Speaker 1: Next item 23.
Speaker 8: Recommendation to resume final report at the at the April 15, 2014 Council meeting for the next steps on the rebuild of Basins two and three. An Albino Spey Marina.
Speaker 1: Mr. Long.
Speaker 9: Let's hear the report.
Speaker 1: Okay. Mr. West.
Speaker 7: By vice mayor councilmembers. About 30 days ago, Councilmember DeLong and Councilmember Lowenthal brought forward this item to talk about how we can speed up the elevated Alamitos Bay Marina rebuild. We are running out of money looking for some bond issues and things like that. So the council directed us to go back, sharpen our pencils and come back. We're doing that tonight. I do want to make a comment that through the efforts of Councilmember O'Donnell, it does help to have an oral history here. He was working as a city employee back in the early nineties, late eighties, and recalled that while the Titans fund wasn't doing so well back then, a certain amount of marina funds went to the Tidelands area that wasn't repaid. So we looked at that. The council directed us to look at that. And sure enough, we found about $10.9 million from back in the early nineties that went to Tidelands because again, Tidelands was broke at that time and wasn't repaid. So with that direction of the council, we're looking at that $10.9 million to help jumpstart this project. And I want to turn this over to our Parks Recreation and Marine Director George Champion to walk us through the time schedule and where we're at.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. West. Thank you, council members. We are going to wait for the PowerPoint to appear on the screen. So just a slight technical difficulty. Vice mayor, vice mayor and members of the city council. So with this presentation tonight, I'll talk about the history of the rebuild in Long Beach marinas, all three of them, the completed phases of the Alamitos Bay. Rebuild the remaining phases of the Army's Bay rebuild. And recommendations on moving forward with the remaining phases, including funding options, which I will turn over to Director of Financial Management John GROSS when I'm finished with my presentation. As you know, Long Beach has three marinas Shoreline, Rainbow and Alamitos, built in the 1950s and sixties. Those three marinas have a combined slip count of 3677 with 2095 of those slips in Alamitos Bay. The marinas were built in the 1950s and sixties, so they have either exceeded their useful lifespan or very near the end of their lifespan. Back in 1995, the City Council authorized state loans, state loan applications for the revitalization of the city's marinas. However, due to state budget shortfalls over the years, only portions were approved by the state. The state approved $32 million for Shoreline and 34.1 million for them. East Bay Marina, Shoreline and Rainbow marinas were built with concrete docks by Shore Master LLC, who, by the way, also bid on the Alamitos Bay Rebuild Project, but was was not the lowest bidder. The rebuild started in 2005 and was completed in 2007. The total cost was $37 million for the Shoreline and rainbow marinas. At that time, however, construction at shoreline included only docks using existing piles, pilings wherever. Whereas Alamitos Bay has a broader scope, including dredging, pile removal, installation, seawall repair, etc. etc. Again, Shoreline Marina was just docks. It's an important distinction when comparing shoreline to the Animas Bay rebuild. To look at the history of the rebuild for the Army's big project. We pulled all the council reports dating back to December 25. There were some there were some reports prior to that. But I think for our purposes, 2005 was sufficient. Since 2005, 12.
Speaker 4: Parks.
Speaker 8: Recreation and Marine Action items have come before the City Council regarding the Alamitos Bay rebuild. Of those 12, ten were very specific about the project needing to be phased due to lack of funding for the entire rebuild project. Looking at the history of the ABM rebuild, it was clear from the beginning that the city didn't have enough money to do the entire rebuild at one time. It was recognized early on that that this rebuild, if it was to be done, would be built in phases or on a pay as you go basis, if you will . This was again emphasized by the city auditor in a public presentation before the City Council on August I'm sorry, April 212, 2011, recognizing that this project had to be phased. The Parks Recreation Marine Department has worked with financial management in every phase of this rebuild to assess the financial condition of the bureau, the state loans and the viability of the next steps to today. Four of the eight basins have been completed since 2002, with most of the work being completed more recently. As you can see from this, these are the four basins that were completed Basin eight, basin four, basin one and Basin five as of April 14, as of April 2014. These are the basins that have been completed. Sure. Again, was strictly replacement of docs and nothing more. No piles were replaced, no dredging done. Just replacement of docs. Allow me to say by comparison was much greater in scope and much more complex. It included new piles, gangways docks, seawall repair, void, grouting under seawalls, new utilities and disposal of disposable silt. Work in basin for also included landside improvements such as ADA compliant restrooms, landscaping and parking lot. So given the additional cost for the landside work base and for we made a decision at that time that we would not do any more landside work in the immediate future so that we can concentrate our dollars towards completing the docks for the remaining basins we'd say the landside work for after all, the waterside was completed. The audit scope, the scope of the work for for the elements to be rebuilt was extensive compared to Shoreline, but the scope was even further expanded by requirements imposed on the project by the Coastal Commission when the city submitted the project for their approval. Coastal added these additional requirements to the project. These were not part of the original cost estimates for the project. So back in 2008, when gave the cost estimates. These were considered as part of the cost estimates. The scope of, as you can see, includes eelgrass mitigation, insulet, pump outs, biological monitoring, drive, boat storage. Again this is coastal is attempt to keep boating affordable for people because of the changes in the boating industry. More and more people are moving away from the small boats, so Coastal wants to make sure those are available. Drive boat storage is available for the smaller boats, recycling away stations, post displacement allowances. Again, these were unique to the army as they rebuild, not so much to the shoreline rebuild. The funding sources for the four basins that were completed, as you can see. State loans, a combination of state loans and marina fund for a total of $48 million. So we have the remaining phases for the elements. Bay Rebuild our base in two base, in three base and six in base and seven with the number of slips in those basins. In addition, Coastal does require us to build a dry boat storage for the small boats. As we indicated, the cost by category Bellingham Marine Industries, that's $52 million for the docks. These prices right now are, as of today, assuming there are no other delays. The projects for all four basins and the dry boat storage would come in at $60 million. Contingency is about 5% of Bemis cost. The water quality monitoring during dredging has to be done by federal requirements. The construction management the city uses trans systems is our construction manager. This contract with Trans Systems was approved by the City Council back in 2005th December 2005, and their scope of services were pre-construction, construction and post-construction work. This number represents construction services such as coordination of all project participants, developing construction schedules, monitoring the design and construction process to ensure completion within scope and stormwater permitting. Our recommendation for the priority of the remaining basins would be as follows Basin to basin three, six, seven and the dry boat storage. If we were to do all this work at one time, the first order of business would be to complete the Southern California Edison and Utility Backbone four Basin two and three. And this item will be next on tonight's agenda for your approval if you wish to approve that project. Dock word and dock work and dredging needs to be done in Basin two and that's critical at low tide clears in some areas is only three feet an industry standard for size for the size vessels in that basin is eight feet at minimum. And again, dry boat storage requirements. And that's a California coastal requirement. Dredging. We do have a ocean disposal permit that allows us to dispose of the dredged material up to October 2015. After that date, the city will work with the Port of Long Beach towards disposal solutions in the Middle Harbor Phase three project . That concludes my presentation. I'll turn this over to John GROSS to go over the financials.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And I'm going to cover how we might finance this and how we can finance it. What I'll be talking about is based on work by some expert consultants that finance and the Parks and Recreation Marine Department hired to review the financial status of the Marina Fund and to assess the competitive situation for our slip fees . Based on that review, a projection was done by the consultants of the amount of money that could be borrowed from the Marina Fund. And what I'll be representing tonight is based on that report. Slip fee increases are very important because most of the revenue from the Marina Fund, which pays for the rebuild, that's where the money comes from. Slip fee rate increases dictate how much money is going to be available for the ABM rebuild and how much we can borrow. The options we looked at and our consultants looked at include included going an ongoing 2% slip fee increases combined with various types of other increases, including 3% increases until market levels are reached. And that was looked at because the current slip fee rates are somewhat below the market in this area. However, regardless of the slip fee rates that we use, the marina does not have the ability to support enough debt to finance the remaining ABM. Rebuild costs that we just heard were about $60 million. So let's talk about the borrowing capacity of the marina. The consultants indicated that about 34 to $40 million can likely be borrowed by way of a bond issue, depending on the level of slip fee rate increases. That leaves about 20 to $26 million. That must come from other sources, potentially in phases in order to achieve the current $60 million cost of the remaining waterside parts of the project. The bonds will also take about a year to issue because of the complexities of the financing and the fact that this is a very difficult market in which to sell these bonds. There is a possible role of the Tidelands Fund in solving this funding situation. Tidelands has received about $10.9 million from the marina over a number of years, primarily between 88 and 96. That could be returned. That 10.9 million could be returned to the marina to help solve the funding problem. And as another point, it will take about 2 to 3 months to secure approval from the State Lands Commission, which were required to do for use of tidelands money for the ABM rebuild, if that's what council wishes to do. Overall, and just to wrap things up in terms of the timing and what can be done tonight, we have a request. The next item on the agenda from Parks, Recreation and Marine is to authorize $1.8 million from the Marina Fund, and it has that cash to continue ABM rebuild work. Staff will start immediately a process to engage consultants for a potential bond issue in June or July. This in just a couple of months from now, we expect to be able to secure State Lands Commission approval for use of tidelands funds at that time. $10.9 million of council wishes can be made available from Tidelands for an APM rebuild in addition and work on Basin two can begin with that $10.9 million. Work will then continue on the bond issue and in the first half of 2015, Council could consider authorizing bonds, the slip fee rates and the balance of funding for the project . Bonds could be sold based on those authorizations probably somewhere in April or May of 2015. And then the ABM rebuild could be continued and completed, and that is the end of staff's report.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to move on to council comments. Councilman DeLong.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 9: You see a couple of things. First of all, you talk about in the existing work that's been done, about $15.8 million has come out of the marina funds to date. Did we receive state lands approval for each of those expenditures?
Speaker 8: I don't believe so. Those are marine enterprise funds. So they weren't Thailand's per se, but they were marina enterprise funds either.
Speaker 9: And I apologize. But, you know, sometimes we're told that it's all part of the Thailand fund and other times we're not. So we get conflicting information. Now, if you go with the theory that you've suggested here, that there $10.9 million is really marina funds. It's not Thailand's funds, but it's paid back. Why would you need state lands approval for it?
Speaker 3: Councilmember The distinction is in part the revenue source where the money comes from. So the marina funds are basically generated out of the marina. Yes. And so the oil revenue is what state lands requires approval of. So whenever we're using oil revenue for any capital project over $100,000, we need state lands approval.
Speaker 9: But I guess what I heard was that the $10.9 million was originally marina funds. And now all we're doing is we're reimbursing the Marina Fund.
Speaker 3: Right. But we're reimbursing it with oil revenue. That is for a specific capital project. So we will need state lands and as we've.
Speaker 6: Indicated, it.
Speaker 3: Will occur in June. And and I, I don't think we want to put in jeopardy all of the other capital projects that we have in the pipeline by trying to avoid State Lands Commission, because they pay very close attention to what we're doing with the oil revenue.
Speaker 9: Got it. All right. Help me understand the dredging a little better that we've talked about, that after October 2015 will work at the Port of Long Beach. And I'm sure that port will be as cropped as they can. But what what are the potential pitfalls with that approach? Is it a done deal or are there things that could happen that would prevent that from occurring?
Speaker 7: Councilmember We've already discussed this with the port and they have told us they've always worked with us, with our dredge material and they told us they'll be there for us at that period of time. No one can promise what's going to be happening at that period of time with measure with them, with their Middle Harbor project. But if they have the ability to take the dredge material, they certainly will. They've started. They've stated. Okay.
Speaker 9: And the $60 million total cost, how much of that is I guess, and what's the sequence? So we know you're recommending moving forward to face up to another 60 million. How much is associated basin to Councilmember Basin?
Speaker 8: Two is about $26.9 million.
Speaker 9: Okay. Got up since yesterday. How about it? And then this Basin three follow that.
Speaker 8: I don't think it went up since yesterday. It was always 26.9. Basin three is 22.1 million. And then on those costs, I'm sorry. You include all the costs, not just bellingham's. Right. Okay.
Speaker 9: City manager and I had a conversation yesterday based on sex, and that would be the next one that you would go to. Yes. Okay. And with the cost of.
Speaker 8: That would be 6.7 million.
Speaker 9: And based on seven.
Speaker 8: 1.6 million.
Speaker 9: And the drydock.
Speaker 8: That's $572,000.
Speaker 9: And the landside improvements after all this is done.
Speaker 8: Well, landside improvements would be a number of restrooms depending on when we do it. And escalation right now, I think, between landscaping and restrooms is about $18 million kind of.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 9: If I see a city auditor here missed out every moment. How are you coming? Taking a look at the marina funds versus Thailand, the funds and how they've been used.
Speaker 3: We're still working on it. We have received all the documents from city staff and we're analyzing all the information. We should be wrapping it up in a couple of weeks and give it back to city management.
Speaker 9: Great. Okay. Because that could help the bond issues as well as more more funds in the Marina Fund. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you. That's all the questions I have at the moment.
Speaker 1: Councilman O'Donnell. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And I want to say.
Speaker 7: Just quickly, I appreciate staff's work on this, because basins two and three are definitely in need of work. And I think that's why some of the individuals are down here tonight. They well know as users of the marina that those spaces are absolutely in need. There's planks popping up. There is nails sticking up. It's not really a safe place to walk. And I know staff is doing their best to address those conditions, but ultimately it has to be replaced. So at that, just a couple of questions with the plan. These are just practical questions. But the the plan, we're not going to losing existing public dock space. What I mean is the temporary space when people pull up, etc., not necessarily the permanent folks.
Speaker 8: No, we wouldn't be losing any dock space. Okay, great.
Speaker 7: And can you just describe the small the small boat storage requirements are those for the dinghies that pretty much are already in existence on the dock or are they is there a requirement for small boat storage space elsewhere?
Speaker 8: Actually, they're more for the 20 to 30 foot vessels. The industry is finding that.
Speaker 4: People are.
Speaker 8: Trailering those in more than they are putting them in the water. It's cheaper to keep them on.
Speaker 7: Dry on the dry land. So Coastal is.
Speaker 8: Requiring that that we build some drive or storage.
Speaker 7: So that's in addition to the dry storage located right off Marine Stadium. Yes. Really interesting. I actually I see that as a good thing because there does need to be a balance. We want people to vote. We want people in a marina. Not everybody can afford the slip fees because they are going up. I think we need to watch that, too. So with that, I turn it back to you, Mr. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Neal.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And in regard to your potential timing, under the June, July, the approval of the 10.9 million of titling funds, is that the only option that we have as a council at this body were not to choose that option? Is there a contingency plan or is this really the only option that we have, I guess is my question. Councilmember The original option was not to utilize tailings funds or general fund and we would go on perhaps a ten month hiatus waiting for the bond issue. So we have no plan B except to wait and wait when the bonds are issued by Mr. GROSS. The 40 the $40 million, we hope then we would kick start the marina, but it wouldn't be for about a year, so we would be taking a pause. But this use of the Tidelands funds allow us to kick us into gear right away. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. City Manager.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Captain Ballantyne.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I wanted to thank the individuals that have come out here tonight. I know you're just a small representation of the larger group of constituents that are interested in this. To start, I do want to thank you for coming up with a financing plan, and I appreciate the timeline for Bass in, too, but really hope that we can get the remainder of the projects done as quickly as possible. In addition to the disrepair. I do think it's such a vital part of our history and the city's identity. I wanted to ask in terms of the timing, Mr. West, you just mentioned what the timing would be, the council's action tonight. How many subsequent actions would you have to come back for in order to ensure that this is on track? And I think you understand my concern here. You have very strong advocates on this council. I would hate for there to have to be a learning curve of sorts, because that would suggest that the community wait even longer . And so to keep this on path in a seamless way as possible, given what our diocese will look like in July. Is this all you need today to keep it on track?
Speaker 7: Yes. We're not tonight we're not looking for any action from the city council. We were asked to come up with the plan to go forward. This is our plan to utilize the $10.9 million. If there was an objection to that, we would like to hear that tonight. I'm not hearing that. So our plan would be to go to the State Lands Commission in June. I think it's the second or third week of June. Hopefully they will approve this ten point million dollars, 10.9 million to go to basin to. We will come back, I hope, in the first or second meeting in July with the City Council to appropriate the $10.9 million and enter into a contract for basin to.
Speaker 3: Okay. I appreciate that you don't need an action tonight, but I think you understand my concern. And so while you don't hear an objection, I want to be sure that the point of action is taken as early as possible.
Speaker 7: This will be. The action from the Council will be the. First or second.
Speaker 3: Meeting and general.
Speaker 7: Meeting in July as the first meeting we can get to. After that State Lands Commission meeting in May or June. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Any further council comment?
Speaker 9: Councilmember DeLong And it was along the same side. What I would ask you, Mr. West, is, if at all possible, assuming state lands approves, it is to come back on the first Tuesday in July, the second Tuesday, a difficult meeting with what else is occurring.
Speaker 7: So that that would be our intention. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Seeing no further council comment, do we have a motion on this yet? I believe we moved in second and already didn't. We move to designate problem.
Speaker 7: So why don't we turn to the public and item number 23? Any members of the public wish to speak on item number 23?
Speaker 5: Mary, Judy Clarke has to address a number of issues. Number one, if I read the information correctly, part of this money is to pay Bellingham to stand by and wait because their contract apparently is if it was represented right ends and their contract is up. I don't think we should pay anybody to stand by and wait. What we say to them is bye bye. No, no. And if they want to come back, they come back. All right. I think a better way to approach is to move forward and bow out and do the remaining work, which definitely needs to be done and do it in with wood, not the concrete. Varian allowing our good staff to do the repairs that come up at any point in time. They have the capacity we have the capacity to do it here very well locally. It's divorced from intelligence to hire somebody 1600 miles away that's structured into the cost. When you buy a car, do you buy it from somebody or are you the mechanic or you have to take it 1600 miles away? Makes no absolutely no sense. It's void of intelligence. So the city long has the capacity to get it done with wood and the city staff can repair it and do it very well. Parenthetically, I think we do a vote of thanks to Councilman O'Donnell for finding that original can for that institutional memory and finding those funds from the it went from one fund to another. Thank you, Mr. Goodhew. It comes from my Marine patrol days, many years ago. I know where thank you assembly was made, and I think this needs to be understood. The staff had indicated that the tendency is for larger boats. Not so. Not so. The average. The best. What we are. The target market we should have is those around 34. Once you get beyond 34 feet. You have a problem. You can't take it out as often unless you have a full crew. That's why 90% of these boats just sit there. You need the crew to operate that. So our market is in that 34, up to a 34, maybe a 36. Beyond that, they sit there too long. All right. God the only people to tell you otherwise. Who are the brokers who want to move those things? Period. Additionally, I think that we should understand why that small we need small boats is. We are the only place that has the breakwater we have that gives us, in fact a de facto in the lake where George Joe Sixpack can go out and spend the weekend behind the breakwater without going out into the high seas.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Good here. Next speaker.
Speaker 4: Please. My name is John Mrazek. I live at 5381 East Appian Way. Firstly, I would like to thank Councilman de Long for his support in this. I mean, we disagree very often, Councilman de Long, but I do agree with you in this case, and I thank you for your support. I was a little incredulous at the staff's report that there was 10.9 million missing from the Marina Fund, that that we were penalized for going on, what, 18 years now? You know, I don't know how that could have happened. And, you know, to be honest with you, I think we should probably request interest back from the Tidelands funds for our $10.9 million loan amounts are a little incredulous that the work will not be done on the slips and base and two and three except for the electrical work, we hope. And yet the staff is recommending greater than market increases and slip fees to get us to a market position when in fact that we have substandard slips and we have slips that don't deserve that type of slip feet. I also notice that we gave tonight the Long Beach Slope Club a break in their permit fees. Well, if we're sending in substandard slips, I think that the basin two and three should also get a permit or get a break in our slip fees for being in substandard facilities. I'm not going to say my fourth point because it's not politically correct, but I will comment on Mr. Good, his comments. As you know, to be honest with you, Mr. Goodhue, unless you're down at the marina, unless you own a boat, you don't know what you're talking about. You know, I'm I'm not a yacht broker, and I do take my boat out. And I love being on the water. And I can tell you, everybody here loves being on the water and lesser slips. So let's finish the marina. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Male speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Good evening, and thank you for allowing me to speak briefly. My name is.
Speaker 5: Richard Winslow, and I live in.
Speaker 4: Leisure World in your neighbor to the south. But I'm a small stakeholder. I say that without modesty. I have a 38 year old.
Speaker 5: 33 foot sailboat at Alamitos Bay.
Speaker 4: I'm on Gangway 17, and it's been receiving quite a bit of recent maintenance. And some of you may know that at least two people have fallen off of or into the dock in Basin two lately and injured themselves.
Speaker 5: In a minor way, fortunately. But the idea of.
Speaker 4: Possibly waiting or delaying the beginning of repairs, I think, is not a wise course. You have not.
Speaker 5: Only an asset to protect that you owe the the city and the county even.
Speaker 1: But also the.
Speaker 4: Potential of liability.
Speaker 5: For people who might get injured as a result of.
Speaker 8: Deficient dock.
Speaker 4: We were as careful as we can be when we're walking around. But even with.
Speaker 5: That, the docks breaking and boards are simply not sufficient. So, you know, I think any delay would be as likely to cost you more in liability.
Speaker 4: Potential liability for personal injury and possibly for damage to the boats more than you could hope to sail at.
Speaker 5: To say if by.
Speaker 8: Delay I would.
Speaker 5: Echo and had already planned to suggest that asking for $10.9 million from someone who in effect borrowed it 20 years ago is not what you'd expect from a.
Speaker 4: Bank or anything else. If you borrow something for.
Speaker 5: 20 or 30 years, you pay back.
Speaker 4: Three times as much as you borrowed. You're not likely to get two or three times that back from.
Speaker 5: The Tidelands, but I think at least.
Speaker 4: Negotiation should begin with trying to get twice as much back or try to find out.
Speaker 5: What value they got from borrowing that ten and.
Speaker 4: Almost.
Speaker 5: $11,000,000.20 or 30 years ago. And what they.
Speaker 4: Pay back should reflect some of that. And hopefully the the city attorney can advise you on whether that's.
Speaker 5: You know, it's legal.
Speaker 4: To require them to pay back something on the investment.
Speaker 5: Something for borrowing the money. Pretty much. That's all I had to say. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: Hello. My name is Operator Fernandez. I live in.
Speaker 4: 22 Northumberland Drive now. I mean, this bay and.
Speaker 7: The part I want to bring up is something new that just.
Speaker 4: Was brought up to me.
Speaker 7: Last week. I'm also on the board of directors of the The Measurement Laboratories Association. And is that sailboats with draft deeper than six feet.
Speaker 4: Are getting stuck in the.
Speaker 7: Fairway at low tide through tide and below? And actually, they did send me the pictures of a couple of those that are coming in and they're slip at low tide. They're getting stuck as they're coming.
Speaker 4: Into the fairway or trying to get into the slip. So that's besides the docks falling apart, which they're doing.
Speaker 7: The main is doing a great job on it. Now we're getting boats that are adding to the danger because they're coming in and then there's either got to call, vessel assist or wait to the higher tide to continue on.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: My name is Bob Hubbard. I'm a resident of the third district.
Speaker 4: And I have a boat on Gangway 14 and Basin two.
Speaker 7: I just wanted to encourage anybody on the council or.
Speaker 4: On the city staff that hasn't.
Speaker 7: Gone out and walked along some of those docks to do it. I know that it.
Speaker 4: Seems everybody's in support of doing this rebuild as soon as possible.
Speaker 7: But it can't be delayed. Those places, those things are dangerous. Just a couple of months ago, there.
Speaker 4: Was a problem with my slip, and when I reported it to the city maintenance, I was told, okay, well, they'd take my request.
Speaker 8: I was number.
Speaker 7: 56 on the list for major maintenance.
Speaker 4: On a slip.
Speaker 7: So that they'd get to me in a few months. You know, I know they're doing a good job. They've got limited funds, but they can't keep up on my gangway.
Speaker 4: There's at least two or three more slips that are in situation like.
Speaker 7: Mine was a couple of months ago. Mine got so bad that I finally made repeated calls to Marina Maintenance and they they declared it emergency and came out and fixed it somewhat. I mean, it's not perfect, but it's way better than it was. It was sinking.
Speaker 4: The the finger on the dock was angled such.
Speaker 7: That you couldn't walk down it. So we can't delay.
Speaker 4: And if you haven't.
Speaker 7: Been out there and looked at it, please do. As to concrete.
Speaker 4: Versus replacing with wood, again.
Speaker 7: Obviously that I couldn't see that as a viable option.
Speaker 4: The way the wood is now, it'd be the same way in a shorter period of time than concrete. So anyway, I just encourage everybody to to do everything you can to make this move forward as fast as we can.
Speaker 7: They're just not safe.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Pardon me, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Rick Duryea. I'm the chairman of your Marina Advisory Commission. Once again, you've heard all the impassioned pleas by your tenants, your boat owners, as well as staff and their recommendations on how we move forward with this project. I think it's important that the Marina Advisory Commission go on the record of supporting what has been presented to you tonight. We've met with the Director of Parks, Recreation and Marine and his staff, and we are unanimous in wanting this project to move forward as quickly as possible. We believe that staff has found a viable way to do so. And we urge your support tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Vice Mayor. Council people and staff. My name is Carl Kern Bauer and the past president of the Long Beach Marinas Boat Owners Association. And very impressed like this. Special thanks to Councilman DeLong and Lowenthal for your assistance in helping this all come together and very impressed with the 10.9 million, obviously. And yes, I encourage support and the opportunity to perhaps get some interest on this 30 years of money that have been held, which would be very helpful for getting the rebuild going. But I've been around. I've had my boat. And I don't know how many years I've been in the Long Beach Marinas decades and in the past, I heard perhaps I'm incorrect, but I heard that the DBA, Department of Boating and Waterway funded substantially or perhaps all of our rebuild. I can be wrong on the amount, but a very, very substantial funding of our rebuild that's d ball to parting of waters. And by the way the ball is 100%, from my understanding, funded by us boaters, supposed to be dedicated only for use for boating people. Okay, so like funding the marina. I was wondering if y personally why I did not hear one word from the city manager about d ball and perhaps I'm talking the wrong thing, but shouldn't we be looking at DBL for funding of this marina rebuild as we've done in the past, all that money that goes into the ball comes from us boaters. So thank you for your time. Hopefully we can look into D ball. Thank you.
Speaker 7: I would like. Thank you. We'd like the finance director to just respond to that. Sure. When I discussed looking for bonds, we will be including looking at DBA as a possible option for the loans or in addition. So that's just automatically included. We agree with the we will look at Devo.
Speaker 8: Great.
Speaker 1: Any other statement? No other public comment? Any other counsel comment on the item? We have a motion on the floor, I believe, Mr. Kirk. Yes. So, Members, please go ahead and cast your votes.
Speaker 8: Motion carries equal access.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you and thank you all for coming out again. Next item, please.
Recommendation to receive and file the report provided at the
April 15, 2014, City Council meeting regarding the next steps in the rebuild of Basins 2 and 3 in the Alamitos Bay Marina.  (District 3)