HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS5 - Mooring IssuesAgenda Item No. SS5
November 9, 2010
Harbor Charges:
Moorings
Proposal
November 9,20 10
Study Session
Newport Beach City Council
Ad Hoc Committee Workplan
Part
Review /modify /adopt MGT proposal for fees based on
cost of service (adoption Nov 9, 20 10)
BalboaYacht Basin slips, apartments, garages — set to
market, implement slip changes over 3 periods (first
increase Jan 201 1).
Moorings — onshore and offshore (first increase effective
for 2011).
Analyze tidelands commercial categories with State Lands
Commission.
Oversee appraisal at Lido MarinaVillage's tidelands below
commercial docks.
Consider protected Harbor Fund for any incremental
increase in revenue — dedicate for dredging, harbor
amenities and harbor services.
Committee Workplan — cont'd
Part II
Implement LMV changes via lease.
Develop /approve long -term capital plan for
harbor amenities and harbor services.
Part III
Oversee appraisal of Commercial Piers and other
commercial harbor uses to "percentage of gross"
that are now under a per square foot rate (when
analysis in).
Implement long -term capital plan for harbor
amenities and harbor services.
Review actions to date and determine whether
any need revisions to maintain equity and fairness.
Not under Committee purview
Making a determination (re: pricing or policy)
regarding residential pier fees and rentals of
residential piers for commercial purposes.
However, the Committee has asked the City
Attorney to review the legal issues associated
with residential piers.
A :lci �.�■ :x!`.`12 owe
:Jai \V /ALI 0 = § ql =•
151:1■[NJ:40IJ2:
Charges for the Private Use of Public Property
(current charges)
Description
Amount
per Year
Non - Commercial Pier Use - Renewal
$ 100
Commercial Pier -Over City Tidelands
$0.36/SF
Commercial Pier - Not Over City Tidelands
$ 26.70
Onshore Moorings
$10 /LF
Offshore Moorings
$20 /LF
Key Principles - Moorings
Outcome should:
Be fair, reasonable, and legally defensible.
Be phased in over time to minimize economic
disruption.
Moorings should be a more affordable
alternative for boat ownership and harbor
access than slips.
Be responsive to market conditions.
Result in a charge that is annually updated.
Moorings
® Proposal:
Offshore
moorings should be set
at 14%
of an
average of
slip
rates
in the
harbor
(they
are
now at
about
5 %).
• Onshore moorings
• Increases should be
"caught up" should
• Transfers:
should be half of that.
implemented over five periods. When
catch up to 14% of slip rates in 2015.
Allow current permit holders one transfer to another person
(not a family member) between now and 2015.
If a person purchases a boat on a mooring, they can have up to
six months to stay on that mooring until they must relocate
(similar to Balboa Yacht Basin rules).
No restrictions on transfers within immediate family if permit
holder is deceased.
Process
Process:
Determine an average rental rate of slip sizes
in eight moderate- to low- priced NH
commercial marinas.
Index prices should be updated for Nov -Dec 2010.
Get to 14% by 2015 with five adjustments
(first increase 2011, next one 2012, etc).
Monitor vacancies, transfer prices, wait list
during those five years to ensure that pricing
is appropriate.
Example — Assume a 40' Mooring
Proposed Mooring Rate Changes
Target
Ratio
Current
Rate
(LF /Mo)
NH Marina
Index Rate
(per LF /Mo)
Current
Ratio in
NH
2011 rate
(Lf /MO)
2012 rate
(LF /MO)
2013 rate
(LF /Mo)
2014 rate
(Lf /Mo)
2015 rate
(LF /MO)
Est5lip Rates
in 2x15
(LF /Mo)
Method: 14% of SI i p
Rates in an Average of NH
Marinas, get there over
14%
$ 1.67
$ 33.01
5.06%
$ 2.31
$ 2.97
$ 3.66
$ 4.38
$ 5.10
$ 36.45
years using % increases as
shown.
%mooring to slip <
6.9%
8.7%
10.55VO
12.3%
14.0%
current mooring price per month=
$ 66.80
Totolpermo'=
$ 92.38
$ 118.95
$ 146.55
$ 175.21
$ 204.10
$ 25.58
$ 26.57
$ 27.60
$ 28.66
$ 28.88
Dollar Increase per mot=
'All assume a 40' slip and 40' mooring.
'Total per month and dollar increase per month assumes a 2% per year increase in the $33.01 /LF /Mo marina index rate. To keep up
with the market, proposal would not use dollar value, butthe % increase in italics.
From 5% to 14% ...
$20,000.00
$18,000.00
$16,000.00
$14,000.00
y $12,000.00
m
m
$10,000.00
N
O
U
$8,000.00
$6,000.00
$4,000.00
$2,000.00
Moorings and Berths in Newport Harbor
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Assumes 2% inflation for berthing rates
— Berths
— Moorings
The real cost of moorings today
They are a "more affordable" alternative (5% of slip
rates) but:
Are they really affordable? Once you're in, yes.
Barrier to entry is high:
Minimal to no movement of Wait List;
Pricing on a 12 -month permit to an offshore mooring (surveyed
June 2010, Craig's List):
Ranged from $32,500 to $60,000
Average = $45,167
Average of 40' moorings = $33,875
Proposed rate is still 14% of slip rates.
Using a 5% cap rate, the annual cost to the boater:
Today = $2,493.75 per year ($800 plus $33,875 x 5 %).
Proposal at 2015 = $2,448.00 per year (40 feet x $5.10 /ft
x 12 mos).
Other Suggestions
Adjust by Consumer Price Index since
1996 (LA- Riv -OC)
40' mooring would go to $ /, 1 13.77 /year
Comparing San Diego and Newport:
NMA's concept of proportionality.
Uses San Diego as a comparison (population, # of
berths, # of moorings) to make assumptions about
demand in the region.
"having more slips available would make the
moorings less desirable..."
In OtherAreas...
• Mission Bay
Mooring rates are — 14% of slip rates
Driscoll and Hyatt are marina comparisons. Mooring permit holders own /maintain
tackle
• Monterey Bay
Mooring rates appear to be — 14.5% of slip rates
Outer Harbor Moorings and Breakwater Cove are comparisons. Privately -held
tackle in the Outer Harbor
• Pillar Point
Mooring rates are about — 15% of slip rates. Mooring district owns tackle.
• San Diego
Mooring rates are — 18.5% of slip rates. SD Mooring Co owns mooring tackle.
It would be - 17% if adjusted to reflect private ownership of tackle.
• Morro Bay
Mooring rates are about — 31.7% of slip rates.
Proposed NH Marina Index (sampled June 20 10)
Average of all 40' slips = $33.01 /LF /mo
Newport Beach Marinas
Lido
Lido
Bayside
Bayshore
Bayside
Dunes
Harbor
Non BYB
Slip Length
BY B
Marina
Yacht
Swales
Village
Marina
Marina
Marina
Marina
Average
Village
Anchor.
Marina
Price perfoot per month
20
$
23.80
$
23.75
$
19.50
$
18.75
$
20.00
$
21.16
22
$
23.85
$
23.75
$
19.50
$
18.75
$
20.00
$
21.17
25
$
16.00
$
25.45
$
23.75
$
19.50
$
18.75
$
20.00
$
21.49
28
$
23.75
$
19.50
$
18.75
$
20.00
$
20.50
29
$
17.38
$
23.75
$
19.50
$
18.75
$
20.00
$
20.50
30
$
18.60
$
31.65
$
29.00
$
24.00
$ 35.00
$
18.75
$ 17.00
$
25.00
$
25.77
32
$
18.00
$
31.00
$
29.00
$
24.00
$ 35.00
$
20.75
$
25.00
$
27.46
36
$
18.00
$
33.22
$
31.25
$
24.00
$ 35.00
$
24.00
$
26.00
$
28.91
40
$
19.00
$
32.94
$
39.62
$
39.50
$
37.50
$ 38.00
$
26.50
$ 18.00
$
32.00
$
33.01
45
$
19.00
$
41.84
$
39.50
$
37.50
$ 38.00
$
26.50
$ 20.00
$
32.00
$
33.62
46
$
19.00
$
42.00
$
37.50
$ 38.00
$
26.50
$
35.00
$
35.80
50
$
23.00
$
42.00
$
41.00
$ 41.00
$
27.75
$
35.00
$
37.35
54
$
25.56
$
42.00
$
41.00
$ 41.00
$
27.75
$
37.94
55
$
25.09
$
42.00
$
41.00
$ 41.00
$
27.75
$
37.94
60
$
23.00
$
50.34
$
49.07
$
42.00
$
45.00
$ 45.00
$
29.00
$
43.40
Average of all 40' slips = $33.01 /LF /mo
NH Marina Index — 8 Marina Locations
HN
Balboa
he
r.
HN
Balboa
he
'I
:KVA 2 L 15 1
a
Harbor One -Time Costs
One -Time Capital Projects (assume 4 -10 year payment plan) Total Project Cost
Rhine Channel Dredging & POLB Disposal
$
4,000,000
25%
$
1,000,000
Lower Bay Dredging -- One Time'
$
23,000,000
10%
V$
2,300,000
West Newport Channels Dredging
$
5,000,000
25%
$
1,250,000
CEQA and Permitting for Rhine and LNB
$
500,000
25%
$
125,000
Marina Park Marina
$
9,000,000
25%
$
2,250,000
Subtotal One -Time Capital Projects
$
41,500,000.00
$
5,925,000
' Citywill actively seek additional federal contributions within Fed budget. Onlyabout$2 million assured now.
Harbor Ongoing Costs
Ongoing Maintenance - Annual Costs
-- Lower Bay Dredging -- Annuity Contribution $ 1,000,000
-- Upper Bay Dredging -- Annuity Contribution $ 1,500,000
-- Public Pier Maintenance (Bay Piers) $ 190,000
-- Mooring Administration Fee $ 280,000
-- Regional General Permit 54 Renewal, Testing $ 150,000
-- Eelgrass Mapping & Maintenance $ 75,000
-- Harbor Trash Removal $ 20,000
--Water Quality Protection (TMDLs, NPDES, more) $ 350,000
-- Upper Bay Management Assistance (includes BBSC) $ 100,000
-- Guest Amenity Improvements $ 50,000
-- Code Enforcement in Harbor $ 50,000
-- Bay Beach Sand Replenishment $ 75,000
Subtotal Ongoing Maintenance $ 3,840,000
Total Harbor Expenditures (est)
a subset of Tidelands Expenditures
Tidelands Harbor Costs (estimated)
Total Harbor Costs (est)
$ 11,298,248
$ 11,385,713
2011
$ 11,565,925
2012
1 $ 7,128,419
2013
Cumulative Harbor Costs (est)
2014
$ 22,683,960
2015
2016
$ 52,758,557
2017
Harbor Resources (Sal /Ben)' Z
$
533,248
$
543,913
$
554,791
$
565,887
$
577,205
$ 588,749
$
600,524
One -Time Harbor Costs
$
6,925,000
�$
6,925,000
�$
6,925,000
�$
6,925,000
$
2,300,000
$ 2,300,000
$
2,300,000
Ongoing Harbor Maintenance Costs
$
3,840,000
$
3,916,800
$
3,995,136
$
4,075,039
$
4,156,539
$ 4,239,670
$
4,324,464
Total Harbor Costs (est)
$ 11,298,248
$ 11,385,713
$ 11,474,927
$ 11,565,925
$ 7,033,744
1 $ 7,128,419
$ 7,224,987
Cumulative Harbor Costs (est)
$ 22,683,960
$ 34,158,887
$ 45,724,813
$ 52,758,557
$ 59,886,976
$ 67,111,963
' Directcosts only. Does not include a ny other City overhead - City Attorney, City Manager, Admin Services, etc.
Assumes 2% inflation on ongoing costs
Total Harbor Revenues (e5t)
a subset of Tidelands Revenues
Tidelands Harbor Revenues (projected - assumes no change except 2% inflation
BYB - Garages
$ 35,000
2011
1 2012
1 2013 1
2014
37,885
2015 1
38,643
2016 1
39,416
2017
Onshore and Offshore Moorings
$
700,000
$ 714,000
$ 728,280
$ 742,846
$
757,703
$
772,857
$
788,314
Residential Pier Permits
$
30,000
$ 30,600
$ 31,212
$ 31,836
$
32,473
$
33,122
$
33,785
Commercial Pier Permits
$
566,000
$ 577,320
$ 588,866
$ 600,644
$
612,657
$
624,910
$
637,408
Interest
$
75,000
$ 76,500
$ 78,030
$ 79,591
$
81,182
$
82,806
$
84,462
American Legion
$
138,120
$ 140,882
$ 143,700
$ 146,574
$
149,506
$
152,496
$
155,546
BYB - Slips
$
650,000
$ 663,000
$ 676,260
$ 689,785
$
703,581
$
717,653
$
732,006
BYB - Garages
$ 35,000
$ 35,700
$ 36,414
$ 37,142
$
37,885
$
38,643
$
39,416
Balboa Bay Club- Marina Only
$ 689,000
$ 702,780
$ 716,836
$ 731,172
$
745,796
$
760,712
$
775,926
Balboa Island Ferry
$ 75,319
$ 76,825
$ 78,362
$ 79,929
$
81,528
$
83,158
$
84,821
Galley Cafe
$ 20,511
$ 20,921
$ 21,340
$ 21,766
$
22,202
$
22,646
$
23,099
Basin Marine Shipyard
$ 70,000
$ 71,400
$ 72,828
$ 74,285
$
75,770
$
77,286
$
78,831
OC Dock Lease
$ 47,755
$ 48,710
$ 49,684
$ 50,678
$
51,692
$
52,725
$
53,780
Subtotal Tidelands Harbor Water Related Revenues
r $ 3,096,705
1 $ 3,158,639
1 $ 3,221,812 1
$ 3,286,248 1
$
3,351,973 1
$
3,419,013 1
$
3,487,393
Water - Adjacent Activity Revenues
Beacon Bay residences
$ 928,177
$ 946,741
$ 965,675
$ 984,989
$ 1,004,689
$ 1,024,782
$ 1,045,278
BYB - Apartments
$ 27,000
$ 27,540
$ 28,091
$ 28,653
$ 29,226
$ 29,810
$ 30,406
Balboa Bay Club - AllNon- Marina
$ 2,401,000
$ 2,449,020
$ 2,498,000
$ 2,547,960
$ 2,598,920
$ 2,650,898
$ 2,703,916
Subtotal Tidelands Harbor Water- Adjacent
$ 3,356,177
$ 3,423,301
$ 3,491,767
$ 3,561,602
$ 3,632,834
$ 3,705,491
$ 3,779,600
Total Tidelands Harbor - Related Revenues $ 6,452,882 $ 6,581,940 $ 6,713,578 $ 6,847,850 $ 6,984,807 $ 7,124,503 $ 7,266,993
Net Surplus (Deficit) — Harbor
Revenues and Expenditures (est)
Total Tidelands Harbor Related Revenues 1 $ 6,452,882 1 $ 6,581,940 1 $ 6,713,578 1 $ 6,847,850 1 $ 6,984,807 1 $ 7,124,503 $ 7,266,993
Surplus (Deficit) Water Related Rev - Exp
2011
2012
2013
2014
$ (3,681,771)
2015
$ (3,737,594)
2016
$ (8,201,543)
2017
Total Harbor Costs (est)
$ 11,298,248
$ 11,385,713
$ 11,474,927 $
11,565,925
$
7,033,744
$
7,128,419
$
7,224,987
Cumulative Harbor Costs (est)
$ 22,683,960
$ 34,158,887 $
45,724,813
$
52,758,557
$
59,886,976
$
67,111,963
ridelands Harbor Revenues (estimated - assumes nochange
except
2011
2% inflation)
2012 1
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Subtotal Tidelands Harbor Water - Related Revenues
$ 3,096,705
$ 3,158,639
1 $ 3,221,812 $
3,286,248
$
3,351,973
$
3,419,013
$
3,487,393
Subtotal Tidelands Harbor Water- Adjacent
$ 3,356,177
$ 3,423,301
$ 3,491,767 $
3,561,602
$
3,632,834
$
3,705,491
$
3,779,600
Total Tidelands Harbor Related Revenues 1 $ 6,452,882 1 $ 6,581,940 1 $ 6,713,578 1 $ 6,847,850 1 $ 6,984,807 1 $ 7,124,503 $ 7,266,993
Surplus (Deficit) Water Related Rev - Exp
1 $ (8,201,543)
$ (8,227,074)
$ (8,253,115)
$ (8,279,677)
$ (3,681,771)
$ (3,709,406)
$ (3,737,594)
Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) Water Related
$ (8,201,543)
$ (16,428,616)
$ (24,681,731)
$ (32,961,409)
$ (36,643,180)
$ (40,352,586)
$ (44,090,181)
Surplus (Deficit) Total Harbor Rev over Expenditures
$ (4,845,366)
$ (4,803,773)
$ (4,761,349)
$ (4,718,075)
1 $ (48,937)
$ (3,916)
$ 42,006
Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) Total Harbor Rev over Exp
$ (4,845,366)
$ (9,649,139)
$(14,410,487)
$(19,128,563)
$(19,177,500)
$(19,181,416)
$(19,139,410)
Note: Chart only shows harbor - related costs associated with Tidelands Fund. Other costs not
included above related to otherTidelands include Police, Fire, Lifeguards, more.
Unknown Costs
Implementation of TMDLs:
Selenium
Trash
Fecal Coliform
Other WQ directives from SWRCB /RWQCB
Seawall Deficiencies
Public seawalls, private seawalls
Sea level change impacts
Others TBD
October 30. 2010 - .
'r'
Mr. Keith D. Curry, Mayor
Newport Beach City Council "_0
33(x1 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92003
Dear Mayor Curry,
H
1 am writing you to express my concerns over the pending decisions affecting the
mooring lees and use.
From what I have learned, an ad hoc committee under the direction of the harbor
commission, is reviewing a proposal to increase the mooring permits sonic 150% over a
five year period. I also understand that there has not been an increase for the last fourteen
years and recognize that some increase is necessary. In my investigation about charging
fees. I believe that a fee should cover the costs to administer the permit and services and
not be a revenue source. I also Teamed that the mooring permits generate collectively
sonic $700,000 annually for the city. I don't understand the aggressive fee increase that
City Manager. Mr. Kiff is seeking in a time when like the city. we are all having to cut
back our budgets during this deep recession.
I have had a mooring in Newport harbor since 1996 and have paid the city over S1 1.000
dollars. 1 paid lix the maintenance of the mooring every other year ($500 - $800) to a
company that does business and pays taxes to the city. I shop in the city ofNewport fitr
services and goods that support boating and leisure activity and those businesses pay their
fair share of city taxes. Is it the interest of the city to drive out the mooring owners
with this hefty increase and stop us from suppokting the cih7
The next issue is the elimination of the "transferability" of the mooring. My research tells
me that for over some thirty years, under the provisions of the mooring agreement, the
city has permitted mooring owners to transfer their moorings and now wants to do away
with it. I decided fourteen years ago to move my boat to a less convenient mooring to
save money so i could still egjoy boating in the future (a business decision). It was a
costly investment in 1996 to acquire the mooring. 1 cannot imagine the city deciding to
eliminate my investment, anymore than the city deciding to not allow me to sell my
home.
I feel that there are more reasonable ways to handle the fee increase and transferability. I
support the fair proposal presented by the Newport Mooring Association to address and
resolve the above issues that was rejected by the city manager. I would appreciate your
careful consideration on this mailer as it affects one of the city's important resources, the
harbor and your position.
.' nccrely.
en mbatore
Terry Trombatcre
262 Cajon Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Sss - )I1 -Jo
Presentation to City Council
Regarding Newport Harbor
Mooring Fees and
Transferability
November 9, 2010
Issues
1. Harbor Mooring Fees
2. Budgetary Analysis
3. Transferability
4. Transferability Document
5. Recommendations
Awl
and Summary
�, s • �• A1,614
J
Harbor Mooring Fees
• Methodology used for rate increase is arbitrary and not
independently, professionally verified
• Relative value of moorings versus slips is different in
Newport than other harbors due to quantity of moorings
compared to slips and supply — demand issues
• Very high upland values in Newport Beach distort
relative value of tidelands so tying mooring fees to slip
costs is unreasonable
• City previously set a "market value" in 1996 and using a
CPI based adjustment the fully indexed rate would be
$29/ft., from the current $20 /ft.
Harbor Mooring Fees
• Comprehensive revenue plan needs to be developed
before any fees are changed
— Discriminatory to do it piecemeal
• Previously the City promised to look at other fees when
they raised mooring fees but never did
• Substantial fee increases will drive many on fixed
incomes out of the harbor
• NB General Plan allows for affordable boat storage — p.
3811 R8.6, "Provide moorings as an important source of
low cost public recreational access to the water and
harbor."
Harbor Mooring Fees
Budgetary Analysis
• Fee increase is not justified or reasonable
— There is no cash flow analysis that includes the
proposed fee increase
— Ongoing costs should be considered separately
from one time capital expenditures
— Funds from the Federal Government are not
included
Harbor Mooring Fees
Budgetary Analysis
• Sources of revenue not represented in City's
analysis
— PIT (Possessory Interest Tax)
— Unsecured property tax returned to City
— Tidelands boat storage contribution
— Potential rental income from vacant mooring
— NMA cash flow projection shows $2.6 million
surplus in 2017 — City is est. at $6 million
Harbor Resources
(Sal /Ben)'
Ongoing Harbor
Maintenance
Costs2
Total Ongoing
Harbor Costs
One -Time Harbor
Capital
Requirements
Total Harbor
Tidelands Harbor Expenditures (Revised)
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
$533,248
$543,913
$554,791
$565,887
$577,205
$588,749
$600,524
$3,840,000
$3,916,800
$3,995,136
$4,075,039
$4,156,539
$4,239,670
$4,324,464
$4,373,248
$4,460,713
$4,549,927
$4,640,926
$4,733,744
$4,828,419
$4,924,988
$6,925,000
$6,925,000
$6,925,000
$6,925,000
$2,300,000
$2,300,000
$2,300,000
Costs (est) $11,298,248 $11,385,713 $11,474,927 $11,565,926 $7,033,744 $7,128,419 $7,224,988
Cumulative
Harbor Costs
(est) $11,298,248 $22,683,961 $34,158,888 $45,724,814 $52,758,558 $59,886,977 $67,111,965
'Direct costs only. Does not include any other City overhead - City Attorney, City Manager, Admin Services, etc.
Assumes 2%
inflation on
ongoing costs
Tideland Harbor Revenues- City Proposed Mooring Increases
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Onshore and Offshore Moorings
$700,000
8%
$714,000
8%
$728,280
7%
$742,846
7%
$757,703
7%
Proposed Mooring Rate Increase
$207,795
2%
$425,401
4%
$651,519
7%
$886,512
9%
$1,130,719
11%
Residential Pier Permit
$30,000
0%
$30,600
0%
$31,212
0%
$31,836
0%
$32,473
0%
Commercial Pier Permits
$566,000
6%
$577,320
6%
$588,866
6%
$600,644
6%
$612,657
6%
Interest
$75,000
1%
$76,500
1%
$78,030
1%
$79,591
1%
$81,182
1%
American Legion
$138,120
2%
$140,882
1%
$143,700
1%
$146,574
1%
$149,506
1%
BYB - Slips
$650,000
7%
$663,000
7%
$676,260
7%
$689,785
7%
$703,581
7%
BYB - Garages
$35,000
0%
$35,700
0%
$36,414
0%
$37,142
0%
$37,885
0%
Balboa Bay Club - Marina Only
$689,000
8%
$702,780
7%
$716,836
7%
$731,172
7%
$745,796
7%
Balboa Island Ferry
$75,319
1%
$76,825
1%
$78,362
1%
$79,929
1%
$81,528
1%
Galley Cafe
$20,511
0%
$20,921
0%
$21,340
0%
$21,766
0%
$22,202
0%
Basin Marine Shipyard
$70,000
1%
$71,400
1%
$72,828
1%
$74,285
1%
$75,770
1%
OC Dock Lease
$47,755
1%
$48,710
1%
$49,684
1%
$50,678
0%
$51,692
0%y
Subtotal Tidelands Harbor Water - Related
Ra
Revenues
$3,304,500
36%
$3,584,040
38%
$3,873,331
39%
$4,172,760
41%
$4,482,693
42% ��►►
-0
Water Adjacent Revenue & Other Revenue Sources
Water- Adjacent Activity
Revenues
Beacon Bay residences
$928,177
10%
$946,741
10%
$965,675
30%
$984,989
30%
$1,004,689
9%
BYB - Apartments
$27,000
0%
$27,540
0%
$28,091
0%
$28,653
0%
$29,226
0%
Balboa Bay Club - All Non - Marina
$2,401,000
26%
$2,449,020
26%
$2,498,000
25%
$2,547,960
25%
$2,598,920
25%
Subtotal Tidelands Harbor Water-
Adjacent
$3,356,177
37%
$3,423,301
36%
$3,491,767
35%
$3,561,602
35%
$3,632,834
34%
Other Revenue Sources
Unsecured Property Tax
$800,000
9%
$800,000
8%
$800,000
8%
$800,000
8%
$800,000
8%
Posessory Interest Tax
$700,000
8%
$700,000
7%
$700,000
7%
$700,000
7%
$700,000
7%
Tidelands Boat Storage -
minimum residential
$700,000
8%
$700,000
7%
$700,000
7%
$700,000
7%
$700,000
7%
Monthly Fees - vacant moorings
(est. 100 at $8 /day) $
292,000
3%$
292,000
3%$
292,000
3%$
292,000
3%$
292,000
3%
Total Other Revenue Sources $
2,492,000
27% $ 2,492,000
$
2,492,000
$
2,492,000
$
2,492,000
Total Tidelands Harbor- Related
Revenues
$9,152,677100%
$9,499,341
100%
$9,857,098100%
$10,226,362
100%
$10,607,526
100%
Projected Tidelands Harbor Revenues — Net Surplus/(Deficit)
(including City mooring fee increase and 2% inflation)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Subtotal Tidelands Harbor Water - Related
Revenues $3,304,500 $3,584,040 $3,873,331 $4,172,760 $4,482,693 $4,606,268 $4,734,011
Subtotal Tidelands Harbor Water- Adjacent $3,356,177 $3,423,301 $3,491,767 $3,561,602 $3,632,834 $3,705,491 $3,779,600
Total Other Revenue Sources $2,492,000 $2,492,000
Total Tidelands Harbor - Related Revenues $9,152,677 $9,499,341
$2,492,000 $2,492,000 $2,492,000 $2,492,000 52,492,000
$9,857,098 $10,226,362 $10,607,526 $10,803,759 $11,005,611
Total Ongoing Harbor Costs $4,373,248 $4,460,713 $4,549,927 $4,640,926 $4,733,744 $4,828,419 $4,924,988
Surplus (Deficit) Water Related & Tidelands Rev
-Exp $4,779,429 $5,038,628 $5,307,171 $5,585,436 $5,873,782 $5,975,339 $6,080,624
Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) Woter-Related $4,779,429 $9,818,057 $15,125,228 $20,710,664 $26,584,446 $32,559,785 $38,640,409
One Time Capital Requirements $6,925,000 $6,925,000
Federal Funds Avoialable for Capital Project
(estimated) $2,000,000
NMA Surplus (Deficit) Total Harbor Rev over
Capital Requirements ($145,571) ($1,886,372)
Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) Total Harbor Rev
over Exp ($145,571) ($2,031,943)
$6,925,000 $6,925,000 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $2,300,000
($1,617,829) ($1,339,564) $3,573,782 $3,675,339 $3,780,624
($3,649,772) ($4,989,336) ($1,415,554) $2,259,785 $6,040,409
Comparison City Mooring Fee Increase to NMA
One Time Capital Expenditure Paid
for in 7 - 8 years with NMA
Proposal
Comparison City Mooring Increase
to NMA
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Onshore and Offshore Moorings
$700,000
$714,000
$728,280
$742,846
$757,703
$772,857
$788,314
Proposed Mooring Rate Increase
City
$207,795
$425,401
$651,519
$886,512
$1,130,719
$1,187,255
$1,246,618
City Total Proposed Mooring
Revenue
$907,795
$1,139,401
$1,379,799
$1,629,358
$1,888,422
$1,960,112
$2,034,932
Percentage Total Existing Revenue
Sources
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
18%
18%
Proposed NMA Rate Increase(CPI
Index=45% rise2011 & 2% inflation)
$315,000
$321,300
$327,726
$334,281
$340,966
$347,785
$354,741
Total Proposed NMA Mooring
Revenue
$1,015,000
$1,035,300
$1,056,006
$1,077,126
$1,098,669
$1,120,642
$1,143,055
Percentage Total Existing Revenue
Sources
11%
11%
11%
11%
10%
10%
10%
NMA Surplus (Deficit) Total Harbor
Rev over Cap Req.- City Mooring
Fees ($145,571) ($1,886,372) ($1,617,829) ($1,339,564) $3,573,782 $3,675,339 $3,780,624
NMA Surp (Def) Total Harbor Rev
over Cap. Req. NMA CPI adj.
Mooring Fees $(38,366.00) $ (1,990,473) $ (1,941,623) $ (1,891,795) $ 2,784,029 $ 2,835,869 $ 2,888,747
NMA Cumulative Surplus (Den Total
Har Rev over Exp - $38,366.00 ($2,028,839) ($3,970,462) ($5,862,257) ($3,078,228) ($242,359) $2,646,387
Transferability
• City condoned the process of selling mooring
rights:
1. Recommending to interested parties that the only practical way to
attain a mooring was to buy a boat on a mooring since the waiting
list was so long — the value of that right became a function of
market demand and inflation
2. The majority of moorings have been transferred in this fashion for
over 50 years
3. The City of Newport Beach has itself sold moorings as recently as
2004 ... does that not indicate acceptance of the practice?
4. City of Newport has followed the same practice as other ports
such as Avalon, Morro Bay, Port San Luis, and Pillar Point.
5. As recently as June 2010 the City and County Board of
Supervisors formalized transfers on page 13 of the Mooring
Administration contract with the Harbor Patrol.
Transferability
The proposed elimination of transferability
will harm existing mooring holders on a
massive scale
1. Unfair to existing mooring permit holders who in
good faith followed the established and accepted
practice and only wish to be able to recoup their
investment if they move out of boating
2. Since the City embraced and encouraged that
practice they have the obligation to protect the
value of that asset for their citizens
A Reasonable
Transferability Document Strikes a
Worthy of True Consideration
• Who worked on it?
Option
n Appropriate Compromise
by Council Members
• HRD Staff members Rossmiller, Miller, Stakeholders, both City Attorneys, City Revenue
Department, Harbor Commissioners & Mooring Master Plan Committee Citizen Group; Harbor
Master Deputies
• How long in the works? Over three years
• Who reviewed it?
• Harbor Commissioners Duffield, Collins, Beek, Corrough, Rodheim, Lawrenz, Rhyne,
Rossmiller, Miller, Stakeholders, MMPSC, Harbor Patrol, Dave Kiff, both City Attorneys, City
Revenue Dept.,
• Who liked it?
• All Harbor Commissioners, MMPSC, Harbor Patrol, NMA and other stakeholders
• Former City Attorney reviewed and encouraged process and ideas, current City Attorney,
David Hunt, reviewed twice and would like to re -word "rental"
• Dave Kiff supported the concept for over a year
• Where is it now?
• In the City's court, everyone wonders why no input from Council until formation of ad hoc
Committee.
• Worthy of full consideration by City Council between now and their vote on mooring fees and
transferability
Transferability Document provides
Well thought out solutions
What does the Transferability Document Do?
• Improves and updates definitions and terms currently in the Ordinance
• Improves public access with both short and long term rental of empty, or
underutilized moorings
• Generates additional income to City with predictable, year -round rental
opportunities, effectively allowing City to double dip from mooring permit
fee and additional income from rental.
• Defines entities that may be mooring permit holder
(business entities, trusts, yacht clubs, etc.)
• Allows for Multi Vessel Mooring Systems
• Clearly spells out permit requirements: name of responsible person, city's
rights, provides for proof of liability insurance,
Transferability Document =Transfers
• Sets rigid qualifications for transferees and permittees
• Establishes Mooring Permit Transfer Fee (new income to city)
• Eliminates mooring speculation
• Limits transfer to one offshore mooring per 12 month period
• Addresses unpaid fees and consequences
• Gives Harbor Resources discretion on transfers
• Mooring vacant 60 days after transfer may be used for long term rental
• No live - aboards on long term rental moorings
• Allows two mooring permit holders to trade moorings for mutual
convenience
• Addresses revocation and surrender of mooring permit
Transferability Document
Provides solutions to significant issues:
• Stops people from buying and selling moorings for
profit
— Word crafted a document that provides solid language to
prevent the buying and selling of moorings
— Allows those who have used long standing, condoned
methods to acquire a mooring to transfer the mooring to
another individual when necessary
• Improve transfer process
— Sets out clear definitions, conditions and process for
controlled transfers
Transferability Document — A "win — win"
Adoption of the Transferability Document
suggestions would support the interests of
all mooring stakeholders including the City
of Newport Beach, improve public access
by way of short and long term rentals, and it
would generate new revenues for the city
for its forecasted capital expenditures in the
harbor.
It is a "win -win" that the Council should
consider
Recommendations
• Adjust mooring fees in a fair and reasonable
manner
• Adopt the Transferab
Section 17.01.030 of
17.60.040 of Chapter
Municipal Code
ility Document amending
Chapter 17.40 and Section
17.60 of Title 17 of the NB
• Consider additional sources of income for the City
• Charge same $ per foot for all tidelands boat storage
— Moorings and piers
— Estimated minimum $700,000 in the first year from boats on private
piers
• Charge fee on mooring transfers
• Charge fee for long -term rental of vacant moorings
Summary
The City Manager's proposal — "Outcome of changes to mooring fees
and policy should be fair, reasonable, and legally defensible."
Is not reasonable
• Indexes mooring fees to expensive upland real estate values
Is not fair
• Make dramatic changes to mooring transferability in a cavalier manner while
ignoring Transferability Draft Document approved by Harbor Commission
City Needs to do the right thing, not just the legal thing
• While the City may feel it is on firm legal ground by drastically altering the city's
transferability policy, are they on firm moral ground? Is a complete reversal of
the city's long sanctioned method the right thing to do to the mooring
stakeholders. Are they punishing the many for the actions of a few?
Alternative Proposals
Mooring fees should be immediately indexed to the Consumer Price Index
using the date of the last mooring fee increase (Jan. 1996) as a base point
and shall be indexed annually going forward.
No changes shall be made at this time to the rules regarding mooring
transferability. Transferability Document needs to be studied and adopted in
the future.
NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION
A NON - PROFIT ASSOCIATION OF MOORED BOAT OWNERS
DATE: November 9, 2010
TO: City Council
FROM: Newport Mooring Association
MATTER: Harbor Fee Update Study Session 11.9.10
SUBJECT: NMA's Discussion of Key Issues Affecting Mooring Rates:
Fairness, Public Policy, Common Sense, and the Law
SUMMARY:
The City Manager's Proposal on Harbor Mooring Charges advises of a
"harbor revenue" shortfall resulting from projected dredging and ongoing harbor
maintenance costs. To partially offset those projected costs, the City Manager
proposes a mooring rate hike that would raise Newport Harbor mooring rates to
roughly three times the regional average.
The proposed rate hike is unfair to mooring permit holders who rely on
current rates to provide them with affordable boat storage on the bay. The
proposed rate hike also defeats the two -fold public policy of: (1) Charging fair
market value for the small part of the Tidelands occupied by each moored boat
(because the proposed rates greatly exceed market rates); and (2) Providing
affordable access to the bay.
The City Manager's proposal is apparently intended to remove the "high
transfer cost" of a mooring permit as a "barrier to low cost entry" into the mooring
fields. But higher rates will only add another barrier to entry.
Finally, the proposed rates violate the prohibition on rate discrimination in
section 1(d) of the Tidelands Grant.
1
1. FAIRNESS:
A. Continue to Set Rates Based on Mooring Rates Charged by Other
Similar Harbors in the Region
In 1995, the City of Newport Bcach established a schedule for mooring fees
based upon fees charged by other harbors in Southern California. This resulted in
the current fee schedule. (Resolution, Exhibit 1) The Resolution states in essence
that a comparison of rates charged to boats moored in other similar harbors
provides the fair market value for Newport Harbor. This finding remains true to
this day, and any departure from it must be scrutinized - -- especially because such
a departure is likely to result in rates that exceed fair market value.
The Mooring Association submits a current comparative analysis of mooring
rates in Southern California harbors. (Exhibit 2) A review of mooring rates in
other similarly situated harbors shows that the current City rate is already above
averaee for Southern California.
B. Avoid an Arbitrary Valuation Method That is Designed Solely to
Guarantee a Rate Increase Far Above Reeional Market Values for
Moorings:
The City Manager urges Council to depart from long accepted mooring
valuation methods for one reason: to increase mooring rates two to three times fair
market value.
The City Manager's new valuation method is based on a percentage of
Newport Harbor slip rates. Newport Harbor slip rates are affected by the
extremely high value of the waterfront real estate to which the slips are connected.
Thus, the near tripling of mooring rates proposed by the City Manager results not
from a fair market valuation of the Tidelands occupied by moored boats, but from
a valuation of improvements to real property adjacent to the Tidelands.
7
2. PUBLIC POLICY:
The City Manager's analysis obscures the City Council's mission here,
which is two -fold:
1. Obtain fair value for moorings, which avoids a gift of public property
prohibited by the California Constitution; and
2. Provide affordable public access to the Tidelands.
The City Manager's proposal, if adopted, would ensure that neither of these
goals is met. Rather, the proposed rate increase would: (1) Result in mooring rates
at least three times the regional average; and (2) Deny affordable mooring rates to
persons who rely on them to use the bay to store their boats.
The assumption that most mooring permit holders are wealthy individuals
who intend to profit on the ultimate sale of the permit is not supported by evidence,
and, in most cases, is just plain wrong.
While it is true that some permit holders are concerned that they paid a five
figure sum for their permit (which they now stand to lose), most permit holders
simply rely on their mooring permits to provide them with affordable (albeit
inconvenient) storage for their boat in Newport Harbor.
Under the City Manager's "analysis," higher rates will wipe out private
permit transfer value. If this unsubstantiated assumption were accurate, the City
Manager would not need to include in his proposal new regulations restricting the
private transfer of moorings.
3
3. COMMON SENSE
Part 3 of the City Manager's presentation projects "harbor revenue" short
falls resulting primarily from Tidelands dredging and maintenance operations.
(The City Manager's presentation omits an analysis of total Tidelands revenues.)
Assuming (without conceding) that the City stands to "lose" money due to
projected harbor maintenance and dredging expenses, the first question is: Who
should bear the cost of these operations? There is only one common sense answer:
ALL persons who benefit from a dredged and maintained bay should pay these
costs. This answer is based on the following simple inquiry:
a. Question: Who benefits primarily from dredging and maintenance
operations essential to navigation by boats drawing water? Answer: Primarily,
persons who store private yachts on the Tidelands.
b. Questio n: Which boat owners pay the City (directly or indirectly) to
store their boats on the Tidelands? Answer: All boat owners except the owners of
several thousand boats tied to private piers.
The math is fairly simple here. The City Manager's proposed mooring rate
hike will not cover projected dredging and maintenance short falls for one simple
reason: The rates target the minority of all boats stored privately on the Tidelands.
Most boats moored outside of marinas on the bay are tied to private piers. There is
no storage fee of any kind charged to the owners of these boats.
The common sense solution to the City Manager's projected revenue
shortfall is the adoption of ordinances that require the owners of all boats stored on
the Tidelands to pay their fair share of the cost of dredging and maintaining the
bay. Once this cost is shared fairly, the annual storage charge for all boat owners
should be substantially less than the $20 per foot per year currently charged to
store a boat at an offshore mooring. And the projected shortfall should be resolved,
as well.
4
4. THE LAW
The law prohibits the City from charging one group of boat owners to store
their boat on the Tidelands, while at the same time granting the same right free of
charge to other boat owners (i.e., the owners of boats tied to private piers).
Specifically, Section 1(d) of the Tidelands Grant prohibits the City from
establishing discriminatory rates for aM use of the bay.
Oddly, the City Attorney has taken the lead in defending the City's "right"
to maintain a decades -long discriminatory rate structure that favors the owners of
huge motor yachts tied to private piers.
In response to this, NMA hired a recognized expert on legislative history,
who produced a report supported by 500 pages of exhibits. The report has been in
the hands of the City Attorney for over a month.
The legislative history specialist's report establishes that the rate
discrimination prohibition in Section I (d) of the Tidelands Grant has nothing to do
with race or gender. Rather, in section 1(d), the California Legislature intended to
prohibit precisely the type of rate discrimination that is present here: Different
charges for the same or similar "use" of the bay.
As the City Attorney points out in his September 28, 2010 memorandum to
City Council, the City may classify various "uses" of the harbor for the purpose of
establishing variable rates for uses. But there is no rational way to "classify"
different "uses" of the bay here. The rate discrimination here applies to a singular
use of the bay: Storage of private yachts on Tidelands held in trust by the City for
the benefit of the public.
Owners of boats tied to moorings pay the City (directly) for the right to
exclusively occupy a small part of the Tidelands. Owners of boats tied up in
commercial marinas pay the City (indirectly) for the right to exclusively occupy a
small part of the Tidelands. But owners of boats tied to private piers do not pay
anyone for the right to exclusively occupy a small part of the Tidelands.
5
How does the City Attorney propose that the City classify the storage of
boats at a private pier differently than the storage of boats tied to moorings? His
memos don't say. But at last week's study session for the ad hoc Committee on
Harbor Fees, the City Attorney signaled his reliance on Public Resources Code
section 6503.5, which prohibits the City from charging rent for a private pier, only.
Here is the statute that the City Attorney evidently believes sets the storage
of boats tied to private piers apart from the storage of boats tied to moorings:
§ 6503.5. Rent charges for land use by littoral landowner
prohibited; Payment of expenses
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6503, no rent shall be charged
for any private recreational pier constructed on state lands for the use of a
littoral landowner. However, a littoral landowner shall pay to the
commission, in accordance with its rules and regulations, the commission's
expenses in issuing a lease or permit for the state lands.
(b) As used in this section, the following terms have the following
meanings:
(1) "Littoral landowner" means (A) any natural person or persons who own
littoral land improved with, and used solely for, a single - family dwelling or
(b) any association of, or any nonprofit corporation consisting of, natural
persons who own parcels of land, each of which is zoned or used solely for a
single - family dwelling, and who are entitled to the use of a private
recreational pier on littoral land that is owned by the association or nonprofit
corporation and is not more than one mile from any such parcel owned by a
member thereof.
(2) "Recreational pier" includes any fixed facility for the docking or mooring
of boats that is constructed for the use of the littoral landowner.
For the reasons explained below, PRE 6503.5 does not support a separate
"classification of use of the Tidelands" for boats moored at private piers.
0
First, since section 6503.5 authorizes the "free use" of "public land," it must
be interpreted very narrowly, so that the "rent free" use of the bay is not extended
beyond what is s ecified by the legislature.
Here, the rent free "use" of public property allowed in section 6503.5 applies
to a "private recreational pier." In subsection (b)(2), a "Recreational pier" is
defined as a `fried facility."
A boat is anything but a "fixed facility." And importantly, a boat adjacent
to a private pier "exclusively occupies" a different part of the bay than the pier
itself. Thus, the "rent free" provisions of section 6503.5 do not apply to the part of
the Tidelands exclusively occupied by a boat adjacent to the private pier.
Every boat stored lawfully on the bay is "occupying a part of the Tidelands
to the exclusion of the public." 1 The "footprint" of the Tidelands occupied by a
moored boat is no different than the "footprint" of the Tidelands occupied by the
same boat when it is tied to a private pier. Accordingly, the City should "rent"
both "footprints" of the Tidelands for the same (or very similar) rates.
But instead, the City rents such a "footprint" for $800 per year in the middle
of the bay, but charges no rent for an identical Tidelands "footprint" located
adjacent to a private pier. This is the essence of "rate discrimination" outlawed in
section 1(d) of the Tidelands Grant.
In sum, rate discrimination is not the "non- issue" that the City Attorney says
it is. The rate structure for storing boats on the granted Tidelands has been
unlawfully discriminatory for decades. The only potential bar to legal action
against the current rate structure is the statute of limitations. But if the City adopts
a new rate structure, the new (and equally discriminatory) rates will not be
protected by the statute of limitations.
'According to the City Attorney's memoranda to Council, the City is acting as a "proprietor" of
the bay when it "licenses" the right to occupy a part of the Tidelands to the exclusion of the
public. But this truism does not end the inquiry. It opens it.
7
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 77
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BRACH ESTABLISHING 140ORING FEES AND
A LATE PAYMENT PENALTY PURSUANT TO SECTION
17.22.050 OF THE NEWPORT BRACE MUNICIPAL CODE
• AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 94 -53.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.22.050 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach may
prescribe by resolution fees for mooring permits issued pursuant to
Chapter 17.22; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has
considered the fees recommended by the Harbors and Beaches
Committee and finds them to be fair, equitable and reasonably
consistent with charges for mooring permits of a similar nature in
other locations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Newport, aB follows:
1. The following schedule of fees for mooring permits is
established:
a. Offshore moorings bayward of the Pierhead Line:
$20.00 per vessel foot per year for the length of vessel
authorized; and
b. Onshore moorings landward of the Pierhead Line:
$10.00 per vessel foot.
2. The fees imposed by this Resolution shall be payable
annually, in advance, or on such different period as may be
established by the Finance Director, and shall take effect January
1, 1996.
3. Fees shall be due and payable on the 1st day of February,
1996, and the 1st day of February each and every year thereafter.
The fees shall become delinquent on the let day of March. Upon
• failure of the permittee to pay the prescribed fee when due and
prior to delinquency, the Finance Director shall add a late penalty
of twenty -five percent (254) of said fee on the let day of each
month after the due date thereof; provided, however, that the
amount of such late payment penalty to be added to the primary fee
shall, in no event, exceed one hundred percent (1001) of the amount
of the fee due. It is found that the late payment penalty is
necessary to offset the additional administrative costs of the City
of Newport Beach in collecting delinquent permit fees.
4. The fees set by this Resolution are equivalent to the
• fair market value for the use of the tidelands herein involved, and
the City council specifically finds that the fees represent the
fair market value for the use of said tidelands.
5. Resolution No. 94 -53 is hereby rescinded effective July
1, 1995.
6. The City Council reserves the right, in its sole
discretion, to increase or decrease the annual fee at any time
during any calendar year, and any modification to the mooring shall
be collected pro rata and in the manner specified by the City
council.
ADOPTED, this 26th day of June, 1995.
ATTEST:
is
-2-
Source: NMA site: http� /twww newportmooringassociabon .orq /docs/Fee- Comp - 010.htm
To make comparisons easier, a 40 foot mooring is assumed. Some harbors do not price moorings on a price per foot basis.
Newport Beach offers approximately 1235 moorings, approximately 450 of which are shore moorings. City We
For more, see footnotes 1 -8 below which correspond to red numbers at far right.
Southern California includes area south of Half Moon Bay.
110 S-1
Santa Barbara
Avalon
fs
r
.r7
v3rY' .•
a.
r
250.00
350.40
1 �1+�r�'Y✓q'� f�Ctl
250.00
350.40
y�
� •` a i _ 1,.� . f f
20.83 0
29.20 0.73 8.763
Part San Luis
250
Yes
75.00
No
33.50
402.00
402.00
33.50 0.84 10.05 5i
Monterey
150
"AssignmenC'
-n/a-
No
47.30
510.84
510.84
1)
Newport Beach
785
Yes
-60.00
Yes
66.67
800.00
800.00
66.67 1.67 20.0021
Morro Bay
119
Yes
1000.00
No
74.50
894.00
894.00
74.50 1.86 22.356
San Diego
462
No
-n/a-
No
142.62
1711.44
1411.44
117.62 2.94 35.29 1
1 NOTE: A simple average of flat monthly fees which range from $128.17 to $157.07. Not as precise as a weighted average, which would
require further research. San Diego charges no transfer fee for moorings, does not sub -lease moorings, collects no liveaboard fees, and
contracts with San Diego Mooring Company to manage & maintain the moorings. These grossed -up fees do not represent San Diego's net
income from moorings. SDMC also charges a nominal application fee (under $100). Newport Beach also charges a transfer fee which is
very likely to significantly increase, and collects all mooring rental fees.
2 NOTE: Newport Beach collects transient rental income, liveaboard fees. This comparison does not include the 450 shore moorings.
3 NOTE: Avalon rents unused moorings to visitors at rates of $27 to $109 per day (rest of island nearly same). With the exception of the
moorings in Cat Harbor, moorings outside of Avalon do not provide year -round protection. Furthermore, the use of short-lived polypropylene
lines greatly increases maintenance costs paid by the permit holder. Rates charged for moorings outside of Avalon include these high
maintenance costs at $49.74 /ft/yr. The tackle used in Avalon is similar to that used elsewhere at Catalina, but only Avalon breaks permit fee
out from maintenance cost in billing. Avalon bills the permit at $8.76 /ft/yr.
4 NOTE: Santa Barbara's mooring fee is $250 1year regardless of vessel size. No transfer fee, no rental fee, no regulation or fee for liveaboard.
Owner pays maintenance. Moorings assigned by lottery.
5 NOTE: A simple average of Flat fees in Port San Luis collected quarterly between a monthly - equivalent range of $28 to $39. A weighted
average would be more precise but would require further research. Port San Luis offers flat monthly rates in tiers by size; up to 35 feet is
priced equivalent to $28 /mo, 36 feet to 55 feet is $341mo, 56 feet to 75 feet is $39 1mo. These numbers are equivalent to from $6.24 to $11.33
per foot per year. Using the actual price for a 40 foot boat, Port San Luis mooring permit fee is $408 /yr, $34 /mo, $0.85 /ft/mo, $10.20 /f /yr.
Port San Luis maintains 34 first -come, first -served visitor moorings at $10 to $15 1day by size. Zero regulation or fee for liveaboard. Owner
pays for maintenance, performed by Harbor District. Transient use $15 /day for one of the 34 harbor - district owned moorings.
6 NOTE: Morro Bay charges a flat rate mooring fee of $8941year. Assuming a 50 foot boat, this equals $17.88 /f /year. An alternative way to
figure out what this rate equals on a per -foot basis would be to find the weighted average of mooring sizes, then divide that Flat fee by that
weighted average, but this would require more research.
7 NOTE: Monterey mooring pricing is frustratingly complex to understand. Monterey has several pricing tiers; rates are not size- dependent
within each tier. Here the price for a non - liveaboard local is used. Prices are higher for non - residents, liveaboards, and "assigned" moorings
(at a "City' mooring rate). Monterey's system does not allow direct transfer of moorings, yet if you purchase a boat on a mooring, you will
probably be "assigned" that mooring and you'll pay a premium monthly fee for it. Monterey gives 10% discount for year's payment in advance.
To keep this simpler, this disregards the seasonal "East Moorings" in the National Marine Sanctuary, a most unique vantage point from which
you can watch otters float by, watching you. Monterey hopes to entice berth permit holders to use these seasonal moorings so it can charge
transient use rates for berth space and provide harbor visitors the convenience of dock access. Visiting boats may also use these East
moorings.