| The
2001-2002 Grand Jury reviewed operations of the Port of Redwood City (Port)
and its relationship with the City of Redwood City (City).
The City Council should
reassess the Port's functionality. Since the Port's creation, 66 years
ago, major economic, technological, and environmental changes have occurred.
The City Council should conduct a comprehensive study to determine the
best utilization of Port land for the benefit of the City and its residents
today. In addition, because the City owns the land, its potential liability
exposure warrants a study with respect to the control and management of
that land.
Issue: 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? |
| The
Port was established as an autonomous body through an amendment to the
City 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 term limits. The average tenure is 14 years; one member has served
22 years, while the most recent appointee is in his second term. The City
Council reviews the Port's annual budget, meets with the Commissioners
on an annual basis, and receives the Port's annual report. Aside from
this the City Council performs no formal oversight or review of the Port.
The Charter appears to give the City Council the authority to adjust the
Port budget during the annual review process.
The Port land encompasses
approximately 120 acres. Recreational facilities include a 180-berth marina,
a restaurant and a small park. The remaining acreage is devoted to maritime
and industrial use. Port tenants import gypsum, cement and other building
materials and export ferrous scrap metal. Tenants also lease land for
storage, mostly building materials, scrap metal and petroleum products.
Members of the Grand
Jury inspected the Port's facilities and operations, met with all senior
staff and two Port Commissioners, and reviewed the Port's audited financial
statements for the past three fiscal years. The Grand Jury also interviewed
members of the City Council, staff, and city residents. |
| 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 contributed $359,055 to the City.
There
is a significant 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 Port, it questions whether the Port's current operations
are the best use for the Port land. The Port's shallow channel limits
maritime trade because it cannot accommodate container ships or other
large vessels. The Port's waterfront property, which has dramatically
increased in value in recent years, is currently leased for industrial
uses. There has been no recent evaluation of whether these or other uses
most benefit the citizens of Redwood City.
The Grand
Jury is concerned because the City Council has a distant relationship
with the Port. The City Charter vests "exclusive control and management"
of the Port in the Board of Port Commissioners. The City owns the land
and bears potential responsibility for any liabilities. The City Council
has taken only a minimal interest in the Port's operations. It has failed
to provide a vision for, and adequate oversight of, the Port; but must
do so to ensure that the interests of City residents are best served.
The City is reviewing current conditions and revising its General Plan.
It would be prudent to include the Port in that review. The outcome of
such study may lead to a determination that a charter amendment is appropriate. |
