Derelict vessel funds (8:15 p.m.)
April 21st, 2008, 6:23 pm · Post a Comment · posted by fsherman
Hollinhead says the Derelict Vessel Fund hasn’t had money in it for five years, probably since the big hurricanes of a few years back. So whatever they do, they can’t remove it.
Barker: “that seems like a complete waste of resources, to have you go to all that work.” So where is the money that boaters put into the fund going?
Hollinhead: He doesn’t know. But now that the county has drafted a policy and set aside funds, we can probably wipe out the remaining derelicts–there’s about $40,000 available. Bagby: $30,000.
Windes: Funding is the issue, right? Hollinhead: Yep. Windes: “Mr. Kisela how much money is in the unappropriated funds balance?” Greg: “Considerably more than $40,000.”
Windes: “I got to tell you folks, we’ve got the most beautiful harbor … but it’s being polluted by these things.”
Kisela: Doesn’t think funding is the problem now–and doesn’t want to discourage the county from spending the money.
Windes: “I want them gone, the whole city wants them gone.”
Wood: So what are we talking about? To remove the ones on the list.
Hollinhead: These are ones now in the judicial system because we found the owners at last. So it shouldn’t be too much longer.
Barker: Brings up a related complaint, boats that tie up around Destin, no lights, no registration, no anything, but they keep tied up.
Hollinhead: Registration isn’t required for non-powered sailboats. And bayous and harbors are meant to be available for safe refuge–but yes, some boats are taking advantage. “As far as the lighting goes, we do take care of that (but) it isn’t a way of having the vessel removed.” But there’s no law at all against tying up in the bayous.
Barker: Let’s say a boat is a live-aboard. Is it still true they can’t be prosecuted for dumping waste unless they’re caught?
Hollinhead: We inspect them several times a year.
This was not an action item, just a report, so that’s it.
