(1) Embark on a course to tear down LB's less than 40 year old City Hall based on deficiencies claimed in a Seismic Report that city management has thus far concealed (even its Executive Summary, which LBREPORT.com); AND

(2) Accept a two sentence management description of what the Seismic Report supposedly plus a management filtered Power Point slides offered for public consumption but concealing from media and public view what the Seismic Report actually says until the night of the Council vote (if then; Executive Summary requested by LBREPORT.com); AND

(3) Attempt to resurrect a discredited proposal to relocate the Main Library in a shrunken size at a location no one yet knows; AND

(4) Begin the process of outsourcing the public area to a private developer/operator for its profit at public expense; AND

(5) Use a "public private partnership" (or "P3") to clone arrangements for the new Long Beach courthouse, which the CA Legislative Analyst's Office says cost as much as $160 million more than necessary; AND

(6) Within weeks contractually obligate taxpayers to pay "significant costs" (acknowledged in city management's own Fiscal Impact statement) to hire an army of costly "consultants" to prepare a Request for Proposals that will be offered to three City Hall picked potential developer/operators BUT conceal the amount -- in dollars -- of the "significant costs." [UPDATE: At 1:20 p.m., after we uploaded this editorial, we received management's response: costs would be [a]pproximately $500,000 to $700,000, but actual costs are not yet known." The approximate cost is what we requested.]

(8) Pay the army of "consultants" from the "Civic Center" fund...[updated text] which includes unrestricted money that could otherwise be used to fund police, fire, parks and library items or city infrastructure items beyond downtown for items citywide. [Deputy City Manager Tom Modica points out that the Civic Center Fund collects rent from both General Fund and non-general fund operations in City Hall, meaning not all Civic Center Fund monies are unrestricted.]

(9) Accept unsourced, barely referenced, apparently self-extrapolated and self-calculated estimates by a city management staffer to self-dismiss a simple retrofit that the concealed Seismic Report apparently says is an option.

(1) Support a substitute motion that will directs city management to pursue an economical, less costly, more taxpayer-friendly retrofit of LB's less-than-40 year old City Hall and leave LB's Main Library in its current size where it is; AND

(2) Withhold approval of contractual commitments on the significant "P3" costs until the retrofit RFP facts are in and provide a basis for comparison.

Which do you want your Councilmember to do?

We believe a feeding frenzy at the public trough is unfolding right now. We expect it will be visible at tonight's City Council meeting. What has taken place thus far has been marked by a lack of management transparency, evidence that it can't survive serious scrutiny. In our opinion, it's political money for the April 2014 elections, not public safety, that's propelling this.

City management's own agendizing memo acknowledges that the concealed Seismic Report advises EITHER rebuilding City Hall OR retrofitting it. In a clumsy attempt to try and evade this obvious option, city management's memo offers a congestion of unsourced, barely referenced, apparently self-extrapolated and self-calculated estimates and then uses its self-calculated estimates to self-dismiss retrofitting.

Los Angeles retrofitted its City Hall which was completed in 1928. Other CA cities have retrofitted their City Halls. In contrast, the Foster administration has known, or should have known, City Hall's seismic issues since it took office. It had in hand a Seismic Report completed in 2005/06 and discussed in 2007 (Foster was elected in 2006) yet the Foster administration has for its entire now-ending eight years in office not once proposed issuancing a Request for Proposals to retrofit City Hall.

Why not? Because we believe the responses to that retrofit RFP would show taxpayers the real cost -- and we believe savings -- of a simple retrofit.

In our opinion, it would be reckless and irresponsible for Councilmembers to proceed tonight without having that real world retrofit figure in hand.

That's why LBREPORT.com urges a substitute motion to issue and perform a fast-track retrofit RFP and withhold action on the city management proposal until its results are in. It will allow a public and Council comparison of the real costs -- and we expect savings -- of addressing City Hall's seismic issues in the least expensive, most frugal manner.

We reject and strongly oppose the notion that a City Hall building defines what this City is or isn't. This is nonsense and should be labelled such. The last thing Long Beach taxpayers need now is to commit taxpayers to some costly comic book reality or delusional anthropomorphism.

We don't know anyone in our neighborhood who wants taxpayer money that could provide police, fire, libraries, parks and fix sidewalks and streets citywide to be spent to instead to produce a downtown Taj Mahal to suit the self-inflated egos of some local politicians. Residents with whom we speak are fed-up with some Council incumbents who think it's their job to remake Long Beach residents in their image. We believe it's the Council's job to provide public safety and basic services, something other cities provide at higher levels than Long Beach (sadly making them more attractive to new businesses and potential home buyers.)

Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske has done an enormous amount of research and has an armload of questions she says she intends to ask tonight. That's fine with us, but we still believe in the need to get the facts.

LBREPORT.com urges a substitute Council motion tonight that will direct city management to release a fast-track RFP for retrofitting LB's current City Hall (and Main Library as may be indicated) and withhold action on city management's proposed "P3" Civic Center -- including any contractual obligations for "consultants" or other significant costs -- until the results are in. This shouldn't be dilatory. It should have been done years ago; it can be done more quickly than all the costly "P3" preparations now.

The results of that retrofit RFP would give the public, and Councilmembers, an intellectually honest and respectable basis for comparison...which they don't have now. It's something city management's lack of transparency has thus far concealed...and some inside City Hall apparently fear.

LBREPORT.com will carry tonight's Council proceedings LIVE on our front page: www.LBREPORT.com.

And pass it on.

UPDATE:

At 1;20 p.m. Oct. 22, LBREPORT.com received the reply below from Deputy City Manager Tom Modica to an inquiry LBREPORT.com posed yesterday (Oct. 21). We reproduce his reply below; some comments by us follow.

1. We expect [initial P3 consultant] costs to be approximately $500,000 to $700,000, but actual costs are not yet known. [Editor's note: we only requested an approximate figure, so he's providing what we asked for.]

2. The Civic Center fund is an Internal Service Fund, which operates like an enterprise fund. As such he funds are used to pay for expenses of the Civic Center. Each operation that utilizes the Civic Center pays into the fund, so it is not all General Fund that goes into the Civic Center Fund. So no, the Civic Center fund is not the same as General Fund.

3. At this time, we believe there are sufficient resources available in the Civic Center Fund.

4. The method or issue of compensation of the participating entities has not yet been determined. That issue will be determined through the development of the RFP, should the City Council wish to proceed.

LBREPORT.com appreciates Deputy City Manager Modica's reply. Re (1) costs, we believe the actual costs should be fairly clear at this point. We base this on this text on page 3 of management's Oct. 22 memo: "[S]taff solicited proposals from qualified consultants for these services. A request for authority to enter into one or more contracts will be presented to City Council in an upcoming meeting in early November." Those solicitations almost certainly produced numbers, which the contracts to be offered in November will include.

Regarding the Civic Center Fund, we stand by modify our statement that is restricted money that the Council can legally spend for General Fund type items, including police, fire, parks, and citywide infrastructure including street and sidewalk repairs. Some of it is restricted money (see below.)

Deputy City Manager Modica adds in rebuttal to our statements:

The RFPs for these services hasn't closed yet. So no, costs aren't known yet...

No, not all civic center [funds] can be spent like general fund. It collects rent from both General Fund and non-general fund operations in city hall. So it can't be said that the fund can be used like general fund since it contains a mix of both restricted and unrestricted funding source.

We again thank Deputy City Manager Modica for this reply. We're adding his statement re the Civic Center fund to our text above.

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, plus moderate length letters and longer-form opinion pieces (op-eds) submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.