by Paul R. Spitzzeri
Wrapping up our look into the 1926 annual report of the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners concerning the Port of Los Angeles, we turn to the statement of the engineer, George F. Nicholson, who noted the amount of lineal feet added to wharves and transit sheds, miles of railroad tracks installed and the square footage of streets paved.
Nicholson added that
The projects mentioned above have satisfied all of the current needs of the port and have paved the way for future developments, that when completed will place the Port of Los Angeles second to none of the world’s leading ports.
Moreover, to attract manufacturing and other businesses wanting to be in the Harbor District, work was undertaken to fill in tidelands and pave sidewalks, install sewer and water main lines, and more.
The Municipal Terminal Railway mentioned in the other two parts of this post was considered “one of the most important problems” coming before the Board so that the “unification of the railway terminal facilities” could be effected.” The port owned almost 60 miles of track and the current project would “connect up the many loose end tracks” of the municipal line and having all terminal facilities together would allow for “a standard switching charge” for the users of the lines.
Also vital for transportation improvements at the Port was the work of the Committee on Highway Approaches to the Harbor District “to coordinate all Civic and Governmental bodies that are interested in the major highway development in its relation to the future development of the Harbor” and to develop a plan for major highways serving the Port. Important, as well, was the mitigation of railroad grade crossings, specifically on Anaheim Street, a connector of Long Beach to other areas in the district.
Another significant question was the working out of arrangements between the Board and the Union Pacific Railroad for a property exchange so that the department could conduct more work at Terminal Island and in the East Basin for future Port growth. Dredging there was started in 1925 for twelve acres to be used by yachts as well as channel deepening and, between that and shoal dredging, almost 800,000 cubic yards of material was removed. At the West Basin, meanwhile, a 200-foot channel was dredged around it and the Western Refining Company built a loading station on the west bank, while other uses were in development.
Lastly, a concrete wharf with a steel transit shed was added to a pier and “a new plan of streets and railroad track layout was placed into effect which segregated railroad, car and truck traffic,” which mitigated prior issues such as were found elsewhere in the District. Another pier was the site of the completion of a wharf with railroad facilities for the “quick movement of lumber to inland points.” A fire department boat house was also finished for a boat with 10,000 gallons per minute capacity on any structure in the Port, this adding the second such craft in addition to ten land units.
Controller Burt Edwards hailed “substantial progress for the Port of Los Angeles” in reporting that, while there were ways that the harbor paid for itself indirectly with respect to effects on the regional economy, “it is pleasing to find that it is also paying directly. Revenues for the 1925-1926 fiscal year neared $1.7 million and operating expenses were just a little about $450,000, leaving a substantial net from which $666,000 was held to pay for the depreciation estimated for that period.
Another important landmark was that the year “witnessed the practical completion of an appraisal of all properties and an audit of past transactions” which allowed for establishing a basis for reserves and development of accounting policies “which will at all times reflect operations and progress.” Getting to this point meant the exercise of a great amount of work, but this was considered worthwhile because it “will repay its cost many times over” and one substantial result was a lowering of insurance costs.
With a great detail of reporting, it was noted that a significant increase in tonnage handled meant that 23 million tons were recorded during the year with a valuation of more than $800 million, “keeping Los Angeles well in the front among great harbors.” Collections were about $1.726 million, a modest increase of about $235,000 from the 1924-1925 year, while investigations and audits found a healthy amount that was overlooked previously and which was collected.
A revenue statement found that, among almost $1.2 million in services, nearly 80% was in wharfage, with pilotage and dockage accounting for around $325,000 and small amounts for storage and demurrage, this last concerning fees charged for cargo not loaded or unloaded in the time expected. Of $320,000 in rentals, some nine-tenths was for land, with not quite $30,000 for buildings and the remainder in office and miscellaneous proceeds.
Fees of not quite $54,000 included close to 90% coming from franchises, with about an eighth involving licenses and the rest in applications, permits and transfers. Other revenues came from the Municipal Terminal Railroad ($110,000), the cotton compress and warehouse ($19,000) and small totals from “accommodation work,” a ferry and miscellaneous amounts. Revenues were also broken out by berths, including ships, tonnage and the amounts in those areas noted with the services.
For cash receipts and disbursements, there was a balance of nearly $5.6 million and the aforementioned collections grew the amount to north of $7.3 million. Disbursements totaled over $3.6 million, with more than a third coming properties and material, $1 million from the City’s general fund, $528,000 from the interest and sinking fund, $430,000 in labor and $425,000 in salaries. Cash on hand at the end of June was $3.684 million.
The Municipal Terminal Railroad drew most of its revenues, some 87%, from the main Wilmington and San Pedro District, with close to 15% from the East San Pedro District, embracing Terminal Island. Track scales, weighing, and use of tracks comprised the remainder of about $4,500.
For tonnage in Wilmington and San Pedro, a comparative statement showed that there was a slight decline in tonnage from about 1,967,000 to 1,944,000, though the amount exported grew more than 13% and imports declined significantly, by more than 30%. As to cars received, the decline was from over 24,000 to about 18,600, nearly a quarter, while those forwarded increased by 11%, from just above 50,000 to over 56,000.
At East San Pedro District, there was overall growth in both areas, with imported tonnage climbing about 27%, though exports dropped almost 7%. For cars, the imports grew by 40% and the exports went up almost imperceptibly, by 63 cars out of more than 8,000. In all, tonnage declined modestly, while there was a small increase in cars, while values only dropped by a little more than $1,000 or not much over 1% from the prior year.
During the year at Wilmington and San Pedro, the busiest months for imported tonnage were May, March, July and December, while exports were busiest in April, March, October and December and the numbers of cars corresponded with these. As for revenue, the largest amount was in October, followed by March, May, December and April. The least busiest months were September, February and January.
There was a more marked divergence at East San Pedro, however, with March, January and February being much busier for imported tonnage and September, July, April and August being about 1/3 of those totals. On exports, though, October and February were peak months and September and December the slowest, though the gaps were not as significant, about 10,000 tons between October and the preceding month. The amount of cars and revenue, of course, dovetailed with these totals, so February was double that of September.
Tonnage and values for all commerce topped 23 million and $800 million, respectively, with under 4% of an increase for the first, but a 20% jump in the latter. These figures were broken out by the type of shipping (coastwise, intercoastal, Hawaiian, foreign, domestic and others). Arrivals were above 6,400 while departures numbered just 29 fewer and tonnages were also not much different, 78,000 out of more than 17 million. Coastwise ships totaled almost 3,800 while Intercoastal and Foreign were both just under 1,300 each and American ships were the vast majority at nearly 5,500, with British (417), Norwegian (126) and Japanese (121) comprising the large of foreign craft.
Bond fund appropriations were also identified, with a total of over $3.3 million including larger amounts for jetty ($200K), Yacht Club anchorage ($139K), paving, badger and dock stations ($104K) and Union Pacific ($90K) with smaller amounts for dredging, the Anaheim Street viaduct, paving of Harbor Boulevard, and many others.
The Harbor Department’s financial report showed that properties were valued at above $55 million, more than 60% of which was in land, with terminals about a quarter and a depreciation reserve totaled north of $2.7 million. Accounts receivable were about $265,000, while cash totaled almost $3.7 million and adding other assets such as deferred charges and prepaid insurance the total was more than $59 million. Capital was not far under $58 million, including close to $30 million in authorized bond issues countered by $5 million in those unissued. Taxes were under $4 million and surplus was pegged at just over $29 million. To get to a balance, there were just above $1.2 in deferred credits to revenue.
Total land within the Port was over 2,200 acres, with about 36% involving leased land, but also 31% comprising vacant land that was available for lease and close to 20% being submerged land that was not out on lease. The rest involved wharf and submerged land that was rented, land with structures on it, rights-of-way for the Municipal Terminal Railroad and private land and streets, roads, alleys and the like. A table for rental rates is also included with 15 cents for the first 10,000 square feet scaled down to about 3.5 for 40 acres or more.
The report ends with information regarding contracts with bids through a downtown office and specifications for approved work from the engineer’s San Pedro office, while general information concerned the locations for these offices, regular board meeting dates and times and application fees for berth assignments, permits and leases.
While much of this information was technical and statistical, it contains important material about the rapidly growing and increasingly complex operations of the Port—though all of this pales in comparison to what takes place today! The Homestead’s holdings include the prior year’s report, so we’ll look to feature that in a future post.