The Councilmembers' agendizing memo doesn't disclose the terms of the Metro proposal that it asks Councilmembers to support. It doesn't disclose how many LB police officers would be contracted-away from handling citywide police tasks -- that might include responding to neighborhood calls for service, gangs, fireworks, disturbances, assaults and burglaries -- to suit Metro. The agenda item doesn't disclose if they'd be replaced for citywide taxpayers in the FY18 budget and if not when (if ever) they'd be replaced.

LB police officers tied by contract to handle LB's Metro trains/stations wouldn't be available to handle calls for service in neighborhoods citywide as well as citywide events, incidents and emergencies. And LB's thin citywide deployable budgeted police level has already been allowed (by the actions of past and present Councilmembers) to shrink to a level roughly equivalent per capita to what Los Angeles would experience if it cut roughly 30% of LAPD's officers.

[Scroll down for further below]

LBREPORT.com used Metro's legislative proceedings, combined with other public record matters, to connect the dots and piece together a framework of what's taken place mainly outside of routine public view. It's clear to us that some city officials are prepared to impose this on the public without meaningful transparency or serious public discussion in the coming days. We may not have all the details (yet), in part because of City Hall's less than transparent conduct in this, but in view of the serious citywide public safety, police level and taxpayer implications that the public has a right to know, LBREPORT.com reports below what we've learned thus far:

• May 3, 2016: LBPD agendizes an item to "Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to provide a response to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Request for Proposals (RFP) Solicitation No. PS24750 for Transit Law Enforcement Services; and obtain authority for the Long Beach Police Department to submit a responsive proposal to furnish labor, materials, and other related items for the performance of a contract." The agendizing memo doesn't discuss LBPD staffing impacts for residents citywide. It states in pertinent part: "This contract opportunity will potentially allow LBPD to provide police services on the portion of the LA Metro transit system that runs through the City, which will positively impact public safety efforts. LBPD will model an RFP response presenting staffing and deployment models based upon its knowledge of the region and crime patterns..." City Manager Pat West tells the Council that management doesn't have a lot of information to share, is simply seeking Council permission to respond to Metro's RFP and indicated Commander Rich Conant is handling the matter. Commander Conant says LBPD "is currently completing our staffing model and we will be prepared to present the staffing model on May 28 per the schedule for Metro, Metro's RFP. We're looking at policing ten stops in the city and it's a great opportunity for the police department to improve the quality of life for our Long Beach residents with our services on the Blue Line." Commander Conant offers to answer any questions, but no Councilmembers ask any questions. The Council votes [motion by Gonzalez, second by Uranga] to approve the item 7-0 (Austin and Andrews absent).

Sponsor

Sponsor

• Mid-May, 2016: Mindful that Metro's governing board now will ultimately decide the fate of the City's pitch to use LBPD officers on the LB portion of the Blue Line (and will also decide the final size, configuration and impacts of the I-710 freeway expansion), Mayor Garcia and Councilman Austin (Mayor-chosen chair of the Council's State Legislation Committee) fly to Sacramento to urge passage of SB 1472, which doesn't explicitly mention Long Beach but would effectively give Long Beach a seat on MTA's governing board. The bill is opposed by the City of L.A. and Metro (the latter voicing concern that it could hamper Metro plans for a Countywide sales tax increase ballot measure in November.) The bill dies in the state Senate.

  Summer 2016: LB voters approve a Mayor/Council sought sales tax increase in June. Metro Boardmember/then-County Supervisor Don Knabe opposes a Metro-staff-written sales tax increase for the November ballot, warning that it shortchanges southeast L.A. County cities. Mayor Garcia endorses the Countywide sales tax increase, which passes in November.

  Nov. 17, 2016: In a meeting of Metro's "System Safety, Security and Operations Committee," Metro staff states that it favors contracting with LBPD to police Metro's Blue Line in Long Beach, proposes a five year contract with 14 LBPD officers effective January 1 if Metro's full Board votes were to approve this. (Metro staff also favors having LAPD police portions of the Metro Blue line within the City of L.A. with LASD left to handle other areas.) The Metro Committee votes to advance the split-policing proposal (opposed by LASD) to the full Metro Board...but the Board puts off a decision until February, 2017.

  December 15, 2016 LB Mayor Garcia gains a seat on Metro's governing board, exploiting a county selection process that heavily weighs appointive votes for Long Beach due to its large population.

Sponsor Computer Repair Long Beach

Sponsor

• Jan. 9, 2017: LBREPORT.com asks LBPD from where officers would be taken to provide Metro policing and asks if they might be drawn from officers now handling LB neighborhood duties.

  Jan. 10, 2017: Mayor Garcia declares in his "State of the City" message: "In February, I plan to fight to ensure that the Metro Board of Directors contracts with the Long Beach Police Department to patrol the eight Metro stops in Long Beach. [applause] Absolutely. And if we can convince Metro to contract with our police department, that could add up to an additional 30 police officers to the Long Beach police department paid for by Metro." Garcia doesn't mention that Metro staff wanted to take 14 LBPD officers by Jan. 1, doesn't explain how the City would handle losing 14 LB police officers for citywide policing (after LB voters approved a sales tax increase in June that produced only 10 more officers for taxpayers in the Council's FY17 budget) and doesn't explain where, when or how up to 30 police officers, paid by Metro, would materialize.

  Jan. 11, 2017: LBPD responds to our Jan. 9 inquiry as follows: "Metro and LBPD are currently still in negotiations, but the general framework of the LBPD proposal includes approximately 30 officers dedicated to providing law enforcement services to the Blue Line. Initially, these officers would be drawn from the general pool on an overtime basis and not diminish the amount of officers currently deployed in the community." LBREPORT.com reports the story (first, again) at this link.

  Jan. 15, 2017: LBREPORT.com finds the Nov. 17, 2016 Metro Committee meeting in which Metro staff indicated that it wants to deploy 14 LBPD officers as of Jan. 1 (although Metro Board approval is subsequently delayed until February...by which time Garcia will join the Board.) LBREPORT.com reports the story (first, again) at this link.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The bottom line: on Feb 14, 2017, the City Council will be asked by four of its nine members to support a proposal to enter into a contract with Metro for LB police services on terms that haven't been publicly disclosed or discussed -- that Mayor Garcia, who has no Council policy-setting vote, declared in January that he supports. The action would drain LBPD officers in a number not disclosed by the city from their current citywide deployable tasks. (Metro staff indicated in November that it could take 14 LBPD officers immediately and Mayor Garcia asserted in January could "add" up to 30 officers paid for by Metro.)

The contract term would be for a length undisclosed by the city (that Metro staff has indicated would be five years.) LBPD police management says it plans "initially" to cover the reduced number of officers with "overtime" (difficult for the public/press to monitor for independent oversight.) Metro would pay the City a currently undisclosed sum and it's currently unclear if that sum would cover the full cost of replacing -- one for one -- LB police officers that would be contracted away.

Sponsor

Replacing contracted away LB police officers isn't Metro's responsibility. It's the City Council's responsibility. As agendized, the Feb. 14 Council item provides no guarantee to LB taxpayers that officers contracted away now will be replaced, one for one, in the FY18 budget.

One can speculate on a scenario in which city management might treat the contracted-away officers as reducing some portion of current General Fund expenses, camouflage the reduced number of officers with "overtime" (creating "ghost" officers difficult to oversee) and not replace the contracted-away officers one-for-one, producing a "salary savings" that the Council could spend on other desired items.

Contracted officers are not unusual for LBPD; it's done so for many years at levels that have basically stabilized (for the past few years) at roughly 60-70 contracted officers per budget year (exact number varies.) The City's FY17 proposed budget included 68 contracted officers that aren't paid by the Council but are paid for and assigned to, provide police services for LB's Port, Airport, LBCC, LBUSD, LBTransit and LA County Carmelitos housing. and thus aren't available for citywide deployment.

Developing. Further to follow.