Pared-Down Port Budget Adopted

The Los Angeles Harbor Commission approved an annual budget Tuesday after the port staff trimmed its planned spending in response to concerns from Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa about flat revenue estimates.

The $693.5-million budget calls for $418.6 million in capital and operating expenses, an 11% decrease from the draft budget that port interim Executive Director Bruce Seaton proposed last week. After Villaraigosa raised concerns, the port staff shaved spending by $68.9 million, money primarily designated for construction projects and land purchases

Port officials did not provide details Tuesday of which items were cut or delayed.

The commission was poised to approve the budget June 7, but held off at Villaraigosa’s request.

He questioned the wisdom of a nearly 16% budget increase despite a significant slowing in cargo growth.

Villaraigosa also asked the commission to postpone approval of a controversial 50-year marina lease for at least 45 days, and commissioners obliged.

Members of Villaraigosa’s staff have since met with port staff to discuss the budget. Villaraigosa spokesman Joe Ramallo said the mayor-elect’s representatives did not recommend specific cuts but instead urged the port to look carefully at consulting contracts and other areas.

Port documents distributed Tuesday show that funding for outside services was reduced from $66.8 million to $54 million.

In a Monday letter to Seaton, Villaraigosa warned, “The unexpected stagnation in this year’s revenue figures should cause the port to exercise caution in assessing projected revenue for next year.”

Seaton, in a Tuesday news release, said the port was able to find items to defer. “We can do this because many of the projects and initiatives on our time horizon span a number of years,” the release said. “What’s paramount is that our core initiatives remain intact.”

Port documents show that port officials reduced capital expenditures largely by accounting for what Seaton called “additional slippage,” or anticipated delays in certain projects that totaled $26.3 million. An additional $10.8 million was cut from land acquisitions.

Port spokesman Arley M. Baker said he did not have the details of those cuts.

The port declined to release the complete proposed budget before the vote, saying the documents were “pre-decisional internal memoranda” and “the public interest in protecting the integrity and quality of the decision-making process clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

Baker again declined to provide a detailed budget Tuesday, saying commissioners weren’t given complete budgets and relied on a 21-page booklet that one port official described as a “very excellent summary” of the budget.

Some San Pedro residents who attended the meeting said they were frustrated not to be able to review budget documents.

“I’d love to have the budget so that I can crunch the numbers in a more reliable way,” said resident Kathleen Woodfield, who raised concerns about what she called insufficient spending on air pollution control.

During the meeting, Commissioner Thomas Warren asked a port official to provide certain budget numbers on paper rather than just in a slide presentation.

Port staff then provided two pieces of paper to the five commissioners and, on request, to reporters. No copies were given to people in the audience, Woodfield said.

“What does it take to make 100 copies and make a pile for everyone to look at?” she asked.