Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Residential Piers: Adjusting the Rental Calculation and Approving a Revised Model Permit Template - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed February 10, 2015 Brown, Leilani Item No. 16 From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 1:24 PM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Residential Dock Fees Categories: Leilani Mr. Henn asked that this be made part of the public record. Dave From: Mike Henn [mailto:mfhenn48@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:47 AM To: Tony Petros; DIane B. Dixon; Curry, Keith; Scott Peotter Cc: Kiff, Dave Subject: Residential Dock Fees M1 "T As you know, I was intimately involved with the analysis and setting of residential dock fees. I have been following the recent debate on this issue and wanted to convey my thoughts to you ahead of today's agenda item. I am not troubled by a decision to reduce the per -square -foot charge from $0.525/square foot to $0.50. The latter number is supported by a market appraisal, and is within reasonable discretion of Council to select. I am troubled by the proposal to not charge for the interior of the "U", for the following reasons: 1. "U" Space Not Actually Available to the Public: In my personal experience, and I am sure in general across the harbor, the average percentage of time over the course of a year that a dock owner's boat actually sits at the dock exceeds 90%. Thus, the availability of the "U" water space to the general public is virtually nil, and in actuality is almost exclusively available to the dock owner. 2. Fee Reduction Impact on Tidelands Funds: As you know, all dock fees must be deposited into the Tidelands Fund for exclusive use in the maintenance and capital improvement of the Tidelands, mainly the Harbor. Any reduction to the Tidelands Fund revenue leaves two possible outcomes: 1) reduce spending on the Tidelands/Harbor, or 2) backfill the Tidelands/Harbor spending by using General Fund money, thereby putting more budget pressure on other General Fund spending needs. I believe either of these results are at odds with the need to continue to support the needs of the Harbor, and are at odds with the stated campaign goals in that respect of Team Newport during the campaign. As I have stated in the past, the City Budget is a zero sum game. A decision in one area ripples through to impact other areas. 3. Inconsistent with Regulatory Guidance: As stated in the staff report, staff at State Lands has made it clear that their practice and preference is to charge for the "U". In fact, overall, the current Newport Dock Fee methodology yields an approximate 40% lower fee than Huntington Harbor on an apples -to -apples basis. A further reduction to not charge for the "U" will only exacerbate that disparity. State Lands staff may not unilaterally decide to take action on this; however, there is the possibility of a complaint being filed, for which they will have to address the issue. Even if a complaint is not filed, I believe there is a high probability that State Lands will have to address the issue in Huntington Harbor, where there is already ongoing litigation over dock fee charges assessed by State Lands. How do you suppose State Lands will resolve the fee disparity between Newport and Huntington harbors that will be raised in litigation by Huntington Harbor dock owners: reduce the charge at Huntington Harbor or direct Newport to increase its charges? Given the fact that the Huntington Harbor fees go directly to the State Treasury, I am guessing they will choose the latter alternative. Why risk that outcome? Why put us in the middle of yet another state agency fight? In sum, I urge you to vote "no" on eliminating the charge for the "U". Mike P. S. I did not have Kevin's email handy. Please forward this to his attention as well.