MTSNAC Infrastructure Subcommittee Meeting

June 17, 2002

Washington, D.C.

Nassif Building - Room 6200

 

 

Attendees

 

Chuck Carroll                           National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE)

Carol Lambos                          Lambos & Junge

Jean Godwin                            American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA)

Lindsay McLaughlin                  International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)

Stephanie Meadows                 American Petroleum Institute (API)

Jim McCarville                         Port of Pittsburgh

Capt. Michael Watson             American Pilots' Association (APA)

J. Scott Rainey                        American Pilots' Association (APA)

John Doyle                               Waterways Work

Anne Chettle                            Association of American Railroads (AAR)

Raymond Barberesi                  Maritime Administration (MARAD)

Richard Lolich                         Maritime Administration (MARAD)

Michael Smith                           SAIC

 

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Chuck Carroll, Chair, at 10:15 a.m.  General introductions were made.

 

Chuck Carroll reminded the group that the MTSNAC, at its last meeting in New Orleans, on May 13-14, 2002, had requested that the Infrastructure Subcommittee develop SEA-21 funding options for the Council to review at its next meeting, scheduled for August 13-14, 2002.   The Council will then prepare a package by the end of the year for the Secretary of Transportation's review.

 

The subcommittee began by reviewing its October 21, 2001 draft paper on SEA-21 Trust Fund recommendations (see attached).  Chuck Carroll cautioned the group to keep the recommendations for the Secretary simple.

 

The group agreed that a SEA-21 Trust Fund stream for unmet MTS needs will most likely come from Customs revenues.  It was also agreed that those revenue streams already in place should not be touched.

 

Jim McCarville of the Port of Pittsburgh pointed out that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has already spent current and future Customs fees for the next 20 years and that we need a strategy to deal with this, even though it was still our strongest moral argument. 

 

What are the alternatives to Customs fees?  The administration has gone on record against any new taxes.  Carol Lambos of Lambos and Junge, said that the best argument for these revenues is that the maritime sector merely wants that piece of the pie which it generates.

 

Security needs must also be addressed.  What are the costs for enhancements such as fences and cameras as well as productivity loss?  The biggest expense is computers at the gate interfacing with federal government.  This could be a minimum of $1M per terminal.

Jean Godwin of AAPA added that overtime and continuing capital costs must also be included.

 

What other categories must be addressed?  The most obvious is congestion alleviation.  There should be a water alternative to trucking.  The group discussed how best to develop a list of needs and the corresponding sources of funds.  John Doyle of Waterways Work, raised the issue of RABA (Revenue Aligned Budget Authority), which the federal government uses in reviewing and allocating certain program funds.  In the case of TEA-21, the budget authority for highway projects increases or decreases in line with the projected trust fund receipts.  So if the highway trust fund receipts decline, the budget authority for highway projects also declines.  If a dedicated trust fund were established for SEA-21, the funding levels would also fluctuate with the level of receipts, in accordance with RABA.

 

Jean Godwin of AAPA stated that SEA-21 consists of many things and a dedicated trust fund should be established to fund unmet and unfunded needs.             

 

Chuck Carroll pointed out the need to distinguish between statutory changes and policy changes when contemplating a dedicated trust fund for SEA-21.  Jean Godwin added that the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) should also be addressed in a SEA-21 program. 

 

The group agreed that the basic needs to be addressed in SEA-21 can be grouped as follows:  Inland Waterways, Coastal Ports, Coastal Shipping, and Tax incentives for shipowners.  The group requested assistance from both the MTSNAC sponsor, MARAD, and its contractor, SAIC, to further develop this matrix.  MARAD agreed to work with SAIC and present a draft to the subcommittee chair.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.