LBReport.com

Opinion / Common Sense

First in a Special Series: Civic Center: "A Once in a Lifetime Opportunity" Or The Biggest Boondoggle in Long Beach History?

by Terry Jensen


(October 5, 2014) -- I attended the City Council's September 16 study session on a proposed Civic Center project held at Long Beach City College's East Long Beach (Carson/Clark) campus. City staff's presentation consisted of Business and Property Development Director Mike Conway reading from basically the same power point used at the last meeting and answering a few softball questions from the Council.

After his presentation, several public speakers lined up. Some urged the Council to include a project labor agreement in the "public-private-partnership" (P3) and lobbied for higher wages and a prevailing wage requirement. A few speakers interested in historical preservation advocated keeping the City Hall building. The last speaker wanted affordable housing built on public land.

Not one speaker offered any concern or posed any questions about the merits of the proposed project.

I walked away from the meeting with a few thoughts. I recalled a Yiddish proverb that states that "A half truth is a whole lie" and a Thomas Jefferson belief that "Whenever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their government."

I agree. Taxpayers deserve open and transparent governance from city staff and our elected leaders. We also deserve and should expect our Mayor and Council will provide factual and balanced information on all issues so informed decisions can be made.

Unfortunately, our previous and present Mayor and Council in my view continue to orchestrate a carefully crafted dog and pony show filled with tailor-made "facts" that support a pre-determined direction. They are losing credibility in my eyes when they make arguments that skillfully manipulate the truth. If they are bound and determined to have a new City Hall building, they should at least trust their arguments will win the day without skillfully manipulating facts and engaging in obvious puffery.

To ensure full disclosure I must admit I have never been a fan of the current City Hall building and its surrounding complex. It reminds me of a Stalinist era structure surrounded by defensive embattlements. If the Mayor and Council presented a credible and fiscally responsible proposal, I would be pleased to support the demolition and redevelopment of the megablock. Regrettably, what I have reviewed up to this point has left me wanting.

So, I am offering a series of articles that will examine the veracity of key points of the proposal and offer alternatives that I believe are more fiscally prudent and provide a better redesign of the Civic Center block. I urge the Mayor and Council to trust residents and taxpayers and do the right thing for Long Beach taxpayers. Provide truthful and balanced information and let good judgment follow facts.

Let's begin with the foundation of the Cities justification to demolish the existing City Hall building and build anew.

In 2013 The City declared, "The to Retrofit Alternative is estimated to cost $170 million in 2013 dollars, ($119 Million in 2006 with 5% annual escalation.)

  • Nonsense! The City has grossly overstated the 5% annual escalator. Actual CPI from 2006 grew by an average of only 2.1% per year and the construction cost average has only increased by approximately 1.5% to 2.7% per year depending on the index used.

  • If ACTUAL published CPI adjustments were applied or credible construction cost indexes were used, the approximate cost would be between $137 Million and $143 Million and NOT $170 Million

  • Using a series of equal 5% adjustments over seven years intentionally overstates historical and projected real numbers.

In October 2013 The City Pumped up the Retrofit Number by $24 Million and sent the Grossly Overstated $170 Million all the way up to a hefty $194 Million.

  • So, what happed between the February 12, 2013 presentation that showed retrofitting cost is $170 Million and the October 22,2013 report that said cost are $194 Million? What caused a $24 Million increase in projected cost? I don't know.

  • They have thrown everything but the kitchen sink in their cost estimates which were originally developed in 2006 by Christine Andersen. In my view, some of the expenses listed would be required even if a new building were constructed such as relocation, tenant improvements, furniture, fixtures and equipment etc. Some are not necessary and some are discretionary.

  • I asked the City in a Public Records Act Request for the backup line item details and documents that show how all of the retrofit costs were determined. The City failed to provide me with a single document that shows line item details for seismic upgrades they say will cost $194 Million. If they have nothing to hide, why not provide the details and bolster their position that retrofitting is fiscally unwise?

  • Use accurate numbers and be transparent. I can stand the truth and so can taxpayers.

City staff declares, "The Retrofit alternative does not guarantee City Hall can be re-occupied after an earthquake, most likely requiring additional funding for temporary space and possibly a new facility, while continuing to make bond payments."..."Only construction of a new building to current seismic standards will provide for the continued use of a building after a significant seismic event."

  • ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! No one can guarantee re-occupancy if a significant earthquake hits our city. Even a brand new building constructed with current codes may be damaged to an extent it is not safe for occupancy. Relocation cost following an earthquake could just as likely apply to a new code compliant building as it would with a retrofitted building. A significant event will damage even the best built buildings and require repair and likely relocation during construction.

  • It is important to note that seismic codes provide for earthquake resistant buildings, not earthquake proof buildings. Seismic codes are intended to protect people inside buildings by preventing collapse and allowing for safe evacuation. Codes do not eliminate damage.

Proponent staff suggests that if a new City Hall were constructed, normal operations of city government would continue even after an earthquake. Mr. Conway, in response to a question from Councilman Al Austin, indicated the P3 developer would be contractually obligated to provide building access within 30 days.

  • NONSENSE! It is laughable for staff to suggest that a paragraph in a contract or code compliance can guarantee occupancy following a significant earthquake. The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center(PEER) at Berkeley, CA said at Tall Building Initiative Workshop that, "It is not possible by means of a building code to provide a guarantee that buildings will not fail in some way that will endanger people as a result of an earthquake." They further stated that, "In some instances, damage may not be economically repairable."

  • The actual language in the City's Request for Proposals re what happens following an earthquake is as follows;

    "The Civic Center is not required to be an essential facility, but should be designed to a 50% confidence level that after a design earthquake occurring the City should be able to (i) experience few or no injuries, (ii) reoccupy the new facility within a week; (iii) have full functionality within 30 days; and (iv)experience less than 5% financial loss ( as compared to the replacement value, or achieve a REDI Gold certification or equivalent."

    Boy, I feel better already!

The City believes the Cost of Retrofitting is too high and the City doesn't have the funds available to retrofit the building . They are concerned about the safety of the employees in the building.

  • Regarding cost, city staff contends it doesn't want to add a $120 tax on every homeowner to pay for fixing the building, building anew or buying a building. But I suspect city officials don't want to risk asking voters to approve a new tax or bond after the City's sorry attempt with Measure I (November, 2008.) Using a P3 that city staff wants avoids having to seek and obtain taxpayers' voted approval for what city staffers claim is in taxpayers' interests. I'll be offering an analysis of various options in a forthcoming column.

  • Regarding safety, the City knows or should know City Hall's seismic condition after more than nine years (2005) during which it has done little if anything to mitigate whatever risks now exist for hundreds of employees who occupy the building and the public that uses it. Compare this to what happened when the City determined the Belmont Plaza pool was seismically unsafe, it swiftly closed it down.

In future columns I plan to discuss the $12.6 Million sum city staff contends is the only cost of the new building. I'll also provide an analysis of Public Private Partnerships. Finally, I'll offer options that I believe are more fiscally prudent and provide for a better more vibrant downtown.


Opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessary those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook and moderate length letters and longer-form op-ed pieces submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.


Previously on LBReport.com: Common Sense by Terry Jensen (continuing series):

  • No. 23: What Is City Mgm't Trying To Hide From Council And Taxpayers On New Civic Center, And Why Are They Hiding It?

  • No. 22: Double Standard Accepts Defeat As Victory

  • No. 21: March of the Lemmings: Public-Private Partnership Proposed For New Civic Center

  • No. 20: Long Beach: Why Are Stupidities Tolerated, Mediocrities Applauded And Priorities Bewildering?

  • No. 19: Public Private Partnership Isn't Panacea, May Invite Higher Cost To Rebuild Long Beach Civic Center

  • No. 18: Accountability

  • No. 17: Good Or Bad Deal For Taxpayers? Info & Answers Needed Before Council Leases Parking Spaces To 6th/Pine Owner

  • No. 16: New Taxes? Get Serious First

  • No. 15: Important Questions Not Asked, Answers Needed Re Uncollected Parking Ticket Revenue

  • No. 14: Using Bad Technology To Excuse Bad Management

  • No. 13: Ruling By Obfuscation, Enabled By Mayor & Council

  • No. 12: Mystery Holiday Moves Mayor To Propose Canceling Jan. 3 Council Meeting

  • No. 11: Public Officials Shrugging Public Costs Of Project Labor Agreements

  • No. 10: Outsourcing City Hall

  • No. 9: Lack of City Hall Credibility, Not Residents' Complaints, Deters Quality LB Developments; Restoring Trust Requires Accurate Information & Respectful Partnership b/w Residents & Officials

  • No. 8: Council Grants Permit With Conditions Requiring What City Hall Already Basically Requires & Residents Deserve

  • No. 7: Facing A De Facto Precedent Proposed at 2nd/PCH

  • No. 6: Put Redevelopment In Council's Hands, Make LB Elected Officials Accountable (For A Change)

  • No. 5: Suppose Our City Officials Had Applied These Efforts To Assure World Class Kroc Center Instead Of For This, This & This

  • No. 4: Council Majority Either Didn't Know, Or Knew But Didn't Disclose, Amount Of Taxpayer Dollars Potentially Up In Smoke On Med MJ Vote

  • No. 3: City Hall & Its Boosters Created Budget Mess (Quit Blaming Recession); Proposed Proportional Cuts Don't Prioritize; Council Needs To Define Core Items & Cut Others

  • No. 2: Costs vs. Benefits: Council's Costlier-Than-Necessary Seawall Fix = Decaying Belmont Pier & Other Shoreline Assets

  • No. 1: Santa, Call LB City Hall: Taxpayer Leased Vacant Bldg. (New Home To Daisy Lane Xmas Displays) Invites Annual Public Review of All City Owned/Leased Properties And Zero-Based Budget



    blog comments powered by Disqus

    Follow LBReport.com w/

    Twitter

    RSS

    Facebook

    Return To Front Page

    Contact us: mail@LBReport.com




  • Click for VIDEO and see how Diversified Threat Management private security can help protect your neighborhood and your business. Affordable group rates available.












    HOT!!...but is your air conditioner running properly, most efficiently? Call LB-based Charlie McGrail and stay cool!














    Carter Wood Floors
    Hardwood Floor Specialists
    Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050




    Return To Front Page

    Contact us: mail@LBReport.com


    Copyright © 2014 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here