Orange County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
Newport Harbor Moorings: Are They Held in the Public Trust or for Private Profit?
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 9 findings
F1
Private profits are being made from the current procedures used in transferring the mooring permits located on the public tidelands in Newport Harbor. Because the mooring equipment and the vessel currently assigned to that mooring must be sold to the same person, when a vessel on a mooring is sold, the new owner transfers that mooring permit into his or her name, rather than vacating the mooring and allowing the waiting list to proceed in order. 9
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Tighten the regulations and procedures involved with Newport Harbor mooring permits and their transfers to ensure that all monies received which rightly belong to the public, stay within the public arena.
F2
The offshore mooring areas now extend beyond the lines originally established by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1941.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Consider public access to available moorings through adopting a more effective waiting list.
F3
Certain procedures adopted by the Newport Beach City Council regarding mooring permits are not enforceable because they are not included in the City’s Municipal Code.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Reestablish the original mooring boundaries.
F4
The last assessment of the fair market value of mooring permit fees took place almost ten years ago.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Independently analyze and reestablish the City’s Municipal Code concerning the Harbor Regulations on moorings; have new procedures match corrected regulations rather than codifying, without review, what has become embedded as established practice.
F5
Although a mooring permit can be held in the name of one (1) person only and the permit cannot be placed in a company name, exceptions have been made for certain private yacht clubs. Additionally, vessels and moorings are now registered in family trusts. After a principal’s death, the intent of a trust is to follow the vessel; however, there is an unjustified perception that this also includes the mooring permit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Review the Municipal Code on a regular basis to be sure that it incorporates the revised ordinances and procedures to allow uniform enforcement.
F6
The County (1) follows State statutes and regulations concerning mooring and buoy permits and (2) along with the City of Newport Beach shares financial responsibility for funding the Harbor Patrol to provide management services; however, the County performs no oversight of the City’s regulations and procedures on a regular basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Establish a regularly scheduled independent appraisal for the fair market value of mooring permit fees, e.g., based on a percentage of the cost of a slip.
F7
The Harbor Patrol follows the regulations and procedures set down by the City; however, they have begun re-enforcing certain, but not all, regulations, e.g., the derelict boat rule is being enforced but abandoned moorings are allowed. The result of this is that the harbor now seems cleaner; however, permittees are allowed to maintain moorings without vessels.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Review the inclusion of yacht clubs and trusts as mooring permittees.
F8
The mooring waiting list has not been reviewed or updated for years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange should review their ordinances to make sure that they are consistent with each other.
F9
The majority of the current mooring permit fees fall below the Orange County Minimum Value Ordinance. Responses to Findings F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-7, and F-8 are required from the Mayor of the City of Newport Beach. Responses to Findings F-1 and F-6 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Findings F-7 and F-8 are required from the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner and Harbor Patrol. A Response to Finding F-9 is required from the Orange County Assessor. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to 10 be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Review and update the mooring waiting list.
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R10The Assessor Department should coordinate with the city to review the value of mooring permit fees on a regular basis to see if they rise above the Orange County Minimum Value Ordinance. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-9 are required from the Mayor of the City of Newport Beach. Responses to Recommendations R-1, R-2, R-6, R-8, and R-9 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendations R-5 and R-9 are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Harbor Patrol. A Response to Recommendation R-10 is required from the Orange County Assessor. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The protection of public funds, privileges, and rights is the number one rule of the public servant. Vigilance must be maintained not to grant these away. Fortunately, laws and codes contain powerful tools to be used against diluting these assets. In 1974, the Orange County Grand Jury reported on the extent of private encroachments onto public lands. Following this report, the Board of Supervisors, through the County Executive Officer, examined county real estate and found, among other areas, the private use of public lands in Sunset Beach and tidelands encroachment on Harbor Island. The problem was addressed through both an encroachment abatement program and/or revocable encroachment permits. The gift of public funds should involve full and fair compensation. Tangible, real property assets are generally transferable. What is on the books? What is not? The County requires independent appraisals to update fee schedules. Fair market rent should be charged. In the case of mooring permit fees and their transfers, the money collected from the tidelands can only be spent on the tidelands. The money collected belongs to the public to make the quality of life better and more effective. In this case it could go, among other things, toward dredging in the Harbor or water clean up. Additionally, equitable public access to a reinvigorated mooring waiting list could and should be achieved through the reinstatement of proper protocol and procedures on behalf of the people of Orange County.
Agency Responses 5
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.