Many people have told me that the issue is too complex for them to understand all of the details and have requested a quick bulleted version of the situation.

• 1. Discrimination




The Dock permit holders pay significantly less for superior boat storage on the same tidelands. The average dock owner pays between $12 and $30 per month

• 2. Faulty Appraisal




The 2023 offshore mooring appraisal relies on a slip to mooring ratio that was ruled, by the same appraiser, in 2016 as unreliable. The Appraiser has an undisclosed conflict of interest: The Appraiser was working with the City Staff as far back as 2015 through November of 2023 on renewing the Newport Aquatic Centers' 50 Year, ZERO FEE, lease all the while the City Staff was the Appraisers Client on this, and multiple other, Appraisal(s) concerning the Harbor. These are just a couple of many concerns with the Appraisal.

• 3. Conflicts of Interest




There are many conflicts of interest. Multiple Harbor Commissioners have dock permits within 500-1000 feet of a mooring field. The Harbormaster has an offshore mooring permit and in 2022 put out a Word file and a PowerPoint Presentation stating that per his employment he agreed to the following:
"In Support of this arrangement, the Harbormaster: does not participate in discussions or the development of recommendations related to use or financial arrangements associated with offshore moorings"

People are wondering why the Balboa Yacht Club (BYC), Newport Harbor Yacht Club (NHYC), and the Lido Island Community Association (LICA) haven't been up in arms about this whole rate hike. For those that aren't up to speed on the mooring situation. There are over a thousand offshore moorings in the harbor. These are primarily permited to individuals. But, there are two Yacht Clubs and one Home Owner Association that have a number of onshore and offshore moorings registered to their organizations. Then those organizations profit by subleasing those moorings out to their members.

Currently, we all pay the same $3.34 per foot per month. The organizations then charge their members a higher price. For example, based on the Netzer appraisal, and from interviewing several members at these clubs, the BYC, charges somewhere between $17.00 and $17.50 per foot per month and NHYC charges somewhere between $22.00 and $22.50 per foot per month. We don't know what LICA charges their members. But these are the largest profit generators for the Clubs and LICA.

Now, if the City were to raise the monthly fee's from $3.34 per foot, then the Clubs and LICA would lose all of that profit and/or would have to pass the increase on to their membership, which would send the prices from $17.00 - $22.00 upwards to $40.00 - $50.00. So we ask, why haven't these organizations attended any of the meetings? Why haven't they written anything in the public domain against this. If you do the estimated math on how much these clubs profit from the moorings, it's estimated that the BYC brings in roughly $400-500k per year in profit and the NHYC brings in between $400-600k per year. Why haven't they voiced opinion against this?

Via Public Records Requests, we have requested documentation from the City of Newport asking for any and all documents, agreements, emails, text messages, etc. that reference any exemptions or agreements that they have on the mooring rates. Basically, we asked for anything messaging that they have issued to the BYC, NHYC, and LICA telling them that these new rates do not affect them or do not apply to them. And the response from the City was that they have no record of any communication or agreements stating they are exempt.

Until June, the only thing we have heard is hearsay. We have spoken with two BYC staff commodores and one was at the January Staff Commodore meeting (these are quarterly meetings where the previous Commodores of the BYC get together and discuss things), and this Commodore stated that Harbormaster Paul Blank (a former BYC Staff Commodore) was in attendance and told the group that this new rate hike would not affect the BYC managed moorings. That they would be exempt from the rate hike.

UPDATE - On June 13th 2024, Harbor Commissioner Steve Scully emailed a concerned mooring permit holder that the Clubs and LICA are exempt from the rate increase. This is blatant apples-to-apples discrimination, in direct violation of the Beacon Bay Bill and the California State Lands Act. "There shall be no discrimination in rates, tolls, and charges for any use"


This also draws concern to the Tidelands Fund. The mooring permits, dock permits, commercial dock permits, and other revenue sources all pay into the Tidelands Fund. If individual mooring permit holders are paying the new rates higher than 3.34 per foot, while the Clubs and LICA continue to pay the 3.34 per foot, then they are not paying an equal share into the Tidelands Fund while it's users get to enjoy the same submerged State Tidelands. This is discrimination on an exact usage of Tidelands. This is in direct violation of the aformentioned laws.

On average Dock permit holders pay $12 to $30 per month, while the average mooring (40 feet) pays $133.60 per month.

A dock permit is a superior form of boat storge. They have access to fresh water at their docks. Meaning they can flush their outboard motors with fresh water after every trip. They can wash the boat down and remove any salt water. They can remove bird poop more easily. They also have access to electricity at the dock. They can plug in their batteries to prevent them from ever depleting. No need for solar panels, small wind turbines, or gas generators. The dock permit holder also has better access. They do not need to swim to their mooring. They can simply walk on their dock that the boat is attached to.

Most importantly the dock permit occupies the same tidelands. At the end of the day it is a boat floating over submerged tidelands. This is no different to the amount of space that a boat on a mooring occupies.

A majority of the mooring permit holders are registered at addresses outside of Newport Beach. And the City Council knows this. We have met with several council members and one of them told us directly, "the mooring people do not vote." And when you look at the 42% of permits registered in the City of Newport Beach, you see that there are 7 districts (only 6 pictured below) in the City and each has it's own City Council member. Even with 42% of the moorings registered to Newport Beach residences, that number is divided by the 7 different districts. So the moorings do not hold any kind of political voting power.

In the 2016 Appraisal, the Ratio analysis is deemed to be unreliable. Specifically stated, "The Ratio analysis attempts to estimate the market rent for moorings.. the ratio can vary dramatically.. while a potential renter could take this into consideration (cost of a slip v. cost of a mooring),it is not judged to be a reliable measure of Fair market Rent. This analysis is given little weight in the final reconciliation."
However in the 2023 Appraisal, the Ratio analysis, "is judged to be a relevant and reliable measure of Fair Market Rent." and is used as one of the primary analysis's to base the final recommendation upon. While the Appraisal never mentions the discrepancy between the 2016 and the 2023 Appraisals.
The State Lands Commission (SLC) in-house appraiser, Chaun Wong, also reviewed the appraisal and you can read his critique here: 'Appraisal Comments and Questions' Word document, which we received via Public Records Request to the SLC.

Personal Interest

What connection did the Appraiser have to the Newport Aquatic Center (NAC)? He was, and still is, a Board Member. He is listed as the Secretary in State Filings and Board Meeting Minutes indicate he was also the Chairman of Facilities Management. Meeting minutes and emails indicate that he was working with Lauren Wooding-Whitlinger (City Real Property Administrator; in charge of the 2023 Appraisal), the City Attorney (Aaron Harp), and other City employees to renew a 50 year no fee lease for the facility. And in April of 2015 he provided an interest paying loan of $40,000 to the NAC.

The Appraiser certifies that he has no interest in the property and no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. But we have uncovered a loan document showing that there is an interest bearing promissory note (loan) to the Newport Aquatic Center (NAC), a facility explicitly named/listed in the area description of the appraisal. This was listed in the RFP 21-53 (which resulted in the 2023 offshore mooring appraisal) as an area to review for comparison. "Locations to review for comparison include marinas, yacht clubs, dry docks, on land dinghy storage, the Newport Aquatic Center". We don't have a copy of the RFP that resulted in the 2016 Appraisal, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't also list the NAC as a location to review for comparison.

This is the Request For Proposal (RFP 21-53) document that the Appraiser bid on to win the appraisal job from the City. And as previously mentioned, it clearly states that the NAC is a location to review for comparison.

There was also "no exception" taken in the Appraisers bid submittal for RFP 21-53. He signed a document called, "Statement of Compliance", which specifically stated that he would comply with the Scope of Services as defined in the RFP, without any exception. And that Scope of Services, as you have seen above, explicitly stated that the NAC be included as a location for review. DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT HERE

In the 2023 Offshore Appraisal, the Appraiser makes the same certification statement, all while the Appraiser is still a sitting Board of Directors for the NAC. And this time we have the RFP documents that explicitly state the NAC is a location to be reviewed for comparison. Why didn't the Appraiser review the NAC for comparison? They do have and charge for boat storage.

The appraisals main objective is to determine the fair market rent for a form of boat storage in Newport Harbor. The appraisal uses a comparative ratio in the analysis to determine fair market rates. The appraiser was never able to get the Lido Island Community Association (LICA) mooring rates, and wasn't able to provide any proof of the rates charged by BYC and NHYC, they were from witness interviews. Surely, the Appraiser had access to the NAC boat storage rates for comparison? So why didn't the Appraiser use the NAC boat storage rates for comparison? He could have easily provided their rates for analysis.

Contrary to the 2023 certification, "hav[ing] no [..] interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and hav[ing] no personal interest or bias with the respect of to the parties involved." the Appraiser is working directly with the party that is the "client" to the Appraisal project (Lauren Wooding-Whitlinger, City Real Property Administrator), to renew the zero fee 50 year lease for prime beach front property in the Harbor. This is months before being tasked to start the Offshore Mooring Appraisal. DOWNLOAD THE EMAIL HERE

Further emails show that the Appraisal is directly involved in the lease negotiations between the City and it's staff to renew the Newport Aquatic Center lease. This all could have been disclosed in the Appraisal and in his form 700 filings. DOWNLOAD THE EMAIL HERE

The City's Real Property Administrator, Lauren Wooding-Whitlinger, is the client for the Appraiser and at the same time is the "Property Manager" negotiating the 50 year, ZERO fee, lease with the Appraiser for prime beach front property on the Harbor. So in one email the City wants something from the Appraiser (i.e. the Offshore Mooring Appraisal) and in another minute the Appraiser wants something from the City (i.e. the 50 year ZERO fee lease). This is very concerning. DOWNLOAD THE EMAIL HERE

Another interesting Memo. The City has a fiduciary duty to the citizens of Newport Beach. A fiduciary duty violation can occur when there is an "appearance of impropriety" in a conflict of interest, even if the fiduciary's judgment wasn't actually affected by the conflict. For example, an appearance of conflict may arise when an employee is involved in a matter with outside parties, and a reasonable person would question their impartiality.
It is ludicrous that the City wouldn't do everything to avoid this appearance of a conflict of interest. All they had to do was disclose the relationship with the Appraiser. The Appraiser could have disclosed the relationship. Or the City could have simply gone with one of the many other appraisers that bid on the RFP.

There are many conflicts of interest found throughout this process and concerning many individuals.

• 1. Harbor Commissioner Scott Cunningham 2020 Phone Calls with Netzer




The attached and below email documents "two long phone calls" that HC Scott Cunningham had with the Appraiser prior to the RFP for the appraisals being published the following year.

• 2. Harbor Commissioner Scott Cunningham Dock Permit




The attached and below image of the Dock permit, containing spaces for 14 Duffy boats, is registered to the address of Harbor Commissioner Scott Cunningham. To our records, this has never been disclosed to the public and falls within 500-1000 feet of a mooring field.

• 3. Harbor Commissioner Rudy Svrcek Dock Permit




The attached and below image of the Dock permit, containing spaces for a 56 foot Palm Beach 50 Sedan Yacht and a Duffy, is registered to the address of Harbor Commissioner Rudy Svrcek. Our records, indicate this has been disclosed in the past. During the mooring realignment vote in 2022 or 2023, the Deputy City Attorney had advised Rudy Svreck to recuse from discussions and voting on the mooring realignment due to his dock permit being within 500-1000 feet of a mooring field.

• 4. Harbormaster Paul Blanks Agreement to Recuse Himself




The Harbormaster has an offshore mooring permit and in 2022 put out a Word file and a PowerPoint Presentation stating that per his employment he agreed to the following:
"In Support of this arrangement, the Harbormaster: does not participate in discussions or the development of recommendations related to use or financial arrangements associated with offshore moorings"




He seems to have forgotten that he made the agreement to not participate in discussions. When the heat got put on him by the public in early 2024, Paul Blank responded to a Mooring permitee stating that he and the City Attorney had discovered that he has a conflict of interest and he can no longer participate in the offshore mooring rate discussion. Interesting they used the word, "discovered", as if they had forgotten about the agreement or didn't know it existed. When pressed further as to why, he wrote another email detailing the reason as to why.





During the winter holidays of 2023, Paul Blank was pushing hard on City Staff and the Appraiser to get the Offshore Mooring Appraisal completed ASAP. See the attached text messages from Paul Blank to Lauren Wooding-Whitlinger (City Staff).

• 1. Brown Act Work Around




Talking with a council member and former council members, they routinely work around the Brown Act by contacting each other council member one at a time or if a committee or commission will break up the council members, only speaking with at most three at a time, in this image below Harbor Commissioner Steve Scully tells fellow Commissioner Ira Beer that he is going to speak with the following three council members about the mooring appraisal. Note, this was in December of 2023. When we the public made multiple attempts via phone, in person, and/or email to discuss the mooring appraisals, multiple council members responded similarly to the following: It's in committee right now and you need to go speak to the commission. We don't know anything about it and until it's on agenda we can't talk about it. All the while, internal emails indicate otherwise.

• 2. Artificial Demand for City Owned Mooring Permits




The attached and below email documents the request from Harbor Commissioner Scott Cunningham to have people in the community, Duffy Duffield (Board Member of the Newport Harbor Foundation), send in requests for the auction of the 16 City Owned Mooring Permits, to "show demand". This is interesting as the Commissioners continually bragged about how many people had signed up for their City Owned Mooring Permits in order to justify using them as a Fair Market Comparable.

• 3. "We have the votes"




The attached and below email documents that former Harbor Commissioner, City Council member, and Mayor Duffy Duffield telling Paul Blank, "I just know we have the votes so I'm good."

• 4. Yacht Club Mooring Rates Are Next and Eliminate Shore Moorings




The attached and below email show three things: 1. There do exist agreements for between the City and the Yacht Clubs. So far, we have requested copies of these agreements and the City Records Clerk stated, that no such agreements exist. Which is hard to believe; 2. "We'll get that corrected next round.", Sounds like the Commissioners are going to eliminate any discounts that the Appraiser has applied to Yacht Club moorings; 3. "We should also evaluate eliminating all the shore mooring tackle that litters our harbor beaches." Sounds like the Commission is looking into removing on-shore moorings altogether. Where Commissioner Cunningham lives, Beacon Bay, they do not have on-shore moorings. So, he sounds opposed to the tackle and post that reside on the other beaches.

• 5. The Swamp




The attached and below email show an interesting web of connections. 1. This email is an NMA email blast to all mooring holders. It is believed that the email was received by Paul Blank and he forwarded it to Duffy Duffield. Then Duffy forwards it to two Harbor Commissioners (Svrcek and Cunningham), four (the entire) board members of the Newport Harbor Foundation, and then this was forwarded by Commissioner Cunningham to City Council member Joe Stapleton (a former Harbor Commissioner).

The other interesting bit is the commentary. Duffy is very upset by the obvious misspelling by the NMA when they used the term mooring "owner" instead of mooring permit holder. There are many people that have access to the NMA email blast application and many emails are hastily put together as they are rushed to get the word out to the mooring holders. But, Duffy is very much upset by this. And he says, "The idea of ownership must change. But, ONE THING AT A TIME. I get it." This sounds to me that there has been ongoing conversations about the moorings within this group of people. And it sounds as though Duffy has been hard pressing to make changes to the moorings and someone in the group has been telling him, "one thing at a time". Like, slow down pal, we're gonna get there. Just one step a time. Big long term strategy at hand here.

But the commentary from Commissioner Cunningham to Council Member Joe Stapleton is interesting as well. He seems to also reference this long term strategy, "But we can look forward to the next 50 years and start to turn the ship..." and then he adds something in regards to the fact that every commissioner is lock-step on this, even the Harbormaster, "8-0 [if] the Harbormaster could have voted."

A collection of videos from various City Council and Harbor Commission meetings.

February 27th, 2024 - City Council Meeting

I brought a few props to the general comments section and demonstrated the inequality in boat storage on public submerged tidelands in Newport Harbor

April 10th, 2024 - Harbor Commission Special Meeting

After speaking at all the previous Harbor Commission meetings, for the offshore mooring appraisal, these were my final words on the subject matter. I highlight the joke that the Commission appeared to be. Noting the multiple conflicts of interest with Harbor Commissioner Cunningham and Svrcek

There are so many more documents to comb through. And the above is just a small sampling, it's not even a drop in the bucket.