Dave,

Thanks for writing about the Port?s operations and its cost to the public.  I wonder if you?ve spoken with Port Commissioner Michael McAuley about your findings.  I respect Michael and believe he?d be open to addressing this issue.

I am not at all familiar with the Port or its function, but your article brings up a very interesting point.  Should the port act as a self-supporting enterprise fund? 

In other words, is the Port essentially a business that provides goods and services to the public for a fee?  If so, shouldn?t the Port?s revenue from fees cover the Port?s expenses?  Why does the port require any tax-subsidy from the public at all?

Do you have any insights?

Larry,

I’ve got another article upcoming in the next Whatcom Watch.  on the topic of differential rates of taxation in Washington Port districts.

Port Districts were set up by the State legislature early in the twentieth century to provide for public port facilities and make sure that private monopolies did not deny port access to all citizens. They intially could levy a tax of $2 per thousand of property valuation. The current limit is $0.45 per thousand, and none of the Port districts levy the maximum.

The Port has clearly gotten a big increase in tax revenue by riding the increase in property values of the last ten years. What I object to is their attempt to tell me that they are not raising taxes when the opposite is clearly true.

The question for the ratepayers is are they receiving value for the Port’s appropriations of their money?

Recently, the Port tried to increase the rate charged to commercial fishing boats in the marinas. Their basic justification was that the Port shouldn’t be subsidising commercial operators. What, then, is the purpose of all the money they take in taxes? WHy shouldn’t local fisherman be somwhat subsidised - they live in town, they employ quite a few people, provide food for the community, and spend their money in town among a number of suppliers. What is the $7.4 million levied in 2009 but a giant subsidy - for what? More administrators and unecessary overpriced projects while our fishing fleet shrinks? ANother $400 million in cheap financing for BP in exchange for what? How is this not a subsidy, a subsidy to one of the most profitable corporations in the world?
But a cheaper moorage rate for struggling fishermen is too much - only the wealthiest corporations deserve subsidies, according to the Port.

At http://lummiislandferryforum.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/reconsidering-the-fairhaven-option/, discussion of a Fairhaven option for landing the Lummi Island ferry includes some thoughts about the Port. 

The Port taxes all of Whatcom County.  Presumably they have collected from islanders since the Port Authority was established.  What have islanders received in services?

Ports are charged with providing facilities to support trade and commerce, but when the Lummi Nation imposed radical increases in rents for the Lummi Island ferry landing at Gooseberry Point, the Port’s proposed alternative was even higher.

Lummi Island has some pretty good property value.  I wonder how far the islanders’ cumulative contributions to the Port would go toward funding a new dock and/or boat?

Dave,

You bring up good points. Seldom do large organizations promote internal cost cutting without an outside jab. Private industry is constantly being jabbed by their customers and competitors. Ports do not have that pressure, at least in the same intensity.

Ports respond to the public criticism. When criticism goes up, there is a least the appearance of action. Remember that cutting one own wages is against the laws of nature, and inevitably the senior staff that really run the Port, are reluctant to cause internal friction, and seldom are seen to be cutting senior staff wages and benefits first, because like it or not, in any large organization senior staff is a club, and getting along is important.

These are more general observations of organizations, than specific criticism of the Port of Bellingham. All organizations to some degree suffer from a weakness in cutting their own costs. The Red Cross and the Port of Bellingham both have a difficult time cutting costs. This is an organizational weakness, not simply a Port weakness.

Clearly the Port has work to do in the cost cutting area. Ports are different though in that they are a public agency, but they have the luxury of running a business and charging rents, in addition to taxing the public. A Port is wonderfully insulated from this recession, and because of this insulation, does not put adequate pressure on the Port to tighten its belt, in the same degree that the taxpayers are having to, nor even in the same way that local government is having to.

So whom is in the best portion to get the Port to tighten its belt? This is the primarily responsibility of the Commission, and secondarily the Executive Director. Both are political animals, which respond to public pressure.

Both understand the requirement that a Port have solid public support to do its job, and it then becomes their job to communicate this forcefully to staff at all levels.

Normally Port Commissioner and the Executive Director do not have to focus on cutting costs, but in a severe economic downturn they have to refocus these dusty skills. For the last two decades their focus has been on where to spend all the money.

Our Port has had the luxury of lots of money for quite some time, so it might take a few extra minutes to realize they need to refocus. Additionally we have both a new Commissioner and finally a new Executive Director. Under current conditions and the organizational momentum of an oil tanker, we should give these critical people enough time to discover today?s ?new? priorities and build consensus to demand a course change.

When change occurs, changing the momentum of a staff driven organization is not easy, but Commissioner McCauley is questioning the wisdom of past practices, in the current environment. This is the correct course, but he cannot do this alone, and our support is critical to accomplishing this course change. We cannot neglect our important role in the Port?s governance. The public needs to step up, and support those that are leading the charge for change.

In regards to our new Port Executive Director Charley Sheldon. He is new to Bellingham. I have met him twice. My impression is that he is going to take a little time to get the lay of the political landscape in Whatcom County. He is smart, both politically and economically, and will soon come to understand that all is not well in the land of Ham. I think he will understand that he has some political fences to mend, at the very least. He appears open to alternative points of view, and is numbers driven, and understands business(employers) needs as well as the general public.

All organizations when under attack put up fences, which the Port certainly has, but these two important newcomers do not have these fences automatically.

The new Executive Director in particular will be wined and dined by the folks who want to influence Port policies. I believe it is critical that the general public that has complaints with the Port?s past practices also make contact with Mr. Sheldon and let him know that while we may not be rich, but our broad public support is critical to his ultimate success, and we are ready to mend political fences by providing this support. He is a smart guy, and will understand that the political divide between large groups of the public and the Port will remain a serious obstacle, and he will work to remove this obstacle on behalf of our concerns.

We wanted change. Let?s give these newcomers a fighting chance by giving them our support. Maybe we will just get the change we are looking for. (with our support)