The action came on a motion by Councilwoman Jeannine Pearce, seconded by Councilwoman Suzie Price, the two LB Councilmembers who have Tidelands areas in their districts that could use the Tidelands funds for shoreline area purposes.

The Council has previously spent a total of $4.3 million toward the Aquarium expansion as part of annual budget allocations in FYs 13, 14 and 15...but didn't allocate Tidelands Funds to the Aquarium expansion in FY16, noting in its agendizing memo that "there has been a precipitous decline in Tidelands oil revenue." Management's memo says the Aquarium has "proposed a specific schedule for the balance of the Grant, paid from Tidelands operating funds" and "the commitment of the City to this payment schedule [by the requested Council action] will allow construction of the Pacific Visions Project to proceed in early 2017."

The Council action authorizes spending $1.5 million in FY17 (already budgeted by the Council in Sept. 2016), $1.0 million in FYs 18, 19. 20, 21, 22 and 23, plus $1.5 million in FY24 and $1.7 million in FY25, totaling $10.7 million. The $15 million total ($10.7 million + $4.3 million) represents about 28% of the estimated $53 million cost of an Aquarium-board sought expansion it calls "Pacific Visions."

These sums are on top of roughly $6 million that LB taxpayers continue to pay annually [source: city staff Dec. 20 agendizing memo, p. 1] to cover debt service on bonds to support the Aquarium. [LB taxpayers were told in 1995 that the Aquarium should be able to cover its debt service from its attendance and operations.]

The Council action authorizes spending $1.5 million in FY17 (already budgeted by the Council in Sept. 2016), $1.0 million in FYs 18, 19. 20, 21, 22 and 23, plus $1.5 million in FY24 and $1.7 million in FY25, totaling $10.7 million. The Council has previously spent $4.3 million toward the Aquarium expansion in annual budget allocations (FYs 13, 14 and 15). The $15 million total ($10.7 million + $4.3 million) represents about 28% of the estimated $53 million cost of an Aquarium-board sought expansion it calls "Pacific Visions."

These sums are on top of roughly $6 million that LB taxpayers continue to pay annually [source: city staff Dec. 20 agendizing memo, p. 1] to cover debt service on bonds to support the Aquarium. [LB taxpayers were told in 1995 that the Aquarium should be able to cover its debt service from its attendance and operations.]

[Scroll down for further.]

City management's agendizing memo said that the City and the non-profit entity that the City allows to operate the Aquarium "will jointly develop an agreement specifying the benefits the City will receive as a donor to the Pacific Visions Project." No Councilmember(s) asked publicly what specific benefits are.

Aquarium Exec. Dir. Dr. Jerry Schubel said that 2016 was the Aquarium's best year ever, with 1.7 million annual visitors, and it predicts 200,000 more will come as a result of the "Pacific Visions Project." [In 1995, Aquarium supporters and consultants forecast over 2 million annual visitors. [See "Amnesia File" with archival audio below.]

In obligating the City to provide the additional $10.7 million in Tidelands sums for the Aquarium expansion, the Council effectively precluded allocating those sums to other shoreline Tidelands area projects in the 2nd and 3rd Council districts. Councilwoman Price stated that the Council action "will not impact any existing or future projects out of the Tidelands area." [One could argue that projects that don't currently exist might exist if they were funded using the Tidelands sums allocated to the Aquarium.]

Regarding future projects, city management's agendizing item states that for the period between 2018 and 2023, it plans to get the $1 million annual sums from two sources: half from bond refunding savings and half from Tidelands operations...and cautions: "It is intended that the annual $500,000 from Tidelands operations will come from oil revenue above current operating needs, although that is not certain; if new revenue is not available, budget adjustments may be necessary."

Advertisement

Advertisement Computer Repair Long Beach

City management's agendizing memo also states:

The Corporation [Aquarium] is planning to borrow money to construct the Pacific Visions Project. To satisfy the needs of the lending institution that provides a loan, the City's Grant payments to the Corporation will need to have priority over all Tidelands operating needs, except for debt service payments on existing Tidelands bonds (the Aquarium and Rainbow Harbor) and any Tidelands bonds expected to be issued in the future.

City management's Dec. 20 agendizing memo referred to the Tidelands sums as a "grant," but the Council hadn't previously taken any voted action(s) that legally obligated the City to spend $15 million for the Aquarium expansion, meaning the City didn't "owe" the Aquarium $10.7 million "remaining" under a supposed "grant."

The Aquarium-expansion designated Tidelands sums originated in City Manager's FY13 Budget Executive Summary (p. CM 28) which stated in its "Tidelands Operating Fund" section that the "savings from refinancing 2001 Aquarium bonds in 2012 "provides an opportunity for the City to include in the Tidelands Operating Budget, a $1.5 million challenge grant to encourage private investment in the Aquarium of the Pacific facility. This payment is anticipated to last ten years..." Attachment B (page CM 39) listed FY13 budgeted "enhancements" under "Tidelands Operating Fund" that included: "Challenge Grant funding for the Aquarium of the Pacific capital improvement program. Proposed $1.5 million yearly for 10 years. Beginning in FY14, this funding is offset by the $1.1 million annual savings from the recent refunding of Aquarium bonds (Citywide activities.)"

City staff's agendizing memo acknowledges that the Council's FY13 action didn't create an ongoing obligation, calling it a "non-binding program." In other words, in the deciding whether to impose the legal obligation on LB taxpayers now, Councilmembers had the choice to say "no."

Advertisement

Advertisement

By its December 20 vote, Councilmember said "yes" without dissent, authorizing city management "to execute the necessary documents in connection therewith."

In an awkward moment, Mayor Garcia called for the vote and Councilmembers voted to approve the item before taking public input...and on the advice of the City Attorney took a second vote after a member of the public spoke. That vote was again 9-0..

In 2005, the Aquarium governing board requested and the Council approved a 29 year cap on annual Aquarium rent payments to the city, effectively requiring public money, including Tideland sums, to pay part of the Aquarium's annual debt service. [LBREPORT.com coverage here. The plan agreed to freeze Aquarium rent at a sum less than half its annual bond debt payments and extend its lease to 2060 so Aquarium management could pursue an expansion plan it says will be privately funded...but the Aquarium board-desired "Pacific Visions" expansion is now only partly privately funded as a result of the Dec. 20 Council action that obligates LB taxpayers to pay for nearly 30% of the cost.

Also in 2005, LBREPORT.com learned and reported that sometime in 2001, the Aquarium governing board quietly removed the name "Long Beach" from the Aquarium's official name, At its 1998 opening, the attraction was called the "Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific." Now it's simply "The Aquarium of the Pacific" with Long Beach relegated to locational terms (example: at the end of 710 freeway in Long Beach.)

Asked about the name change at the time of our report, Aquarium's manager of media relations, Marilyn Padilla, emailed us at the time: "The decision [to remove Long Beach's name] was based on market research that stressed the new name would be more effective in attracting regional audiences to Long Beach." Ms. Padilla added, "In addition, the Aquarium of the Pacific focuses on the entire Pacific Ocean, not just local waters; therefore, the name would better explain the institution. Since it would not be part of the name, it was decided that 'Long Beach,' the Aquarium's location, would appear in all materials as well."

Advertisement

Advertisement

Amnesia File: In the public interest, LBREPORT.com provides pre-internet magnetic tape audio (less than optimal quality) of salient portions of the August 1, 1995 City Council meeting included votes that put public money at risk if Aquarium visitors and revenue didn't materialize as predicted.

The first Aquarium-related agenda item (#23) was a "receive and file" item that included presentations by Kajima, a financial feasibility report then being finalized by Coopers & Lybrand (retained by Kajima), an independent consultant retained by city management to review Coopers & Lybrand's report, a VP from Goldman Sachs, an Aquarium boardmember and then-City Manager Hankla. Our coverage of this item begins with presentation of the financial feasibility report. The second item (#24) was a Council action item approving use of public money to back the Aquarium bonds. It included presentations by then-Deputy (now Ass't) City Attorney Heather Mahood and then-City Manager Hankla. We've posted salient portions of these agenda items, meaning some speakers and statements aren't included and we've indicated edits/omissions with a "whoosh" sound.

• Agenda item 23, Aug. 1/95 (excerpts) (38:40)
• Agenda item 24, Aug. 1/95 (24:47)

Advertisement