Monterey Instructors teaching from personal boats - Heads up

[Jon Nellis]

Dan, My boat is Double Down.

As for the lack a USCG license for the instructor/boat operator, if the Coast Guard decided to inspect the boats launching out of breakwater, they could rack up thousands in fines before ever getting to the license topic. I watched one zodiac head out with eleven divers and no life jackets one day. Besides the boat being overloaded, the Coast Guard requires an approved PFD for everyone on board regardless of how much your BC is good for. If they decided to issue the maximum penalty to that boat, that would be $2500 per violation (if I recall correctly), times eleven violations. You can do the math.

From the Coast Guards point of view the "for hire" definition is open to a bit of interpretation as long as the instructor/owner does not charge anymore for diving from a boat than from the beach and that rate is similar to the going rate of what others charge for beach instruction. Of course they still have to meet the USCG safety equipment requirements and also follow the navigation regulations. And in the unlikely event that they have an accident with students on board, I hope they have a lot of boat liability insurance as their professional liability only covers in-water accidents.

From the city's point of view, it is the commercial use of public space (teaching from a boat using the launch ramp) and there is no interpretation unless the instructor happens be teaching friends with no payment whatsoever (inside or outside Monterey) for any part of the instruction.

This weekend I'll be launching from breakwater as this is one of those rare occasions when my wife and I are going to get some diving in since I don't have any charters. Otherwise I have to load at the harbor (A Dock) and pay for that privilege.


.

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

Actually, the Code of Federal Regulations states that "voluntary sharing of
the expenses of the voyage" is not "for hire". Voluntary means voluntary,
so best not to take any gas money before the trip. My definition of "expenses
of the voyage" is "money that I wouldn't have spent if I had stayed home".
So it would include towing expenses (gas and wear and tear on the truck),
gas for the boat, a fraction of the 100 hour service on the motor, a fraction
of the additional truck insurance I pay because I put 20K miles a
year on, half of that to Monterey, etc. It doesn't include boat storage (in
my case, the cost of ownership of one stall in my garage), boat insurance
(that's a constant whether I go or not).

I am, however, an engineer, not a lawyer. I'm sure the lawyers could have
great fun with this.

BTW, if you read between the lines what was actually tacked on to the
USCG appropriations bill in, IIRC, 1993, it's pretty clear that some
congressman's brother-in-law got popped by the Coasties for "you bring
your boat, I'll bring the beer and bait", which was technically illegal, though
not much enforced, before that.

 

[Jon Nellis]

Hi Chuck,

That's why I conservatively stopped at "open to a bit of interpretation" so as to let the reader educate themselves (CFR Title 46; Subpart 70.10 or USC 46: 2101) and make their own assumptions. To me voyage expenses mean just that, not pre-voyage expenses, post-voyage expenses, routine maintenance expenses or wear & tear depreciation.

My definition of "expenses
of the voyage" is "money that I wouldn't have spent if I had stayed home".

I think the only voyage expenses you left off of your interpretation were parking at the launch ramp and the cost yard maintenance and house cleaning that you have to hire out because you're always out diving. If you stayed home you could have mowed the lawn and vacuumed yourself.

I'm an engineer too, but I also know what is meant by "intent of the law" and depreciating your truck as an expense of the voyage is well beyond that intent.

However the interpretation I was originally referring to was in regards to consideration and what constitutes a condition of carriage vs a condition of instruction. Hence the caveat of charging the same for beach instruction as boat instruction. If the consideration paid an instructor is solely a condition of instruction, then there are no conditions upon carriage and it is not "for hire", just like some mom driving the soccer team to practice in her minivan.

Regardless of the Coast Guard regs though, the Monterey City codes are the ones that will affect the instructors more immediately. (MCC sec 17-70-71, sec 23-3h and sec 32-3) all address the commercial use of public space. Section 17 just happens to specifically target scuba instructors, but says nothing about the six-pack fishing charters or kayak tour groups using the breakwater launch ramp.

 

[rstofer]

Jon,

This has been an interesting thread. It seems as though scuba instructors teaching in Monterey would require a Monterey business license even though their shop was in a different locale.

Is that your understanding of the Municipal Code?

Richard

 

[dannobee]

Why not launch from the commercial pier?

They were harassing us a while back, but we got that all cleared up without any fines or other BS.

And we passed the USCG safety inspection with flying colors.

 

[Jon Nellis]

Richard,

That's true for any city. You need a business license for the city you are conducting business in, even if you have a license in another city. They only collect tax on the portion of income generated within their city limits. In Monterey it cost $26.00 for a license provided you don't gross more than about $13,000 annually IIRC.

Dannobee,

Technically that would violate MCC 32-3, but the code that the harbor master is enforcing (MCC17-70,71) only covers the landfill area (lower breakwater parking area). It sure would be amusing to see the reaction on the faces of the other captains if some one did that, and test whether or not they know about the other city code or if the harbor master's authority to write citations goes beyond section 17 of the city code.

 

[F106A]

Once again California leads the way to new taxes and isn't that just what a fine is for not having a business license, another tax? Still I had a blast diving Monterey.

I DEEPLY resent your implication (claim?!) that CA leads the way for new taxes; NJ sets the benchmark for taxes, restrictive ordinances on honest residents, abusive regulation, CORRUPT politicians and rampant welfare. We even have a tax, MAJOR tax, on people trying to leave the state. But our dving is still some of the best, albeit demanding, in the world.

 

[Jim Ernst]

I DEEPLY resent your implication (claim?!) that CA leads the way for new taxes; NJ sets the benchmark for taxes, restrictive ordinances on honest residents, abusive regulation, CORRUPT politicians and rampant welfare. We even have a tax, MAJOR tax, on people trying to leave the state. But our dving is still some of the best, albeit demanding, in the world.

Thats funny, California and NJ must be related!!

 

[fisheater]

Thats funny, California and NJ must be related!!

Reminds me of my favorite lawyer joke:

Q: Why does California have so many lawyers, while New Jersey has so many toxic dump sites?

A: California had first pick.


(Yes, I'm a California lawyer.)

 

[Jim Ernst]

Reminds me of my favorite lawyer joke:

Q: Why does California have so many lawyers, while New Jersey has so many toxic dump sites?

A: California had first pick.


(Yes, I'm a California lawyer.)

Gotta love it!