Speaker 7: All right. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item?
Speaker 1: Yes, we have two. Julian G and Anna Christiansen's.
Speaker 7: Okay, let's handle that now.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Juliana. I'm a resident and small business owner in the city of Long Beach. My wedding was originally scheduled to be on the Queen Mary on March 28th of 2020, the week after COVID shutdowns had begun. It was then rescheduled for August 8th, 2020, and eventually canceled. The onset of the global pandemic was obviously disruptive to every person and business around the world, and I consider the rescheduling and canceling of my wedding to be a wrong place at the wrong time type of scenario. It's unfortunate, but there was no one to blame. However, for the Queen Mary, it forces and ultimately the owner of the boat. The city of Long Beach. The repercussions of the pandemic included shedding light on various malpractise handling of the ship's assets, including the mishandling of funds for numerous local citizens, such as myself and my husband. By mid-June of 2020, it was clear that our rescheduled date of August eight would not be able to happen. The manager of the boat inform us that their owners were in a, quote, deep financial situation and advise us to postpone until 2021. He told us that if we submitted a request for a refund for the $15,600 we had already deposited, we would likely never receive our friends back. But if we waited, he guaranteed he would. They would honor our deposits and host the wedding as originally planned. Over the last two years, I have struggled to get any information or guidance from the city. The last response I received from the city, a city employee, was in July of 2021, saying the city would notify me if any relevant information became available. After numerous attempts to follow up over the last year, I have not received another reply. Since then, after diligent research has been shared publicly by the Long Beach Post and the Long Beach Reform Coalition, it's abundantly clear that the city of Long Beach was not only negligent in managing the lease of their property, but also knowingly continued business with the leaseholder who was failing to care for the ship, its employees, or many of the patrons like me.
Speaker 5: That trusted them with tens of thousands.
Speaker 6: Of dollars. It was also recently informed that Councilwoman Cindy Allen enjoyed a private stay there overnight during the closure. And I just have to say that really felt like a punch to the gut. On top of everything else we've been going through and having been basically stonewalled from the city in getting any kind of response or support . So today I'm formally asking that before the city enters into yet another multimillion dollar business deal, it first pay back the debts that occurred due to their mismanagement of the historical site.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Anna Kristensen loads through Wetlands Task Force. I gave you a couple of pieces of paper here, a couple of documents to review at your leisure. This is a little bit not so direct, but it does involve the iconic Queen Mary as. What do you think of when you think of the Queen Mary? You think of fireworks. Fireworks on all summer, fireworks on every holiday. And once again this year, we are being told there will be fireworks downtown from the Queen Mary. We're not quite sure. So I think when we're looking at costs in this contract and who's going to pay for what, we should understand that these two agencies, the Coastal Commission and the L.A. Regional Water Board, are now looking more seriously at fireworks as a polluter. So when you look at the Regional Water Board, what they are requesting of one businessman for his fireworks show, the costs are adding up if they start requiring NPD as permits like they do for other major polluters. Fireworks show will cost you $20,000 for that one permit alone. And I think this is not a bad thing, because what we have now is private businessmen, whether they're Harbor Cruises or a nonprofit. I don't know. We thought it was the convention center, but it's just a convention area group or something. And then one other businessman in in Alameda say for multiple years they're not being held accountable for so much of the pollution that the water board is talking about here in our water. So we want to keep our children safe as they go to school. We want to also keep them safe where they swim. And we're adding more attractions for especially for children on our beach front, whether it's a jungle gym or out in the water itself, even in the bay, a brand new thing. And yet this pollution isn't going anywhere and neither are fireworks as far as we can tell. So we're hoping it was this gentleman who left earlier for the head of the park said, why don't we think about making Long Beach historic in another way? Why don't we be the first city to host a laser light show for the 4th of July? That Disney is doing it, other cities are doing it, but no port city has ever done it. And I think we could we could think about that. And as as for this year, we're trying to work with staff, with special event staff. And obviously, it's not so much on the downtown show, but I really hope that this year we could get some of the reduction in plastic waste that is being required of Mr. Morris this year as this fireworks show goes forward. And I'm hoping that we could meet with First District well and speak with them because they've been really helpful on this. Oh, 25 seconds left. So, you know, we've made a lot of bad deals in Long Beach and we've made a lot of great deals throughout to show what those are. But but as far as the bad deals goes, the Queen Mary, there it is. And you can't just snap your fingers and make it go away. That turns out to be more expensive than keeping it cheaper to keep her. You've heard that. It's cheaper to keep her. So but that's so it's still not cheap. It's still expensive. So before we spend tens and tens of thousands of dollars on fireworks, let's maybe think we don't need to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Is that concludes the public comment.
Speaker 7: Thank you. We'll take it back behind the rail. Councilwoman Zendejas.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you for the comments that were given here today. I know that we're moving forward now, and this is a very exciting next step in the operation of our beloved Queen Mary. I know many of the residents here are excited to see more activity and events come back to life in our Queen Mary. With this item, we are one step away, closer to the grand reopening of our Queen Mary and hoping that we can re re invigorate our Queen Mary and what it brings to our city. I know I'm very, very thankful for all the detail that went into this contract. So city staff, I just want to say thank you because I know that we we were went through a very hard time with the Queen Mary. And so I just want to say thank you for taking the extra steps of being extra careful and implementing all the things that will eventually result in a successful transition into reviving the Queen Mary. And so thank you for that. And I look, I really like also the the shortened lease time. I think that that's important as well. And I think that that's going to be, you know, very, very telling as we move forward. And, you know, it, the Queen Mary is a great iconic venue. And I'm hoping that one day we can one day, you know, name it for what it really is, which it's a historical property and such a great, great property they have here and our in the city of Long Beach. And it's so iconic. I hope one day we can get there. But for now, I'm really proud of the work and the due diligence that went into this planning. So thank you for that.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman Austin.
Speaker 3: Yes, I'm happy to speak at this motion. I do have a couple of questions on to start with with a comment. You know, the there's a lot of, you know, differing differing opinions about the direction that we should go in with the Queen Mary. Obviously, this is a decisive moment for the council to to enter into a new agreement with the with the evolution. This is city manager for for those listening and those critical of this decision. How does this agreement differ from the previous agreement and how would the city be protected? You know, moving forward?
Speaker 2: Yes. So it is very, very different. So before in the past 40 years, we've really tried to manage this asset by shifting all the requirements, all the responsibilities, but also all the benefit to a private company. They normally had to pay for that, right? They were buying it from somebody else. And so they were carrying a lot of debt to do that. And so that that proved really not to be a model that was successful. It happened to several different companies. What we're doing now is basically cutting out that middle a partner. It is still a city asset. We now have increased responsibilities where before we were not responsible for any of the any of the operating expenses, any of the capital that was all shifted to a private partner. We retain that now. So we do are required to put in capital money. You heard some of that that Mr. Vallejo talked about today. But now we also are able to get some of the benefit as well. So this company is essentially a caretaker. They are running the hotel. This is what almost anyone does who owns a hotel property. They then bring on someone who is a hotel expert. And these are one of the best experts in the nation. And so they do it for a percent of the gross revenue so that they're sharing in that cost or of that of the revenues. And that's what pays for it. And then we are expecting, if history is any indication, this property all made money for the hotel itself. So about seven and a half million in that range. So hopefully we'll we'll get back to that point. And they're incentivized in this agreement to actually earn more than that. So the company has an incentive. The more they earn, the better they're going to do it, the better we're going to do.
Speaker 3: Thank you for explaining that. So it sounds like there's a shared risk in this year potentially with this agreement, and I'm supportive of it. One of the public commenters did raise a point that I think is as important to address, and that is debts and previous contracts. Have we looked into that? Do we know what the exposure is? And is there a plan to to kind of rectify any of that?
Speaker 2: Yes. So we're all very, very sympathetic to that. This council has been incredibly sympathetic to that. That came up in our study session. It's also tricky for us because that was not a response. That was not money that came to the city of Long Beach. That's not moneys that we held. Those were all in a private company that went bankrupt. And so there were claims through bankruptcy court for people to try to recover that Long Beach. It was in the same boat where we were trying to recover our assets as well. That said, we are looking once we get open to work with our city attorney to see how can we, you know, honor that, how can we create some, you know, value there for people that lost money? We're still working on that part of it to make sure it's legal and not to give to public funds. But we do believe once we're open and we can start looking at how do we get these those that lost money through the previous operator get some kind of benefit to be able to come back and hold their events here in Long Beach.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 7: All right. Fantastic. Thank you. Just add my comments here supportive of the agreement we discussed at length in closed session. So I understand those points. I think some of the questions Councilman Austin raised were good. The public needs to hear that this is very different than what we've had in the past and we stand to economically benefit . And to be clear, the $7 million projection is conservative. It doesn't include the events and the other potential activities are correct.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's correct. And Johnny can expand on that if he wants.
Speaker 7: To go a little bit deeper on that point. I think it's important for people to understand.
Speaker 9: Yes, that's that's a that's a fair assessment.
Speaker 7: Sure. Okay, great. And I saw that you had a slide both on auditing standards and performance standards, which I think is incredibly important, that we we have access to the operation fund to to help manage that operation fund to audit. We have access to that. The performance standards, I think, are good that there is an incentive to do well, do better as a hotel because they benefit. So I think that's good. The reopening budget, I know that you mentioned that some of that you're going to look at year end savings. You know, the more that we can make sure that it comes from funds generated from, you know, in the future, revenues generated from the Queen Mary, I think is a good story that it was able to fund its own start up eventually. Right. And sometimes we've done that when we need to figure out a project that's ultimately going to bring more revenue to the city was figured out how to leverage that. So let's be creative so that I think folks can understand that, you know, it pays for itself. And I think people want to see and understand that the Queen Mary has the ability to pay for its own operations. I think that's important. I would also say I don't want to not acknowledge the fact that there are 300 employees we're talking about here. Now, what efforts have we done to make sure that previous employees have the ability to get their jobs back or what's been retained? Do we have any data on the retention rate?
Speaker 9: So that's that's one of the benefits of engaging with evolution hospitality because of their previous role in managing the Queen Mary for the previous operator. They have access to all of that, our contact information. So they've actually stayed in communication with those employees and have a program already in place to reach out to those employees to get as many of them that would like to return to work on the ship. They will be afforded that opportunity.
Speaker 7: And interesting, I think and whatever the differences of folks who, you know, are going to be new employees, I think we should do all we can to make sure we're hiring local and encouraging lobbies, residents, you know, who are seeking work to have an opportunity on the ship. And so I certainly support this. I know that there's a lot of discussions around public trust and confidence, all of that. But I think you all have done a very good job in terms of the city management team, city attorney's team, economic development, and doing the diligence and walking us through the important viewpoints so it has my support. Members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: The motion is carried.
Speaker 7: Thank you. All right. Item 34, please.
Speaker 1: Item 34 is a report from Health and Human Services. Recommendation to amend contracts with Interval Health for providing homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services for a revised total aggregated amount not to exceed 2.5 million citywide.
Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary to enter into a Hotel Management Agreement with Evolution Hospitality, LLC, of San Clemente, CA, for the reopening and operation of the Queen Mary hotel, attractions, parking, retail, food and beverage services, and ship related events for a period of five years, with the option to renew for two successive one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager.  (District 1)