Responses to report 2609

Response says

Agrees; cites2014 State trust-land grant and public-access stewardship obligations.

Audit analysis

Named state action and specific use framework explain agreement; no independent title/legal review.

Response says

Agrees; cites Strategic Plan, approved ENA and Tucker Sadler waterfront experience.

Audit analysis

Identifies planning documents and actions as basis for the stated goal, not proof project financing will succeed.

Response says

Agrees; links recreation, boating and wetlands to Trust Land Use Plan and revitalization proposal.

Audit analysis

Named plan and specific uses provide traceable support, without establishing completed improvements.

Response says

Agrees;2023 Anchor QEA study confirms systemic deterioration requiring replacement rather than piecemeal repair; says current users remain safe.

Audit analysis

Identifies study and specific engineering interpretation; safety and replacement necessity remain City claims.

Response says

Agrees; says ongoing revenues, slip fees and enterprise resources cannot fund major repairs, leading to General Fund support.

Audit analysis

Specific finance mechanism explains funding gap without citing a particular budget or financial statement.

Response says

Agrees;2022 partial dredging cost almost$1m from General Fund and did not solve underlying sedimentation.

Audit analysis

Dated project and funding source provide checkable basis, not independent cost verification.

Response says

Partially disagrees: periodic dredging is needed, but3–5years is not a regulatory requirement and local conditions determine need.

Audit analysis

Identifies accepted maintenance need and disputed fixed interval with site-specific reasons; cites no regulation or engineering record for interval. Formal finding concerns waterway depth, not expressly a regulatory mandate.

Response says

Agrees; reserves formerly supported dredging but have become limited and current configuration remains costly.

Audit analysis

Concrete funding mechanism but no particular budget record identified.

Response says

Agrees; says early tidal impacts occur and shoreline adaptation with regional partners and BCDC review will account for projected rise.

Audit analysis

Identifies planning/regulatory framework but does not independently validate the projection.

Response says

Partially disagrees: higher seawall is not necessarily best/only solution; engineering may support structural, hybrid or nature-based alternatives.

Audit analysis

Clearly disputes necessity of a specific intervention and explains alternatives; proposed analyses are not completed evidence.

Response says

Agrees; lacks funds for seawall/comparable protection and is pursuing grants and privately financed revitalization.

Audit analysis

Specific financing constraints/options explain agreement; no awarded funding or named grant record is provided.

Response says

Agrees; enterprise deficits and ten-year General Fund forecast make continued subsidies unsustainable.

Audit analysis

Identifies forecast and subsidy mechanism; does not independently verify projected core-service effects.

Response says

Partially agrees: budgeted subsidy varies and may be below$650,000; cites fee increases from January 2026/January 2027 and2024 incentive program.

Audit analysis

Defines disputed amount, sources and timing, including expected future receipts rather than verified realized revenue.

Response says

Agrees; sees privately financed self-sustaining PPP as most viable, potentially producing visitor-related revenues.

Audit analysis

Explains finance logic but identifies no completed feasibility or financing record.

Response says

Agrees; ENA with Tucker Sadler supports feasibility exploration and coordinated design/finance work.

Audit analysis

Named agreement and counterparty provide traceability; an ENA is not a completed development contract.

Response says

Agrees; ENA sets exclusive negotiations to assess a privately financed project.

Audit analysis

Explains exclusive negotiation function with an identified agreement, without implying financing secured.

Response says

Agrees; describes feasibility analysis, public engagement and partner coordination to assess PPP risk.

Audit analysis

Relevant concrete process, but no particular assessment record or event identified.

Response says

Partially disagrees: no viable funding for current configuration, but City would seek another PPP and consider retreat or reduced operations.

Audit analysis

Identifies accepted current funding gap and alternative paths, not an already funded replacement program.

Response says

Will undertake contingency planning alongside ENA, assessing design alternatives, managed retreat and state/regional partnerships.

Audit analysis

Does not explicitly promise completion by February 1, 2027. The2034 shoreline-adaptation statutory horizon is not a recommendation-completion promise. Letter is September 2; signature receipt completed September 8.