During the first round of the U.S. government’s stimulus effort under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act TIGER ("Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant applications, the Brownsville Navigation District submitted a $73.5 million wish list.
During the second round, for TIGER II, Brownsville submitted a joint application with Port Manatee for only $25 million out of $600 million in available funds.
The BND even sweetened the bid. Since the feds required a a local match, the port pledged to kick in $6 million.
The $31 million ($25 million plus the $6 from the port) would have gone for a mini version of the upgrades envisioned in the TIGER I application. The port gut snubbed again, even though its partner, in the application, Port Manatee, got $9 million.
As a sop to the border port, the U.S. Dept of Transportation threw in $3.3 million (not even half the local match the port was willing to pitch in) for the so-called America’s Marine Highway Program. It's still looking for someone to match the $3.3 milin the feds kicked in.
Now the administration and the Port of Brownsville have scaled their "gimme" even lower and asking for $20 million in TIGER III funds for a new cargo dock, Dock 16, as part of a larger project that will belatedly move to prepare the port to move shipping containers. Currently, around the world, container cargo makes up for more than 95 percent of the cargoes handled at ports. Brownsville was a mite late getting the idea.
The total cost of the project, ($20 million plus the $6.7 million local match) would also include improvements to the port’s rail system, is estimated at $26.7 million. BND officials are hoping that the government will reward their persistence (if not lowered expectations) and give them apiece of the $500 million available nationwide.
Port spokesman Manny Ortiz was exuding optimism that the government will fund this latest (and smaller) request saying that since the government already threw us a crumb last time, it will prove as kindly since this is a type of investment that they cannot allow to lay dormant.
Ortiz said that based on the significant investment the U.S. Department of Transportation has already made in M-10: $9 million for Port Manatee and $3.3 million for Brownsville. "it seems unlikely the DOT would abandon the project halfway through, he told the local daily.
"If you take those two considerations into mind we’re very optimistic about the (DOT) funding our half of the project and really completing that link," Ortiz said.
As a matter of fact, the port has not been very successful in acquiring grant funds in the last two years. The audit for 2010 compared to 2009 reveals that grant income is down from $1.8 million in 2009 compared to $1.0 million last year.
Operating revenues also took a fall during that time dropping from $11.7 million in 2009 to $11.0 in 2010.
Add that to the $1.1 million in yearly payments for the missing $21 million "Bridge to Nowhere," and the picture gets even muddier. That bridge, according to the auditor's lingo, was found to be "impaired."
In fact, cargo income during that same time span plummeted some 17 percent from $5.5 million to $4.5
Some observers say that the whole emphasis on cargo by the port of Brownsville for Dock 6 and Dock 16 are misplaced, seeing how it's really liquid cargoes (products such as petroleum, gasoline liquid fuels, etc.) make up it most profitable categories.
"There are tankers waiting offshore to unload and the administration wants to build more dock space and the maritime highway," said a longtime port observer. "Cargo is down. What we need is more oil and liquid cargo docks to handle the petroleum and gas that is needed in the interior U.S. market and northern Mexico."
In fact, if you look at the port's website today, you will see that of eight ships that came in the port in the last 10 days, five were carrying fuels or gas products. One was waiting to be scrapped, another carried cold roll coils and another carried ore.
The Port of Brownsville has five liquid cargo docks, but only one, dock 5, can berth ocean-going vessels. The rest are used for shallow-draft barges. It also claims to have 12 cargo docks, although only a few are fully operational. There are only three fully functional cargo docks – 10, 11, 15 – because the rest are too shallow for most vessels. Dock 3 is falling apart.
"I wish them luck," he said. "But really, you wonder who's running the show out there."
8 comments:
We read an article in the Herald a week or so ago about AMFELS re-hiring some of the more than 200 persons laid off last year. While the article seems to infer more business....remors abound that AMFELS is looking at moving its operations into Mexico's Guld Coast to take advantage of lower wages, longer hours allowed in Mexico, less government regulation in Mexico....otherwise to increase profits. I won't believe much good about the port until we are told they no longer need to be a taxing entity...relying on public dollars to sustain a business enterprize. The tax base is their fall back position...their safety net, and allows them to pay big bucks to their administrators and engage in poor business practices. It is time for the port to pay its own way and stop being a burden on the local taxpayers.
Agree with your 11:45 AM blogger. What he forgot to mention was the extravagant trips and first class accommodations the port commissioners enjoy while they travel around the globe at the taxpayer expense with the BS excuse of promoting the port.
Why isReed and Capirano LYING so about docks an the port are they hiding something
Where is Ralph COWEN looking for cruise ships and Reed in some strip joint in Mexico
If they lied on a federal grant application !.............That a federal offense.........
What about the $25,000 they threw away on a study to determine whether the port was suitable for a cruise ship? Somebody told me the report said "no way" but we never heard anything like the fanfare from Cohen and the other yokels out there as we heard when they announced the study was commissioned. I guess nobody wants to talk about it anymore.
It's only the port's money so what the hell do we care how much it cost ?
Try everything and something will stick. Why not build a dock for the space ships and ufo. They gotta park somewhere ?
taxpayers its ok, its not the port commissioners money, its always the taxpayer, $3 or 4 million here is nada, compared to the $21 million they throw at dannebaum for the international brigde that was never built. hey anyway if we need more money next year just raise the tax rates its ok, people wont protest or complain
Post a Comment