kawaihae Facilities; North Basin Every year, the ramp is unusable for three to four months. Winter storms pour sand over the breakwater that fills the basin. Each April the basin is dredged to remove the sand and restore the ramp. This is at a cost of $25,000.00. The dock along the south wall is badly broken. A study is underway to determine if the foundation is strong enough to rebuild the dock. Kawaihae Facilities: South Basin No facilities. This is largely unused except by a few transient vessels and the Waimea YMCA teaching sailing and small boat handling. $ 2.7 million is allocated in '06 to complete the basin including docks, moorings and an all- weather ramp and comfort stations, etc. 2 Deep-draft Harbor 25 moorings and a loading pier. The District Manager would like to move all pleasure boats from these moorings and in to the South Basin making it safer to maneuver barges and commercial craft. Presently the loading pier is in poor condition. Keauhou Boat Harbor The District Manager said upgrades to Keauhou are complete except for capping the mid-ramp finger pier, which is currently underway. Kailua-Kona Wharf Renovations to the pier were recently completed. All are in good condition. The 16' ramp is unavailable to the public for launching on cruise ship days. A guard is on duty from 7AM -7PM. The gate is locked after 7PM. Honokohau Small Boat Harbor Ramps, docks, heads and grounds all appear to be in good working condition. A new wash down is planned with runoff diverted to the north and not into the harbor. 3 Ad Hoc Committee on Small Boat Harbors and Boating Facilities Report of The Legislative and Legal Sub-Committee May 5, 2006 To: Pat Cunningham, Chairman, Kawika Marquez, Vice Chairman, Members of Ad Hoc Committee From: Jerry F. Halverson, Gordon Leslie, Members, Legislative and Legal Sub-Committee Re: Final Report of Legislative and Legal Sub-Committee Background and Authority: In its Resolution No. 233.06, (See Attachment No. 1) the County Council of Hawaii County announced that the Governor has offered "the County the opportunity to manage and operate existing small boat harbors and boating facilities * * * under a `home rule' policy". Pursuant to this Resolution, the County Council established this temporary Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee and charged it with the responsibility "to gather and analyze all information available, make determinations listed above (see nine "determinations" listed in the attached Resolution as necessary "to provide a plan of action and formulate a structure"), and any other pertinent information that may come before the Committee during fact-finding, with the Committee selecting a chairperson to be its spokesperson who will make recommendations to the Hawaii County Council by May 3l, 2006;" The Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee was duly established and convened its first meeting on Febmary I5, 2006. At its meeting of March 2, 2006, the Chairman established nine sub- committees, each charged with analyzing and reporting on one or more of the "determinations" referenced above. The Legislative and Legal Sub-committee, one of the sub-committees so established, was charged with the responsibility to ascertain the authority of the DLNR to transfer the management and operation of the boating facilities, and, if transferred, the nature and extent of the interest that could be transferred to the County. Sub-Committee Preliminary Report: Your sub-committee reviewed existing statutes, executive orders issued in similar instances, legislative resolutions and considered the expressed views of interested members of the Legislature. It was the conclusion of the sub-committee that based upon past state practice and the authority of the executive branch, by and through the DLNR, authority probably exists to undertal<e the proposed transfer. However, notwithstanding past State practice and statutory language arguably authorizing a transfer by the executive branch, as proposed, there existed uncertainties to the extent that opinions from the State Attorney General's Office and the Office of the County Corporation Council would be desirable on a number of issues. Your sub-committee therefore prepared for your consideration, and that of the Committee members, a memorandum dated March 16, 2006, (see Attachment No. 2) setting out a description and analysis of the sub-committee's legal and legislative concerns and which covered two proposed letters, each dated March I6, 2006, setting out a series of questions from the Ad Hoc Committee and addressed to the Department of the Attorney General and to the Office of the Corporation Counccl. The letters were mailed as submitted. 1 As of the date of this report, the matter has become further complicated, as the Legislature has adopted HB 2150 which purports to place cone-year moratorium on the potential transfer without express statutory authority. It is not known whether the Governor will sign or veto the bill, or if vetoed, whether the Legislature would override the veto. While it appears that no response has been made to either of the above-mentioned letters, we are advised that each of the two legal offices has requested additional information from the County Council staff. In addition, on May 1, 2006, Councilperson Isbell received an a-mail message (Attachment No. 3) from a representative of the Corporation Counsel advising that its office is awaiting a response from the Attorney General and from the DLNR as to the nature and extent of the interest in the harbors and boating facilities that is intended to be transferred. It is hoped that comprehensive responses may be obtained prior to the date on which the report of the Ad Hoc Committee is to be submitted to the County Council. If such responses should be obtained, your sub-committee will be pleased to file a supplemental report. By memorandum dated April 8, 2006, (Attachment No. 4) this sub-committee submitted a number of potential questions to be put to Peter Young, Chairman, Board of the Department of Land and Natural Resources at the time of his vidcoconference appearance before the Sub- committee. By letter dated April 1 I, 2006, the Vice Chairman of this Ad Hoc Committee submitted a series of questions to Chairman Young (see Attachment No. 5). This letter incorporated a number of issues and questions that had been formulated by this sub-committee as set out in Attachment No. 4. In his videoconference appearance before the Ad Hoc Committee on April 17, 2006, Chairman Young responded to some of the above-referenced questions promulgated by this sub- committee, as follows (only the responses to die sub-committee's inquiries are set out below): 1) He has not decided how and in what manner the transfer might take place. It may well be by and through an Executive Order. "I'he DLNR would not "make the decision on its own". 2) He has not obtained an opinion on any aspects of transfer from the Attorney General's Office. However, he has met with and discussed the potential transfer with the Attorney General's Office (See Chairman Young's letter dated January 5, 2006, to Mayor Kim.) 3) The nature and extent of the interest transferred would probably be analogous to the form in which state park land is transfer ed to the counties. In such cases the real property interest generally continues to reside with the State. 4) Notwithstanding the fact that the real property interest may remain with the State, the counties would generally be free to construct or reconstruct facilities as the counties may see fit and to establish and retain all harbor mooring fees, ramp fees and other fees and adopt operating rules as the counties may desire. 5) All existing leases and revocable permits would have to be honored by the County. (Note: there is no lease or revocable permit issued in regard to the cruise ship industry.) At their expiration date, the County may renew or enter into new and/or additional agreements. Further, all projects that arc planned or are underway will be transferred to the County in an "as is" status as of the data of the transfer. (See Chairman Young's letter dated January 6, 2006, to Mayor I{im.) 6) Management and operation by the County may be entirely by the County, entirely by private operators (for profit or non-profit) or by some combination of the two. 7) The State would not be involved in law enforcement activities within the transferred facilities. That responsibility would devolve to the Counh~. 6) RFPs that may be issued by DLNR have not been prepared. Still under consideration. 7) The State will retain jurisdiction over near-shore waters. Conclusions: 1) Absent SB 2150, authority exists within the Executive Branch, by and through the DLNR, to transfer the management and operation of the boating facilities in question to the County. 2) The manner and form of the transfer would be by and through an Executive Order, issued after the completion of nep;otiations with the County. The form and nature of the Order would likely follow that used to transfer State park land to the counties. 3) The State would retain the real property interest Title to the real property would not be Transferred to the County. 4) Authority would be provided to the County to construct, demolish, reconstruct, replace or otherwise improve the facilities as the County may see fit without first obtaining State approval. 5) Management and operation may be entirely by County government, entirely by private organizations (either for profit or non-profit) or by any combination of the two (So far as the State is concerned. We have not received a response from the Corporation Counsel as to its view of County authority.) 6) The Hawaii County Police Department may enforce all state laws and county ordinances within the transferred facilities. 7) Negotiations between the State and the County would be necessary to resolve some issues. We would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. Cc: Noelani Whittington Jane Bockus 3 May 31, 2006 To: Pat Cunningham, chairman THE FINAL REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CEDED LANDS Committee members Keith King, Lily Kong, Gordon Leslie and Kawika Marquez submit their final report after meeting with Ruby McDonald, representative for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in west Hawaii. The task-- determine if all facilities are on ceded lands and determine the process for payment to Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) from income derived. We were not successful in meeting with any of the Trustees. Gordon Leslie had a telephone meeting with their culture specialist, Mr. Lance Foster who indicated that when the time was pono OHA would be interested in establishing a dialog with the State and County of Hawaii over issues of pertaining to OHA's interest. We have not met with DHHL, but believe, again when the time is pono they will meet with the State and County of Hawaii. Future plans to produce creative ideas that can increase the overall revenues for OHA from ceded lands should be encourage. May 31, 2006 Mr. Chariman, Your sub-committee on Finance, Feasibility and Structure would ?ike to report the following findings and recommendations: SUMMARY Based upon available information, it appears feasible for the County of Hawaii to take over the small boat hazbors of Hawaii Island, currently owned and managed by the State. However, much information and data that is perceived relevant and pertinent to making a final assessment of said feasibility remains unavailable. In addition, some available information, such as the State small boat harbors budget, is provided in multiple formats for annual issue, and is non-consistent -further creating an inability to conclusively assess the final feasibility of the proposed take over With this state of affairs paramount, this sub-committee hereby submits the following recommendations: RECOMMENDATIONS ON FINANCE AND FEASIBILITY The County of Hawaii should execute a Letter of Intent to Assume Management, Control and Jurisdiction of the Small Boat Harbors of the Island of Hawaii. -with the State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources et al. The Terms and Conditions of this Letter of Intent shall clearly state that the findings of Due Diligence and Discovery shall dictate the contingency of action on the Intentions outlined in The Letter. NOTE* -During the period of Due Diligence and Discovery, it is of the utmost importance that this Ad Hoc Committee become an Advisory Committee to the Hawaii County Council relative to the findings and negotiations of the County and the State on the issue of potential transference of small boat hazbors. The data sets that need to be acquired and assessed include, but are not limited to; Attorney General opinion on the method of transfer, should it occur. The role of the legislature, if any. Clarification of Budget and relative Finances that are currently reported inconclusively, in a contradictory manner and/or inconsistent in form. The exact sources of revenue that the County will be assuming The exact set of expenses that the County will be assuming Debt Identification of OHA and/or DHHL Issues Liability and Safety Security All elements relating to the Jacoby project at Honokohau, including but not limited to -ingress and egress of vessels, liability of said easement, safety, water quality and exchange with open ocean sources, displacement and compensation of business currently occupying the area where the entrance to the Jacoby Marina is planned and all relative environmental concerns. RECOMMENDATIONS ON STRUCTURE It is perceived that, should the County take over the small boat harbors, anon-governmental organization shall be entrusted to oversee and manage these assets and liabilities for the County, and report to the County. For lack of an agreed upon title at present, we borrow a term from European nations in order to set this new entity apart from any entity currently recognized on a local level -public or private -The Ministry of Small Boat Harbors, County of Hawaii. The Chief Executive Officer shall be entitled "The Minister". One of the topics that shall need to be addressed and assessed shall be that of stall' configuration, and organization of responsibilities. Staff configurations and organizations assessments shall need to address the current situations, and the methods and actions to be employed to achieve the perceived future structure. A clear and concise line of demarcation shall need to be identified between jurisdiction of the county, the state, homeland security and any private entities involved, regardless of terrestrial or aquatic surface. BACKGROUND During the lifetime of this Ad Hoc Committee, a number of requests for data have been issued to State Officials that have not received a response within the time period allotted for this mission. Much of the data compiled during the time period allotted for this mission is incomplete and/or contradictory. During the mission time line, renegade legislators introduced bills that make unsure the possibility of transfer of the hazbors in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions of the mission outline, and environment in which this Ad Hoc Committee was established. The proposals, communications and legislation offered by elected officials clearly indicate a continuation of the status quo. No new ideas or even any indication of new willingness to listen to constituents has come forth. In the mean time, it is plainly apparent that the status quo of the harbor situation is unacceptable. Therefore, the only avenue apparent to this sub-committee is a continuation of dialog between the County of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii. The continuation of this dialog should include the participation of the current Ad Hoc Committee, however the duties shall switch from fact finding to advisory. As governmental entities, the County and the State have a better ability, infrastructure and staff to continue this process than an Ad Hoc Committee. In addition, taxes are paid by citizens of The County and The State of Hawaii, and these funds are for services of which the Governments are responsible. The service of negotiation of transfer of public assets between County and State Governments is the responsibilities of the Government Agencies entrusted with said responsibilities. These County and State Agencies are ultimately accountable to the Taxpayers and Voters. In as such, this sub-committee hereby recommends that the County and the State agencies responsible for negotiating the potential transfer of small boat harbors from County to State jurisdiction get continue this job - and -that this committee continue to oversee and hold both entities accountable in perpetuity. Respectfully submitted, Jody Bright Ad Hoc Committee on Small Boat Harbors and Boating Facilities Report of The Sub-Committee On U.S. and Foreign Small Boat Harbors Operation May 3, 2006 To: Pat Cunningham, Chairman, Kawika Marquez, Vice Chairman, Members of Ad Hoc Committee From: Jerry F. Halverson, Member, Sub-Committee on U.S. and Foreign Operations Re: Final Report of Sub-Committee on U.S. and Foreign Small Boat Harbors Operation Background and Authority: In its Resolution No. 233.06, the County Council of Hawaii County announced that the Governor has offered "the County the opportunity to manage and operate existing small boat harbors and boating facilities * * * under a `home rule' policy". Pursuant to this Resolution, the County Council established this temporary Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee and chazged it with the responsibility "to gather and analyze all information available, make determinations listed above (see nine "determinations" listed in the attached Resolution as necessary "to provide a plan of action and formulate a structure"), and any other pertinent information that may come before the Committee during fact-finding, with the Committee selecting a chairperson to be its spokesperson who will make recommendations to the Hawaii County Council by May 31, 2006;" The Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee was duly established and convened its first meeting on February 15, 2006. At its meeting of Mazch 2, 2006, the Chairman established nine sub-committees, each chazged with analyzing and reporting on one or more of the "determinations" referenced above. The sub-committee on U.S and Foreign Small Boat Harbors Operation, one of the sub-committees so established, was charged with the responsibility to review and report on the manner in which other U.S. jurisdictions and foreign countries manage and operate their small boat harbors, including marinas. Sub-Committee Report: Your sub-committee surveyed all of the U.S. coastal jurisdictions that maintain and operate small boat harbors and mazinas as well as the developed countries of the world whose harbor representatives would speak with us. The survey was initiated through the Internet, where jurisdictions maintained web sites, by e-mail and over the telephone. It was followed up by visits to Marina del Rey and to King Harbor in Los Angeles County and to the twenty San Diego marinas (interesting: there is a Kona Marina and a Kona Kai Marina on Shelter Island) in order to speak with their administrators or citizens advisory commission representatives. Your sub-committee's most important finding is that it appears that nearly all of the small boat harbors and marinas are maintained and operated at the municipal or county level. The state becomes involved only in unique situations. Many small boat harbors and marinas aze entirely privately operated pursuant to municipal or county leases and operating agreements. Some of these are quite large and appazently very successful. Marina del Rey in Los Angeles County is one such example. Where municipal or county income is reasonably substantial, the municipalities tend to manage and to operate the facilities directly, but with very actively involved citizens advisory commissions composed of representatives of all of the stakeholders. The City of Long Beach marinas are probably the best example of such municipally maintained and operated harbors and mazinas, with Alamitos Bay Marina, Long 1 Beach Shoreline Marina and Rainbow Harbor Marina, together offering more than 3000 slips. The Long Beach parks and recreation department that oversees the marinas is counseled and advised by a very active eleven-member commission that meets at least once each month and is a hands-on group that makes operating decisions. The City staffs the commission and pays its operating expenses. It should be noted that the City of Long Beach takes in a great deal of money from the oil wells that are drilled on City property, and this money is available for the marina operation. There appeazs to be no common pattern in foreign countries, except those with acknowledged socialist governments all maintained and operated their facilities totally by the central government, even when administrators were located on site. The free market countries appeared to have a mix of local government and local govemment-audited private operations. Of the three modes of management and operation used: central govemment operated, county or municipally operated and all private with government oversight, the all private with government oversight was viewed by most of the user-representatives as the most successful and satisfactory (with exceptions such as the Long Beach marinas). Where government was the sole operator, whether central or local, most user-representatives seemed somewhat dissatisfied, as the user fees were kept low, but were inadequate for long-term maintenance and capital outlay, and the government was generally loath to add general fund monies. (Again, cities like Long Beach were exceptions.) In cases where the local government leased out some facilities with operating agreements and kept some operations under local government control, but with strong advisory commissions, everyone seemed satisfied with all aspects of the operation. Conclusions: 1) State level maintenance and operation is not a desirable mode. The state tends to be too remote and interested in other priorities; 2) Either municipal maintenance and operation where funding is adequate, with a strong advisory commission, or a privately maintained operation pursuant to a lease(s) and an operation agreement(s), coupled with an advisory committee, are modes that users/stakeholder almost universally state are best suited to meet the needs of both the recreational boater and the commercial operator. We would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. Cc: Noelani Whittington Jane Bockus 2 ENFORCEMENT SUB-COMMITTEE FINDINGS FOR AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE ON SMALL BOAT HARBORS AND BOATING FACILITIES FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII MARCH 15 , 2006 REPORT INTRODUCTION : As part of the Ad- Hoc fact finding process to investigate the feasibility of the County of Hawaii taking over the Small Boat Harbors from the State of Hawaii ,the following pertinent information regarding Enforcement has been gathered to assist in the Evaluation process: At the present time the regulations governing Small Boat Harbors and Boating in the State of Hawaii fall under the Authority of the Department of Land Natural Resourced Hawaii Administration Rules for The Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation: Part I (Small Boat Harbors ) Part II (Boating ) Part III (Ocean Waters, Navigable Streams and Beaches ) Amendments to Hawaii Administration Rules Part I, fI, III. Access to these rules may be obtained from the DLNR-BOR at Honokohau Small boat Harbor in Kona (329-4997 The Chair has also obtained a copy available for the AD- HOC Committee's review. (938- 0101 S 13-230-1 Purpose and Scope. The purpose of these rules is to secure the most effective control and management of small boat harbors and facilities of the State in order that the general public may enjoy safe orderly, and convenient water recreation. These rules are intended to harmonize and coordinate the departments powers and duties with all applicable public laws, and are also intended to govern the use and operation of vessels and the activities of persons in the small boat harbors, shores, ocean waters, and navigable streams of the State. [Eff. Feb 24, 1994 ] (Auth. HRS ss200-2, 200-4) (Imp: HRS SS 200-2, 200-4 513-230-3 Penalties and Prosecution. Any person who violates any of these rules or who violates any lawful command issued pursuant to these rules by any small boat harbor master, harbor agent, or any boating district manager while in the discharge of that person's duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Recommended fines fot each violation are as set forth in the bail schedule for boating and small boat harbors, ocean waters, navigable streams and beaches, provided that nothing in these rules shall prohibit the court from imposing the maximum fine of not more than $ 10,000 for each violation as provided in section 200-14, HRS. ENFORCEMENT: Upon meeting with Nancy Murphy (District Boating Manager ,Island of Hawaii) Div. Boating and Ocean Recreation (BOR The following information was gathered. 1. The Dept. of Land and Natural Resources is structured into (9) divisions which regulate the State's resources. The Div. of Boating and Ocean Recreation covers the administration of Small Boat Harbors. 2. (DOCARE) Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement is the agency hired by BOR to enforce it's administration rules. 3. BOR Hires and pays DOCARE approx. $ 1.4 million annually state wide for enforcement. 4. There are eighteen (18) federally funded positions to assist with enforcement expenses. Ms Murphy believes these funds come from: A. Boating Special funding B. Recreational Boating Safety Act C. Maritime Security Act, cruise ships security E. Other funding comes from General Fund ? 5. HPD (Hawaii Police Dept.) may also assist with enforcement of trailer registration as they are registered with Hawaii Co. Dept. Motor Vehicles. From time to time HPD will assist DOCARE with enforcement when called. 6. USCG (United States Coast Guard) assists with boating enforcement in areas of USCG merchant marine Capt. Lic. ,Safety inspections, registration enforcement ,permitting and other violations of USCG rules and laws covered by CFR (Code of Federal Regulations we also spoke with DOCARE officer Scott Shiro - Ambo Who confirmed the statements and understandings of Ms. Murphy. The sub committee also met with USCG Lt. Paul Rudick at the Kailua ofFice (329-3987) . Lt Rudick informed the committee that the USCG performs SEARCH, however, usually leaves RESCUE to the local fire dept. The USCG can also assist with Home Land Security and cruise ships. Chief Mahuna at HPD referred Maj. Picicco, who informed us that the HPD probably under it's present structure would not be able to handle additional marine duties and recommended perhaps considering a County Boating Enforcement Division. Other agencies who may potentially have enforcement authority or interests regarding the County of Hawaii in the transfer of State Harbors 1. Division of Aquatic Resources 2. Office of Conservation and Costal lands 3. Commission on Water Resource Management 4. Federal Agencies: National Marine Fisheries ,Marine mammal Protection Act enforcement, 5. Office of Hawaiian Affairs ,submerged lands 6. State Attorney General's Office ,enforcement of HRS 7. State Land Use Commission Sec. 205A SMA (Special Management Areas )enforcement 8. County of Hawaii, enforcement of County Codes and Ordinances 9. USCG Auxiliary , safety inspections, registration, and rescue. 10. Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands 11. National Guard (under emergencies ,floods ,tsunamis, etc. 12 US Navy, US Army, US Marines under emergencies or wartime. CONCLUSION: The County Council may entertain establishing a Boating and Harbor Commission to assist with the transfer process and to further research enforcement practices and duties related to Boating and Ocean Recreation in the State of Hawaii. It has been mentioned that Federal monies are potentially available for security and enforcement, as well as State grants. There has been mention of state owned boats and equipment used in enforcement ,however, more research time is needed to acquire and update inventories. This committee will continue to gather information and advice on enforcement. The Committee can be reached at 808-938-0101, and eagerly awaits your input and suggestions. Also reviewed by this Sub-Committee was the Management Audit Of the Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement, report no. 06-01 January 2006. Conclusions state that the Division of Conservation And Resource Enforcement (DOCARE) have not provided the leadership necessary to provide for their effective and efficient enforcement. The Sub- committee believes this report needs to be evaluated more closely and consider options for an alternate enforcement agency. Note: The Sub-Committee believes effective enforcement is an essential factor in safe and well operated boating facilities ,and should be considered a very high priority, should a transfer be considered. Thank you for your time and consideration in these matters....... Respectively submitted....... Keith King, Kiko Johnson, Patrick Cunningham 325-7935 938-5717 938-0101 Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee on Enforcement