(Sept. 12, 2004) -- On Sept. 7, just hours before the LB City Council was scheduled to vote on whether to approve or amend the Port of LB's 2005 spending plan, LB's Board of Harbor Commissioners met to approve an item approving transfer of about $6.85 million in public money (derived from Port fees) to the City of LB's Tidelands Operating Fund.

Under LB's current City Charter, the annual transfer of up to 10% of Harbor Department net income to City Hall is within the discretion of Harbor Commissioners. As a practical matter, LB City Hall counts on the transfer to pay for beach and oceanfront items including beach maintenance, lifeguards, downtown shoreline items and others within the Tidelands.

At the upcoming Council meeting, an item was also agendized by Councilmembers Tonia Reyes Uranga and Rae Gabelich that proposed to begin a process that (if ultimately approved by a vote of the people) would amend the City Charter to prevent the Port from taking positions on pending legislation that conflict with city policies established by LB's City Council.

The Council agenda item resulted after the Port twice opposed clean air legislation supported by LB's City Council, most recently AB 2042 by Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal to prevent port growth from worsening air pollution beyond a 2004 baseline level.

LB's current City Charter, adopted in 1981, gives five non-elected (Mayor chosen, Council approved) Harbor Commissioners broad, exclusive powers to govern affairs within the Harbor District. By putting Harbor matters outside the control of an elected body and thus largely beyond public control, the current Charter has effectively enabled massive Port expansion...which has brought health, safety, security and infrastructure costs to match.

At the Sept. 7 Council meeting, Councilman Dan Baker and City Attorney Bob Shannon indicated they'd been told -- but hadn't personally heard -- that the Harbor Commission attached a condition to their fund transfer to the effect that there'd be no Port transfer of funds to City Hall unless the Council approved the Port's budget with no changes.

At the Sept. 7 City Council meeting, Councilman Dan Baker (whose district includes Port area) noted that if the Council "in its legislative duties were to attempt to amend that [Port] budget, then that transfer would be held hostage." That comment brought Harbor Commissioner James Hankla to the podium, who took issue with the term "hostage."

"I think 'hold hostage' is the wrong characterization. The [Port] budget is based on a series of assumptions. In coming to that budget, the Board of Harbor Commissioners must make certain findings, that those funds are surplus to the [Port's] needs. If that budget is changed, we'd have to go back and reconsider those findings."

Councilman Baker replied that although he'd vote to approve the Port's budget now, "I am concerned, and as we move forward with Harbor discussions as it relates to our City Charter amendments which are forthcoming, one of the things I'm strongly going to push for, and I hope my colleagues will support, is that transfer will occur; it won't be a discretionary approval; it will occur on a regular basis, and I don't think we'll find ourselves in a situation where, whatever the correct language is, where there is discontent as to whether or not it should come over to the city."

The City Charter gives the City Council the power to amend the Port's budget...meaning the Council could delete Port budgeted sums used to support and oppose pending legislation. However, this still wouldn't completely preclude Port legislative advocacy since Harbor Commissioners could theoretically use other funds to "backfill" sums deleted by the Council.

In previous years, there was occasional Port squabbling over transfers to City Hall. However, to the best of our knowledge, the Harbor Commissioners' explicit condition that the City Council accept the Port's spending plan without changes -- or possibly jeopardize a transfer of millions of dollars to the City's Tidelands fund -- is unprecedented.

The Council ultimately approved the Port's budget as submitted, an action usually unanimous, by a 6-2 vote (Gabelich and Lerch dissenting; Lowenthal absent for entire meeting).

So, what did the Harbor Commissioners actually do at their Sept. 7 meeting, that effectively handed LB's City Council a "take it or risk it" proposition? The Harbor Commission does not televise its meetings. It doesn't provide an internet feed. It doesn't even provide a primitive telephone coupler so media outlets can listen in by phone. (If City officials have other arrangements to directly monitor the proceedings, we are unaware of them.)

To know what actually happened, one either has to attend Harbor Commission meetings in person (not held at City Hall but at the Port Administration building) or listen to the audio tape routinely made of the proceedings. LBReport.com requested and was promptly provided with access to the Sept. 7 Harbor Commission audio tape at the Port's HQ. (This has routinely been the case when we've asked to hear parts of other Harbor Commission meetings).

To our knowledge, LBReport.com's unofficial transcript below is the first detailed published account of what took place. We believe it speaks for itself.