[Scroll down for further.]

Apart from downtown interests and the usual suspects, the proposed Civic Center deal is so unpopular that city officialdom structured it to avoid seeking voter approval while simultaneously avoiding seeking marketplace bids for a more affordable City Hall retrofit that would allow voter approval. It would require LB taxpayers to pay a private developer/operator sums escalating sums each year (by CPI) for thirty, thirty-five, now up to 50 years (the latter enabled by a special Sac'to bill delivered by state Senators Lara and Nguyen and Assemblyman O'Donnell.) LB's Planning Commission just a approved Site Plan (now headed to the City Council) that would shrink LB's Main Library and let a privately owned, developer desired highrise tower over twice the height above LB's City Hall and Port HQ.

The November 10 agenda item's title didn't mention the words "Civic Center"; it stated only: "Adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7043 for the City of Long Beach Old Court House Abatement and Demolition." The $3.6-$4.4 mil just approved by the Council only covers asbestos abatement; when the demolition cost is added on, management indicates the cost will be somewhere between $10 mil and $15 mil...which management proposes to finance with a debt bond that could drain the General Fund of about $1.3 million a year for the next ten years. That's money that taxpayers won't have to fix citywide potholes, repair citywide infrastructure or provide police, fire, parks and libraries.

From city management's agendizing memo:

[Agendizing memo text] Before and after conveyance [of the old courthouse to the city by the now-dissolved Redevelopment agency], staff had pursued the State for funding related to environmental abatement and demolition of the old courthouse. Nonetheless, the State unilaterally determined that abatement and demolition is a local obligation and refused to provide funding.

[The building contains] a substantial amount of asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint. Regardless of the future use of the Subject Property, abatement of these environmental conditions is required...Staff desires to enter into a contract with Environmental Construction Group, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $4,428,000 to allow for abatement work to proceed. The potential completion of the demolition of the improvements will require future action by the City Council.

On Nov. 10, city management delivered a brief presentation and noted that an unsuccessful bidder protested the outcome. Vice Mayor Lowenthal made a motion to approve, seconded by Councilman Rex Richardson. Lowenthal thanked staff for its diligence and said it had been a long process. No other Councilmembers spoke or raised issues for taxpayers.

Why didn't city management tell taxpayers and previous Councils about this potential cost exposure? Why didn't city staff protect taxpayers by ensuirng its favored Civic Center deal developer/operator would agree to pay all or part of these costs regardless of whether Sacramento agreed to force state taxpayers to pay?

As for the full costs coming (when demolition is included), here's the story from LBREPORT.com's very recent "Amnesia File":

(Aug. 20, 2015) -- Long Beach city management has revealed that the controversial Long Beach Civic Center rebuild transaction -- which the City Council voted 8-0 to pursue (Dec. 9, 2014, 4th dist. vacant) without seeking bids for a less costly City Hall seismic retrofit -- could cost LB taxpayers a management-estimated $14.5 million to demolish the former LB courthouse, considerably more than the roughly $2-$3 million that management had assumed [proposed FY16 budgeted at $3.055 million] to tear down the former LB courthouse and hoped state Redevelopment funds would cover (which Sacramento refused to approve.)

In an agendized memo accompanying an item scheduled for the Aug. 18 Budget Oversight Committee meeting and cc'd to the Mayor and all members of the City Council, City Hall's Financial Management Director, John Gross, recommended that if legislation now pending in Sacramento doesn't pass [editor's note: it didn't pass], the City (ultimately meaning the City Council) should cover the cost with $3 million taken from taxpayers' General Fund FY15 surplus (in proposed budget) and incur a debt-bond (without voter approval) that would impose a roughly $1.3 million annual General Fund cost on taxpayers for the remainder over next ten years (starting a little over one year from now in FY17.)

The Aug. 18 Budget Oversight Committee meeting was chaired by Vice Mayor Lowenthal and attended by Vice Chair/Councilwoman Stacy Mungo; Committee member Suzie Price was absent for a previously announced vacation. Councilwoman Mungo asked no questions. Vice Mayor Lowenthal asked no questions. A motion was made to "receive and file" (take no action, offer no recommendations to the Council.)

A few weeks ago, the Council quietly approved a resoluton laying the groundwork to using debt bonds for Council sought items that could include financing the Civic Center's additional cost. The debt bond, if used to finance the asbestos abatement + demolition cost + Pacific Ave. drain could drain an estimated roughly $1.3 million each year from the General Fund. That's money that won't be available for infrastructure, police, fire, parks or libraries. Here's management's verbiage included in its Nov. 10 agendizing memo to the City Council:

As reported to the Budget Oversight Committee on August 18, 2015, this project will be supported by $3,055,000 in currently appropriated FY 16 non-recurring General Fund (GF) resources and the remaining $1,373,000 of the City's cost for this contract will be bond financed. The bond issuance is planned for City Council approval in early 2016. If the Courthouse abatement project precedes the bond issuance, interim funding may be provided by General Fund reserve funds that will be reimbursed from the proceeds of the Courthouse demolition bonds, when issued.

Again: whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the Civic Center transaction, this didn't trigger any serious Council discussion about holding anyone in city management accountable. The only persons LB taxpayers can hold accountable are their Councilmembers.

We continue to urge the Council to stop its lemming rush toward what we consider a bad deal for taxpayers. The Council can, we believe, stop the deal now for less money than it just voted to spend. In our opinion, the Council should instruct management to put the City Hall retrofit swiftly out to bid, present taxpayers with the least possible cost on a 2016 ballot measure and get City Hall's seismic issues fixed (which the City has known about since 2007) without further delays. The last time we heard a management offered timeline, it indicated that the Civic Center tear down/rebuild transaction wouldn't provide a new City Hall (if it stays on schedule) until late 2019.

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.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Scroll down for further

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement