Chamber opposes increasing port transfer; council to study further

The Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce today announced its opposition to a City Council proposal to hold a Charter Amendment Committee meeting to consider increasing the Port of Long Beach transfer to the Tidelands Fund. The Port now gives 10 percent of its profits, but that transfer is expected to drop in half in the next couple of years.

The council voted x-x tonight not to hold a Charter Amendment Committee meeting on the issue yet, but to have a study session first to talk about some of the potential legal issues that have been raised by the State Lands Commission. Below is the full text of the press release from the Chamber of Commerce.

Long Beach Chamber Statement On Convening A Meeting Of The Charter Amendment
Committee

Randy Gordon, President and CEO of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
released the following statement regarding the City Council Agenda Item 27
09-1018 on convening a meeting of the City Council's Charter Amendment
Committee:

"The Chamber opposes to tonight's City Council agenda item requesting the
Charter Amendment Committee to review ways to increase the current level of
investment by the Port of Long Beach. Currently, our Port transfers 10% of
the tidelands fund to the City to pay for tidelands-related services which
has amounted to $16 million so far this year.

The Chamber agrees with the authors of this motion that during difficult
budget times, it is important to re-examine all funding sources and ensure
they reflect the changing economic environment.

But re-examining ALL funding sources should not mean re-examining the
funding sources that actually work and then pick their pockets. Instead,
re-examining sources that drain funding is a more productive way to approach
our fiscal problems.

How about re-examining out of control costs associated with public employee
pensions?

How about re-examining increasing fees on businesses?

How about re-examining ways to actually retain and attract businesses?

How about re-examining ways to streamline current city staffing levels -
instead of just eliminating vacant positions?

How about re-examining ways to stabilize public safety funding?

The "what we should be re-examining list" goes on and on. The bottom line
here is that re-examining ALL funding sources is not the intention of this
motion. Instead, this is yet another political power grab at one of the few
departments in this city that can actually run itself responsibly.

It is also important to understand that the Port of Long Beach is the only
port in the US that annually transfers funds to its governing City. And,
since 1990, our Port has invested over $790 million into the City of Long
Beach which would average out to approximately $41.5 million per year.

Increasing or making changes to the tidelands transfer will take away from
the Port's ability to invest in the areas that this Council and vocal
members of our community urge the Port to invest: things like environmental,
security and transportation programs.

Speaking of the environment, the Port has made major strides to improve its
footprint through progressive policies such as the Green Port Policy and
Clean Air Action Plan. Taking additional tidelands funds away from the
Port's operating revenue will impede the Port ability to fund these programs
and accomplish their environmental and security program goals.

Finally, increases or changes to the tidelands transfer will send the wrong
message to the shipping industry. Funds used for the transfer come from
leases, wharfage fees and other fees paid by terminal operators and the
shipping industry. These funds have are collected and are designed to be
reinvested in the port through capital improvements and environmental
programs.

By taking away funds needed to invest into the port, you send the message to
industry that the City of Long Beach is not business friendly or committed
to making sure that we have a state-of-the-art, environmentally-friendly
complex.

I urge the City Council to take the spirit of the well intentioned motion
and focus it on areas that deserve review.

Let's let the Port do its job by providing the needed economic job-creation
and annual investment already in place so that we can focus on other areas
that need re-examining."