Sink or Swim: Moss Landing Harbor District*

MCCGJ found that MLHD conducted a comprehensive Strategic Plan for the District in the 2002 MCCGJ report. The District agrees with this finding.

MCCGJ was unable to verify MLHD completed a comprehensive capital asset reserve study to establish capital reserves and replace aging District facilities over time. The District partially agrees with this finding. The District has not prepared a comprehensive capital asset reserve study. Much of the District's infrastructure is built in-house and replaced on an as-needed basis. Additionally, the District has asset assessments performed on a periodic basis such as the study completed in January of 2022 by Sea Engineering, Inc. Capital reserves are established in annual budgets.

MLHD has not completed a comprehensive maintenance and replacement plan for the harbor facilities. The District partially agrees with this finding. See response to F4.

MLHD maintenance is conducted on an "as needed" basis, reacting to verbal complaints from slip tenants or staff observations. The District partially agrees with this finding. The District agrees that responding to verbal complaints and staff observations are two of several means by which the District responds to maintenance needs. However, the District disagrees with the inference that these are the only means by which maintenance is scheduled or performed. The District plans and includes capital improvement projects as a part of its annual budget process. The District currently has $1.5 million slated for dock infrastructure improvements in its FY 22/23 budget.

The Sea Engineering, Inc. "Post Tsunami Report," dated February 2, 2022, validated many of the MCCGJ findings. The District partially agrees with this finding. The District agrees that it solicited SERVING COMMERCIAL FISHING AND RECREATIONAL BOATING SINCE 1947 Hon. Stephanie E. Hulsey July 29, 2022 and received a Post Tsunami Report from Sea Engineering, Inc, and notes that repair work identified in the report had already been commenced at the time the Report was received and that additional funding for repair work identified in the Report was included in the FY 22/23 budget adopted on June 8, 2022. The statement that the report "validated many of the MCCGJ findings" is too ambiguous to agree with.

MLHD lacks a formal process for reporting complaints received and/or data on the number, type, and resolution of complaints. The District wholly disagrees with this finding. The District has a process for receiving complaints and responding accordingly. Most complaints are maintenance- related and result in a work order and repairs as necessary.

MCCGJ was unable to verify MLHD maintains a comprehensive maintenance log or database. The District partially agrees with this finding. The District agrees that it does not keep a maintenance log or database of maintenance projects. However, the District is able to easily access records, such as work orders, concerning maintenance. The District provided the Grand Jury with several years' worth of maintenance-related documents that were apparently overlooked, discounted or otherwise ignored.

MLHD fails to distribute copies of the 60 District Ordinances to all slip tenants. However, the District Ordinances are available on the district website. The District partially agrees with this finding. As written, the finding makes it sound as if the District has an obligation to provide tenants with copies of the District ordinances. No such obligation exists. The Ordinance Code is 70 pages long and distribution to all tenants would be a waste of paper - the equivalent of asking a city to distribute copies of its municipal code to all residents. The District agrees that the entire Ordinance Code, which is updated on a regular basis, is available on the District website. Copies of the Code are also provided upon request and available for review at the District's offices.

MLHD fails to enforce District Ordinances uniformly. The District wholly disagrees with this finding. There is absolutely nothing in the Grand Jury's report that supports this finding. The District is unaware of any tenable complaint or challenge to the District's enforcement of its ordinances as being uneven or discriminatory.

MLHD lacks a formal process for tenants to submit requests and receive written board approval for personal modifications to the docks. The District wholly disagrees with this finding. The docks are District property for which personal modifications typically are not allowed. If a tenant wants to make a request for such modification, there is a formal permitting process through the District's Board or General Manager set forth in Chapter 26 of the District Ordinance Code. Additionally, proposed modifications can be raised with staff or the District's General Manager, all of whom are available and approachable on the docks and at the District's offices adjacent to the docks.

MLHD does not require tenants to procure boat liability insurance. The District agrees with this statement.

MCCGJ observed boats are in disrepair at the harbor that may not be seaworthy. The District partially agrees with this statement. This finding appears to be speculative. The District notes that vessel appearance does not always mean "not seaworthy." While the District agrees that at any given time a boat docked in the Harbor may be in disrepair and/or not seaworthy, the District has an outstanding record of removing and demolishing derelict vessels in compliance with procedures established by law.

MLHD lacks any pump out facilities, showers, laundry, or paved and stripped (sic) parking areas designated for tenants at North Harbor. The District partially agrees with this statement. The District acknowledges that it has no pump-out, shower or laundry facilities in the North Harbor. The pump-out, shower and laundry facilities in South Harbor are available to all tenants, whether they be docked at the North or South Harbor. The finding regarding the lack of paved and striped Hon. Stephanie E. Hulsey July 29, 2022 parking areas is incorrect. The District has a large paved and striped parking lot in the North Harbor available to tenants.

MCCGJ observed safety equipment (life rings and ropes) that are in disrepair and require replacement. The District wholly disagrees with this finding. Life rings and ropes that are weathered from the sun and salt air environment are common in harbor districts, and their effectiveness as life saving tools is not impacted by appearance. The District notes that it was in the process of replacing a number of life rings in the harbor during the time that the Grand Jury was preparing its report but that apparently such action was not observed by the Grand Jury.

MCCGJ did not find safety ladders placed appropriately to allow people to get out of the water safely. The District wholly disagrees with this statement. The District has installed ladders in appropriate locations throughout the Harbor. Ladders are placed in locations to maximize access to persons without obstruction from piles and vessels. The Grand Jury fails to reference reliance upon anyone with safety expertise in making this finding.

MLHD BOC fails to consistently post the board agendas outside South Harbor office and does not post in any location of North Harbor. The District wholly disagrees with this statement. No factual support for this finding is provided in the Grand Jury Report. The District has complied with and/or exceeded all agenda posting requirements set forth in the California Brown Act and posts its agendas at numerous locations throughout the Harbor, including outside the South Harbor Office and at the North Harbor Public Notice Board.

MLHD fails to update BOC agendas on the webpage in a timely fashion. The District wholly disagrees with this statement. No factual support for this finding is provided in the Grand Jury Report. It is also unclear what the finding means by "update." The District has complied with and/or exceeded all agenda posting requirements with respect to its website as set forth in the California Brown Act.

MCCGJ verified that current board members had received Brown Act classes, AB 1234 ethics training, and board member receiving governance training from the California Special Districts Association or other qualified organization. The District agrees with this finding.

MCCGJ found MLH experiences recurring failures of the pump-out facility, forcing slip tenants to sail to other harbors to clean out waste. MLH does not post notices of the outages nor when service would be available again. The District wholly disagrees with this finding. No factual support for this finding is provided in the Grand Jury Report. In the last decade, aside from the inability to use the pump-out facility due to PG&E outages, the pump-out facilities were not in operation on one occasion, when they were damaged when a vessel crashed through the dock. During the repair period the District contracted with a mobile pump truck to provide service to harbor tenants until the repair work was completed. The District is at a complete loss to understand how the Grand Jury could have reached this erroneous conclusion. Grand Jury Recommendations