AgdaPkt 2002-08-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Port of Redwood City Issues Should the City of Redwood City take a more active role to oversee and review the Port's operations? Should the City undertake a comprehensive study with respect to the role of the Port and alternative uses of the Port land to determine what would best serve the interests of Redwood City and its residents? Background The Port was established as an autonomous body through an amendment to the Ci~' Charter approved by the voters in 1936 and ratified by the Legislature in 1937. Pursuant to the charter, day-to-day control and management of the Port is vested in the Board of Port Commissioners. The City Council appoints the five Board members, who serve five- year terms. There are no t~u ]imlts. The average tenure is 14 years; one member has served 22 years, while the most recent appointee is in his second t~.,,,. The City Council reviews the Port's annual budget, meets with the Cornmissiollers on an annual basis, and receives the Port's annual report. Aside fi.om th.is the City Council performs no formal oversight or review o£the Port. The Charter appears to give the City Council the authori~: to adjus*, the Port budget during the annual review process. The Port land encompasses approximately 120 acres. Recreational facilities include a l$0-berth marina, a restaurant and a small park. The rema/ning acreage is devoted to maritime and industrial use Port tenant5 ~.mport gypsum, cement and other building materials and export t~erro:~ scr.':~ meta~ Tenants also lease land for storage, mostly building materials, scrap metal and petro:eum products. Members of the Grand Jury. inspected the Port's facilities and operations, met with all senior staff and ~,o Pon Commissioners, and re~4ewed the Port's audited financial statements for the past three fiscal years. The Grand Jut3' also interviewed members of the City. Council, staff, and city residems. Findings The Port receives no tax revenues. It is profitable and over the past ten years has transferred a total of $2 million to the City as the City's share of the net revenues. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001, the Port conu'ibuted $359,055 to the City. There is a si_muJficant toxic waste problem from a prior tenant's operations that the Port is in the process of cleaning up. It is doubtful, if not impossible, that the Port or the City will recover damages due to that tenant's insolvency. Although the Grand Jury. did not critique the day-to-day operations of the Pon, it questions whether the Port's current operations are the best ,use for the Pon land. The Port's shallow channel linfits maritime