Long Beach council shoots down port profit transfer increase

Long Beach council shoots down port profit transfer increase The Long Beach City Council resoundingly voted down a proposal seeking to bolster city coffers with profits from the city-managed Port of Long Beach during its Tuesday night meeting.
   Proposed by Long Beach 5th District City Councilmember Gerrie Schipske, the proposal sought a 10 percent increase in the amount of the port's annual profits available for transfer to the city.
   The council voted down the port-transfer proposal 6-3, mirroring an earlier vote during the meeting defeating an additional maritime proposal by Schipske that sought to reinstate a tax on bunker fuel.
   Since an early 1980s voter-approved amendment to the city charter, the Long Beach City Council has been able to ask for up to 10 percent of the port's annual profits from the previous year. This money is kept separate from the city's general fund in accordance with state law regarding the use of port funds and can only be spent on defined services and project within the tidelands area that include and surround the port. The port reported a 2007 profit of $143 million and the city is set to receive $14.3 million this year according to terms of the current transfer rules.
   Schipske's 10 percent increase in the port transfer would have included a 5 percent transfer to the city's general fund, a move that according to city officials would require changing the state constitution.
   The general fund transfer portion of Schipske's proposal drew the ire of Long Beach City Attorney Robert Shannon, who blasted Schipske during the meeting for not contacting his office first regarding the legality of the proposal.
   “I am the city’s legal advisor, not you collectively or singly,” Shannon told Schipske. “If you had taken the trouble to call me, taken the trouble to ask me for all of the legal opinions that we’ve issued down over the years ' we could’ve avoided this issue.”
   Shannon also made clear during his comments that even before putting a proper Tidelands Fund measure on the ballot, the city would have to conduct a detailed study showing a proper connection between port activity and the expenditures earmarked for the new funds.
   An additional move by Schipske following the vote to refer her port transfer proposal for further study was also voted down by the same 6-3 margin.
   In 2002, council members floated a similar proposal to boost how much the city could receive from the port to 25 percent of annual port profits. The proposed charter amendment, however, never made it to the ballot. ' Keith Higginbotham