Councilmembers had an opportunity to do this when they voted (9-0) on Dec. 20, 2016 to hand the non-profit entity $10.7 million more in Tidelands funds (in annual amounts ranging from $1.0 million to $1.7 million starting in FY17 and continuing to FY 2025) that will pay for nearly 30% of an Aquarium-board desired expansion project ("Pacific Visions.") The $10.7 million Tidelands sum just approved by the Council comes on top of $4.3 million that Council votes have already paid from Tidelands revenue in City budgets since FY13 toward the expansion (a total of $15 million.) These sums are in addition to roughly $6 million annually [source: city management Dec. 20 agendizing memo] that city taxpayers spend to cover the Aquarium's annual debt service.

At the facility's inception in 1995, Aquarium supporters and consultants said the facility should be able to pay its debt service from its own revenue based on projected attendance of over 2 million visitors per year. At the Dec. 20 Council meeting, Aquarium President/CEO Dr. Jerry Schubel said the Aquarium had its best year ever in 2016 with roughly 1.7 million annual visitors, and predicted another 200,000 would materialize with the $53 million expansion project.

[Scroll down for further.]

Below is the text LBREPORT.com emailed to all Council offices:

To: Long Beach Councilmembers
From: LBREPORT.com
Re: Public access to Aquarium governing board meetings
Date: December 20, 2016

LBREPORT.com, an online news outlet now in our 17th year in Long Beach, asks the City Council to add a one sentence condition (to ten conditions already included by city management) in Dec. 20 agenda item #16 to ensure public access to the Aquarium of the Pacific's governing board proceedings.

The agenda item seeks Council approval to grant the non-profit entity $10.7 million in Tidelands funds over FYs 2017-2025. The action LBREPORT.com requests will cost the City nothing and will promote transparency, openness and independent oversight for the public.

The City provides a non-profit entity with millions of dollars in taxpayer support to operate the City's publicly owned Aquarium facility and the non-profit's governing board is seeking millions more. The non-profit's governing board hasn't allowed public or press access to its governing board proceedings. This contrasts with two other prominent Long Beach non-profits -- the CVB and DLBA -- which receive sizable City funds and allow public and press access to their governing board meetings. The case for requiring openness and transparency from the Aquarium board is stronger since it operates a major publicly-owned facility and performs what amount to government functions.

On January 21, 2014, LBREPORT.com publisher,Bill Pearl testified during an Aquarium-related agenda item, urging then-Councilmembers to ensure public access to Aquarium board meetings. Our testimony sparked Council discussion, in response to which then-Assistant City Manager Suzanne Frick said she would ask for the Board's position on the matter. In May 2014, Ms. Frick informed LBREPORT.com that the Aquarium Board had expressed its view to her that it doesn't want the public or press present at its meetings.

This is no longer a matter of the Aquarium board's position. It was then and is now is a matter of the City Council's position and whether it will allow a non-transparent status quo or bring overdue public openness to the way a private entity spends public money and runs the publicly-owned Aquarium.

As a condition of receiving $10.7 million more in public funds, the Council can and should require the Aquarium board to comply with the Brown Act's requirements for the public. LBREPORT.com asks the City Council to add the following condition to conditions proposed by city management in its Dec. 20 agendizing memo (p. 3):

"11. The Corporation shall comply with the Brown (open meetings) Act in the conduct and proceedings of its governing board."

Thank you.

s/ Bill Pearl, publisher
LBREPORT.com
mail@lbreport.com

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 those specific benefits are.

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 stated:

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 acknowledged 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."

By their December 20 "yes" votes, Councilmember authorized city management "to execute the necessary documents in connection therewith."

In an awkward moment, Mayor Garcia called for the Council vote and Councilmembers unanimously voted to approve the costly 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..

The Council action now effectively invites a groundbreaking ceremony early in 2017 with a guaranteed photo op, that some Councilmembers and the Mayor may use if they seek reelection in 2018. We invite LBREPORT.com readers to remember the openness/transparency issues that Councilmembers allowed to remain unchanged, in addition to the taxpayer cost implications, of what Councilmembers did five days before Christmas 2016. The action comes one year after the Council approved the costly Civic Center transaction during the same holiday period before Christmas.

Advertisement

Advertisement

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.

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

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)