QuoteThe city of Jacksonville should fund the $383 million local share to dredge the port’s shipping channel to 47 feet, said George Gabel, a maritime attorney for Holland & Knight LLP and chairman of the North Florida Logistics Advisory Group.
“It’s a community issue,†said Gabel, speaking at a Rotary Club of Jacksonville lunch meeting. “The maritime commerce that goes through our Jacksonville Port Authority is only about 30 percent of the commerce in the port. The other 70 percent is private terminals or the Navy. So in my opinion, I think the city should take responsibility here. They have enormous bonding capacity.â€
full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2013/06/03/maritime-leader-george-gabel-city.html
I am at somewhat of a crossroads with this issue, because though I see the huge potential that Jacksonville's ports provide for the local community I am not fully onboard with the taxpayers having to pay for its maintenance. Obviously, recreational users do not need anything deep, yet just for living in Duval County you would be required to pay for it. Instead, why don't all the businesses that utilize the ports and need a deeper channel form some kind of association specifically to deal with these maintenance issues? Does anyone know how most other ports are handling this issue? With government budgets getting tighter and tighter, is this really a necessity for Jacksonville to be successful?
my reaction to Mr. Gabel - whatever
Quote from: JayBird on June 04, 2013, 09:20:19 AMWith government budgets getting tighter and tighter, is this really a necessity for Jacksonville to be successful?
No. There's no single one trick pony that can make a community as large as Jacksonville a success by itself. Dredging to 47' doesn't guarantee a port full of post panamax ships. Also, as technology changes and we increase in automation, job growth may not be all it's cracked up to be either. Then you have that whole environmental issue to resolve. Expect lots of debate on this issue over the next few months.
It is possible that the Jaxport could take a airport model on some of the cost recovery.
Instead of having the taxpayers pay upfront, use their bonding authority to issue revenue bonds and then recover the dredging costs through dock fees. JAA uses their authority to maintain JIA and then recovers the costs through their gate fees on commercial flights.
Technically then, the shippers would have to pay the fee to use the port everytime a boat ties up at port. Using municipal bonding makes them tax free and garners a lower interest rate.
that's exactly what they should do...but JaxPort will say that puts them at a disadvantage with other ports that don't charge extra fees
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 04, 2013, 10:00:42 PM
that's exactly what they should do...but JaxPort will say that puts them at a disadvantage with other ports that don't charge extra fees
Understood, but they can't have it both ways.
Charleston won't charge a fee since they have a deep port, but their "cost" to deliver at the port is higher because they have a captive rail connection that relies on Atlanta (congestion).
Savannah, being Georgia's only port is insane as they (the state) will spend almost anything to keep the river deep, but can spread that costs across a larger set of taxpayers than Duval County.
JaxPort is at a large disadvantage because the State of Florida (from what I can tell) does not have a cohesive ports strategy. So that leaves every port in a dukem nukem for funding and control.
The only chip we have in the game is Mayport.
Seems silly as Jacksonville has the best national rail access for a Florida port and has a cruise line and a naval base. Yet here we are struggling to know if the state considers us strategic. Miami got their deep port money pretty quickly, but Jax was left with their hands somewhat empty. (State is paying to fix Mile Point)
Quote from: spuwho on June 04, 2013, 10:29:43 PM
Seems silly as Jacksonville has the best national rail access for a Florida port and has a cruise line and a naval base. Yet here we are struggling to know if the state considers us strategic. Miami got their deep port money pretty quickly, but Jax was left with their hands somewhat empty. (State is paying to fix Mile Point)
to be fair, the dredging needed in Miami is very small compared with what is needed here....something like 1/6th of the cost.
Also, much of the argument ports in FL are making is how goods and services consumed here are shipped in from other ports...so if you're trying to change that game, why not start in south Florida (metro area of over 5 million people)?