(January 18, 2008) -- In an action of historic taxpayer significance, 5th district Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske has placed an item on the Jan. 22 City Council agenda that -- if ultimately approved by five (or if Mayor-vetoed, six) Councilmembers -- would let LB voters decide in June 2008 on a ballot measure to boost the percentage of Port of LB profits payable to the City for LB's Tidelands Fund (items in beach/shoreline areas) AND -- for the first time ever -- for use citywide to for items including LB police/fire, public works, libraries, parks and other city spending.

The Charter Amendment would increase the percentage of Harbor Dept. net revenue payable to LB's Tidelands (currently capped at 10%) to up to 15%...plus an additional 5% payable to the City's General Fund.

Councilwoman Schipske is simultaneously urging state legislation, to be carried by LB's state lawmakers, that would enable transferring 5% to the General Fund (Sacramento's current "Tidelands Trust" agreement with LB limits Port revenue to Tidelands uses.)

Councilwoman Schipske agendized her item just days after LB Mayor Bob Foster said in his 2008 State of the City message that City Hall's budget is not structurally balanced (ongoing spending exceeds ongoing revenue), city infrastructure is crumbling...and he will seek Council approval to put a debt bond measure [for which LB taxpayers would presumably pay] on an upcoming ballot.

In her agendizing memo, Councilwoman Schipske states in pertinent part:

...[T]he State of California is the recipient of millions of dollars of funds generated in the "tidelands areas ." State law specifies that the State must use these funds for programs and projects in the tidelands areas.

However, the State of California for the past several years has violated this premise and has transferred millions of "tidelands funds" into the State's "general fund" in order to meet State budgetary problems .

Moreover, the State continues to "raid" the City of Long Beach's property taxes and with the reduction of vehicle license fees, has failed to full restore funds taken from Long Beach .

The Impact of the Port of Lonq Beach on the City of Long Beach

Over the past ten years, the Port of Long Beach has experienced tremendous growth - both in the physical space it consumes for operations and in the revenue received from being the most active cargo container port in the world .

The City of Long Beach currently utilizes the 10% transfer of net income to improve programs and projects within the "tidelands area ." The City is also "reimbursed" by the Harbor Department for services provided by the City in the port harbor district area .

The City of Long Beach needs to improve many of its holdings and leases in the "tidelands area" in order to generate increased sales tax revenue . An additional transfer of net income funds to the City for use in the "tidelands area" would facilitate such improvements .

The impact of the Port of Long Beach reaches far beyond the "tidelands area" not only in the environmental arena but also in public safety . The City of Long Beach should be given the same right to use a portion of these funds for its "general funds" because of these serious impacts .

The Port of Long Beach is the source of major air and water pollution and is causing health problems for residents . The current configuration of the Los Angeles River (to accommodate the Port) is a major source of trash and contamination in Queensway Bay . The bunker diesel fuel burned by cargo ships fills the air with particulate matter and noxious fumes .

The Port - as the largest cargo container port in the world and the economic engine for the City, the region and the state - is also a major target for attack by terrorists.

While some can argue that any additional funds transferred to Long Beach should only be expended for the public safety requirements at the port, that argument is ludicrous as we know full well that if such a major public safety problem occurred, all the resources of the City would be called into service to assist the Port . The impact of the port's activities are not confined to the boundaries of the tidelands area, and the City of Long Beach must adequately staff and equip its public safety departments for the inevitable likelihood of a major attack .

RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore recommended that the City Council :

1 . Request the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the City Charter which can be placed on the June 2008 ballot that would allow the voters to approve the transfer of up to 15% of Harbor net income to the City of Long Beach for use in the "tidelands area" and an additional 5% transfer of these funds to the City's "general funds" for use in non-Tidelands areas, and

2. Request the City Attorney to assist the City Council State Legislative Committee in drafting State legislation that can be carried by the Long Beach Assembly and Senate contingency enabling the City of Long Beach to transfer 5% of the port net income for use as "general funds" as a means to reduce the impact of the State "raiding" the property tax funds generated in Long Beach that would have been utilized for city services .

Council action on Jan. 22 could range from that proposed in Councilwoman Schipske's memo (asking the City Attorney to draft a measure) or [our speculation] referral to the Council's "Charter Amendment Committee" (comprised of all Councilmembers and the Mayor, called to discuss proposed Charter changes) or "receive and file" (take no further acton, killing the proposal) [or infinite other delaying actions].

A recorded Council vote on the issue will require a motion (by Schipske) and (at minimum) a second.

Putting the measure on the ballot would ultimately require five affirmative Council votes...but six if the item were vetoed by Mayor Bob Foster.

Developing with further to follow on LBReport.com.