Speaker 5: Thank you. I to make clear.
Speaker 6: I made this communication for the office. Councilwoman Jeri ships key with recommendation to buy motion of the city council directed the city manager to suspend the contract of North American Limited until the next City Council and Mayor Assume office in July 2014 as membership.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I bring this issue forward because in talking with numerous residents all throughout the city of Long Beach, many question the the wisdom of pushing through any kind of project that is going to financially obligate the next city council. If this council recalls, we had to deal with the pension spiking that was left to the city council. And this is not something I think a new council, particularly this the first time in the history of Long Beach, you're going to have five new members of the council, possibly six to be handed something that was generated from this council. So I understand from the city attorney, Mr. Anthony, that, in fact, that the city could direct the city manager to suspend the contract until the new city council comes in so that they can take it up from.
Speaker 0: Their council memberships. That's correct.
Speaker 9: Okay. And the other reason I bring this up is because as we talk to talk to residents out there, they're they're asking about the city expending $1,000,000 at a time that police officers and I've shared this with the chief and others are telling my constituents and others that we don't have enough officers on the street, that when we had a fire the other day, that we didn't have an engine directly available across the street and that we don't have engines in two other stations as well. And so I think it's very difficult to explain to them that the city would expand $1,000,000. I did read the new management memo, which I find very interesting, because I actually kept I keep everything. I kept the 26 and the 27 report to us. And I I would ask, though, that there was a request from city management at that time that two things be done based upon the seismic concerns. And one of them was to evaluate, evaluate emergency response plans for occupants of this building to ensure personal safety. I know we've had some kind of discussion, but I've never seen in writing what it is that we plan on do. Because if we do in fact believe this is an unsafe building, that should be the first thing we do. And the second thing was to develop mitigation strategies to address the problems with the wings and the second floor truss. And so before I make my motion, I if I can, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask city management if we have those two things in place.
Speaker 5: Well, I was going to ask them to respond in general. So, Miss Frick, I'll turn it over to you.
Speaker 1: Certainly, we did all that during. We did everything there from the reports that we had from 2005 and 2006. And then, of course, when we did the peer review as requests for the city council, things got a little bit worse. So I'm going to turn it over to Suzanne Frick to walk us excuse.
Speaker 9: Me now and specifically, Mr. Mayor, if I can, and I hope that you answer this, those two specific steps. I know you did the peer review. I know we had a tier two study. We did not have an RFP on the cost to retrofit. But I'm particularly concerned that if, in fact, we do believe this building is unsafe, did we do these two particular things that you brought to our attention on May 15, 2007, when Christina Anderson was the director of Public Works?
Speaker 4: Mayor Members of the Council. Yes. In fact, we did do those items at that time, as you recall. The vulnerability with this building were in the wings and that there was fear that the the wings were potentially unstable. And that contains our elevator shafts, our stairwells and restrooms. And so, in essence, what we did was a major undertaking within City Hall to move all of our emergency supplies that used to be stored in those wings into the middle of the building. We informed our employees about evacuation techniques, and we also worked with the fire department to determine what would be the best method to evacuate this building in the event that our stairwells and elevator shafts were unusable. There were some challenges with the floors above the seventh floor that we still were working out the specifics. Then subsequent to that, as you recall, the Council directed us to prepare that peer review of the seismic analysis. And that peer review has determined that it is no longer just about the wings. It is now about the core of the building. And that we are a. Finally on notice as of the fall that this building has some serious seismic vulnerabilities and could jeopardize the life and safety of the employees and the visitors in this building. That is what's prompting us to move forward at this point in time. What I would indicate is that we have evaluated the issue of retrofit versus is new construction. And I want to kind of remind the council to some degree that the retrofitting option basically requires us to go to the voters for a bond measure because there is no funding for a retrofit, whether it is 100 million, 200 million or 250 million. We don't have that funding. So not only would we be paying the 10 million we're paying today, we could be paying up to an additional 16 million for a bond measure for retrofitting. And what the council has been clear about is that you do not want to fix city hall on the backs of the taxpayer, that what you have directed us to do is try to develop a scenario that, in fact stays within the amount of money that we're currently spending. And what we're doing is moving forward with the public private partnership because that meets that objective, that there would not be a additional cost beyond what we're paying today to build a new city hall. So that's the dilemma that we're faced with and that's why we're moving forward. I'd also note that what we're doing right now is merely testing the market to determine whether or not the notion of this public private partnership and staying within the amount of money we spend today is feasible in the private market . And that's what this RFP is doing. Once we determine it is or is not feasible, if it's feasible, great, we'll have a partner. Then we embark upon our public process to vision city hall and figure out what the configuration and the design is going to be. And there will be an extensive public process if it is not feasible to stay within our means. We're going to have to come back to the council and then we will have to discuss the option of going out to a bond to deal with this issue.
Speaker 9: Okay. I appreciate that. A couple of if I can, Mr. Mayor, a couple follow up questions. One is that I think residents are asking why it takes $1,000,000 to find out if there's a market for this, since there obviously is a market out there because we have a building across the street. The P3 or the P3 law expires in 2017 statewide. So it needs to be obviously renewed. But we know that there that there is a market out there. So the million dollars is, I think, the bigger question. The second question is, and I and as somebody who has worked diligently in the city to try to get residents ready for an earthquake, if, in fact and I do believe that we have a seismic problem here. When are we think heating this building? Because the scenarios that I've been given all the time in the handout is that tomorrow, Calgary, that they are it will take best case scenario to do a development five years from the time that you get your proposals. Seven years is realistic according to your slide presentation. In ten years, if in fact this is in the condition in a seismically and safe. And as you say, Suzanne, the city has been put on notice. Why aren't we? Why aren't we backing up a little bit and making plans to relocate staff and get them out of this building instead of waiting to go through a consultant process and go through the machinations and waiting for a new council to come out. So, you know, I'm being I'm being sincere. I'm not you know, I'm trying to get. If you really do think this place is and you keep saying we've been put on notice, then why would we keep people here from for four or five years or even two years more?
Speaker 4: We believe we need to move expeditiously, and that is why we're proceeding down the path where we're going down with the council support and we're engaging the council every step of the way. It is a risk that we are taking. There's no question about that. That's why we want to continue on an expedited process to relocate. City Hall is going to be a tremendous expense, and that may in fact, be an option that we're going to have to explore. If when these we go out with the RFP and the proposals come back, and if the scenario is that nobody can deliver us what we're asking for, we may in fact be before the city council asking you to spend money to relocate the employees. It seems to me we don't know that.
Speaker 9: Right. It might be prudent that you work on parallel. Tracks if, in fact, you know, this is going to take until July to come back to Stephen to discuss the feasibility of whether this is feasible. It seems to me that it would be in the best interests of the people who work here, that we are proceeding on some way to plan to get people out of here. The poll was closed down because it was considered to be seismically unsafe. And because you do have crowds there and they you didn't want to have any difficulties. I would think that if this is in the same and I saw the film, it's called the FCI score on this, if in fact, this truly is is in the state that you're saying, then I'm wondering why we would keep open and risk the same thing that might happen at a pool structure that might happen here. And I understand because of the pool in the earth. But again, if if this is considered to be so seismically unsafe.
Speaker 4: Let me jump at the Belmont Pool. And the condition of city hall are two completely different scenarios. The Belmont Pool is on basically quicksand and is a 5.0 earthquake could topple that building. So that's what necessitated the immediate evacuation. City Hall, on the other hand, has some seismic vulnerabilities. We are taking a risk, but it is a calculated risk at this point in time. And so we don't believe that it is such a risk that necessitates the immediate evacuation of this building.
Speaker 9: Well, what timeframe do you think they. We have to evacuate people, because by your own report, you put this city hall on fault areas. That's what you handed out to council, saying it, showing the city hall being in a Long Beach area fault.
Speaker 4: I don't think we've said that city hall is on a fault. The Southern California is peppered with faults and that this particular building is not in a fault.
Speaker 9: Well, perhaps that was the error of the former public works director because she has it. And the city hall seismic evaluation pointing out our vulnerability because of the fault. So I don't know why that was in there if we're not at.
Speaker 4: But I think it's the proximity of the faults. Just we've got the newport-inglewood, we've got the Palos Verdes, we've got a number of faults that are directly connected to Long Beach.
Speaker 9: Well, personally, I you know, I'd like to hear some more from the public, too, but I really would hope that instead of spending the money to find out if the market's out there and by the way, was the newspaper correct that if people answered this RFP, that the city will be financially obligated to pay them for answering it? Or was Mr. Bradley incorrect because he put that in his table?
Speaker 4: When this matter was brought before the council, we there was a discussion about a stipend for the developer teams and that stipend would be paid by the winning developer. So that in essence the council authorized 500,000 per up to 500, let me say it that way for up to 500,000 per development team that would be payable by the winning proposal. Now if in fact the Council does not choose, we get the proposals in, there's a viable proposal, the council decides not to proceed. Then there is a remote possibility that the city would have to pay that. But we believe if in fact this is successful and we find a developer who can deliver this, then the city will not be paying the 1.5.
Speaker 9: But the city would be obligated according because we certainly haven't we don't get to see the RFP before you send it out. So I don't know what the language is, but my understanding now is that the city would be oddly so. The future council would be obligated to pay the winning development team if in fact it chooses not to go forth at that point.
Speaker 4: I'm not following the question.
Speaker 9: Well, are they going to get paid whether or not the city decides what if the city does what this news council decides in July? I know they don't want to do this. And you've picked a winning proposal that you've brought to city council. What happens with the obligation in the RFP to pay the winning.
Speaker 2: Team.
Speaker 7: Council memberships? The current posture is that if the city issues an RFP and cancels the RFP before the submittals are required to be received, then no stipend is payable. If the RFP continues and we receive submittals from the three short bidders, those submittals that are qualified under the requirements of the RFP would then be eligible for a statement. If we are unable to come to an agreement with the preferred proposer, then there is a possibility the city would be responsible for the or for the stipend. But if we proceed to closing with the preferred proposer, then the preferred proposer will pay the stipend.
Speaker 9: And Mr. Conway, if the city chooses, not after they've done. Can you tell me what the maximum obligation of the city would be.
Speaker 7: If we would be currently liable up to a half a million dollars per bidder if we received three qualified bids as a result of the response to the RFP.
Speaker 9: So potentially, if the next council decides not to go forth and you had responsive bidders, it could be 1.5 million that the city would have to pay for them. Taking the time to respond.
Speaker 7: That could be an outcome.
Speaker 9: So I'd hold off on a motion until we hear more from my colleagues and from the public.
Speaker 5: Councilor Longo.
Speaker 8: That's okay, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.
Speaker 5: You passed?
Speaker 8: Well, it was the cup that could hit the cue button. It wasn't me.
Speaker 5: Mr. Dome.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of questions here.
Speaker 0: So, in essence, what I'm hearing, I'm hearing here tonight, if we if we suspend the.
Speaker 10: Process, we suspend identifying our potential solution. Is that really where you're coming from?
Speaker 4: That's precisely where we're coming from.
Speaker 10: Correct. Because we don't know that a new building or a three piece is the solution.
Speaker 0: This is a search.
Speaker 10: This is an investigation. Am I correct?
Speaker 4: That is correct.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: And what about speaking specifically to the retrofit option?
Speaker 10: I know the $160 Million number has been thrown out. How hard is that number?
Speaker 0: What experts have.
Speaker 10: Looked at it? How confident are you that that is the number? Should we be doing something now that.
Speaker 0: Might put us on a dual track where we want to look.
Speaker 10: At a retrofit?
Speaker 7: Councilmember O'Donnell The original estimate for the retrofit, including both code required and ADA, required upgrades for temporary relocation space, for soft costs, for design, for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Back in 2006 was estimated by the same engineering firm that conducted the Tier one and Tier two study. And at that time, in 2006, the estimate was $119 million. For discussion purposes, we brought that number forward to 2013 at a 5% annual increase, which brought us to the 100 and I think $74 million range. I think Ms.. Frick's comment that the order of magnitude of that retrofit clearly makes that an unacceptable alternative for us, as we don't have anything near 100 to $200 million to focus on a retrofit that would simply saddle the residents of Long Beach with additional debt and continue.
Speaker 10: I to get the debt part. So I'm just more I just want to be confident that we've really looked at the retrofit component comprehensively. Listen, I'm not in favor of stopping tonight's stopping the process from moving forward. I just wonder, you know, is there something we should look at?
Speaker 0: Did this $160 million proposal estimate, did that undergo peer review?
Speaker 7: Councilmember O'Donnell I don't believe that went under peer review, but it was conducted by a structural engineer.
Speaker 4: And council member. What we anticipate is that that is likely on the low end of the retrofitting costs, because, again, that was based upon the retrofitting associated with the wings, the the Tier one and Tier two analysis. And given the new analysis that's been done that is related to the core of the building, we recognize there will likely be additional retrofitting that would be triggered. So that's why we're saying it. If it's 160 million or if it's 200 million, that is a significant burden that we would be looking to fund.
Speaker 0: Right. But I guess what I'm telling you is what I want to be.
Speaker 10: Confident is that the number is 160 million. That that's where.
Speaker 4: We are very confident on the low end of the number that in fact, that 160 million is the minimum amount that it would cost to retrofit. We, in fact, believe it could likely be more.
Speaker 11: Can you can you.
Speaker 7: If I could jump in, since 2006, there have been significant changes to both the building code and the seismic requirements.
Speaker 10: And every year there will be I get it. The minute you know, you're after your buildings built, it's out of code because the code changes. So I get that. That doesn't mean that there's not a significant problem.
Speaker 3: Well, I understand it.
Speaker 0: Could you put something.
Speaker 10: Together for me so that I can be confident that we've really looked at the retrofit concept and it's just not viable?
Speaker 4: Yes, we can put together what a viable estimate for the potential retrofit.
Speaker 10: Right. And if you have to consult with somebody and it costs you a little bit of money, to me, that's not, you know.
Speaker 2: Well, made out.
Speaker 10: Of reason.
Speaker 2: So by all means, thank you.
Speaker 5: That's remember Lowenthal.
Speaker 8: I think my buttons broken. I'm not cued up.
Speaker 4: Sorry.
Speaker 5: I'm really sorry. Your button's broken. We'll try to. We'll try to rectify that. So you do not want to be calling?
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 5: Okay. All right. Do we have a motion here?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 6: Let's go to public comment.
Speaker 5: Not without a motion.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 0: Well, maybe. Maybe city management.
Speaker 10: Can help here. Listen, I'm not interested in stopping the process here this evening. I want to move forward. I do want to get something back from you that speaks to the effort that has gone into identifying the potential retrofit costs. So I don't know if we'd have to do a receiver file here or or the motion would be just ask city management to to further analyze the costs associated with the potential retrofit and get back to council. I know it's through a memo or what.
Speaker 6: That's just that work for you?
Speaker 4: Councilmember We're more than willing to return to council with an estimate on the retrofit.
Speaker 5: So there's a motion.
Speaker 11: There's a motion and a second council. Boston.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I'd like to piggyback on Councilmember O'Donnell's motion and possibly offer a substitute, because from what I've heard here, and I do understand that we are looking at the feasibility of this public private partnership for a new civic center. But and I do agree that we need to also be on a parallel track with the looking at the retrofit option. But have we discussed a public private partnership for a retrofit? Is that a possibility in any way, shape or form? I think one of the public speakers mentioned that a little earlier. And the notion that we need to look at.
Speaker 7: Councilmember a public private partnership for retrofit would still. Let's assume it's $100 million or $150 million. It would still require an additional annual payment above our existing $10.8 million. And and that would require additional funding through some source, whether it be the residents from a bond measure or taking other funds from other necessary programs. So I don't know if that's a viable alternative. We have to take the existing annual expense that we have for this civic center and put it into another civic center instead of adding on to costs of the existing civic center.
Speaker 10: So we have a significant footprint here where we are today. We have a old courthouse. We have successor agency properties downtown that could be identified as a new potentially new civic center. A new civic center. I think there are. I just don't think we've looked at all of the the options and variables. But I also wanted to comment on the the the original motion. I'm not interested in the new council having an opportunity. I will just say I disagree. I think the new council won't get a pass on this issue. The new council that will be seated in July will have to deal with this issue and wrestle with this issue issue. And it will be a priority for us to wrestle with because of the seismic safety issues that have been outlined here. And so I do agree we need to move forward. I just think we need to look at move forward with every option available. I think we need to have a little bit more of a robust public outreach as well to meetings, in my opinion, just stating the case that it's not enough, not when you look at an investment with the gravity that we are going to undergo with the new civic center or retrofit. Either way, the public needs to be more engaged, more involved. And it was noted that nobody showed up to the the last meeting, a public meeting, or it was that attendance was likely it was light. I personally had a district events and big district events going on and that conflicted with that. And so there are a lot of activities going on here in the city. And so with that said, I think we should really do more to to to do outreaching and give the public more of an opportunity to be involved. I'd be really interested in hearing about feedback. What was the public input during those public meetings regarding? The new civic center. Is there any, you know, quantifiable data? Were there surveys? Where was the online outreach and what were the results? I mean, I would love to get that as well. So with that, I think I'm going to support the motion on the floor.
Speaker 11: Councilmember Shipp, Skip.
Speaker 9: I think Mr. Austin has a good point, that one of the things that this council has not done, we've not really had a thorough discussion about all the options, including simply relocating. And we also have not seen whether or not what the options are out there about selling the courthouse property to use to finance it for any kind of retrofit or any improvements for a civic center. We've just really not have that discussion. And in looking at the well, the RFQ, that didn't seem to be something that was even entertained. Any discussion about retrofitting is also not in there. So none none of the three qualifying groups actually put in any kind of proposal for qualifications for retrofit. And so we really haven't looked at the other scenarios and we really haven't had a full council meeting on the financing. I know you talk about the voters would have to approve a bond, but we've not even talked about why that would be required and what aspect of this whole proposal would require that to be done versus going the P3 route. So that's I think that's the other thing. The public is kind of responding to Mr. Austin, that there's they're saying that they don't think enough information has been given to the public. You're asking the public to come out and talk about something that's an extremely kind of amorphous situation. And unless you give them the information, they they really can't engage and they're not being asked to. As we have had in visioning sessions and others, they're not being asked to put things on paper. They're asked to be they're being asked verbally, you know, what do you think we should do? Well, you know, that's that's an extremely vague question. And so the answers are extremely vague as well. I will tell you about the notification on the the public meetings. I had a response from a member of press saying that they were only told two days before the those the first public hearing actually took place. So that makes it difficult to to get those announcements out in the press. So I would hope in this the motion that Mr. O'Donnell made and I second it, that we will get I would ask if city management give a little bit more information not only about the cost to retrofit, but how would such retrofit be financed ? Because I don't know that we've had that discussion. And could that include selling the courthouse to be able to finance such retrofitting? Because certainly we don't want to increase taxes on anyone and obligations, but we've never really had any of that discussion about how else we could pay for the retrofitting. I do know that there are FEMA, there are FEMA funds available to many of the cities that have undergone retrofitting. There's there's city halls have have received some assistance from FEMA to do that. So but in those cases, I do believe it's because FEMA indicated there city halls were called essential facilities. They had emergency communications facilities in those facilities. And we don't. So I don't I don't know that we would probably qualify on that basis. So I would just hope we get that additional information. When you're talking back to us about retrofitting, how such retrofitting could be possibly financed, that would it would help. Otherwise, we're just we get the information and then we've had no information back about how we'd go ahead and pay for it if we move forward.
Speaker 1: Mr. Vice Mayor, I just for the record, like to clarify what the exact motion is, as my notes indicate that it's a request for a report on the retrofit costs and then councilmember ships key is has made some additional changes. I don't know if that's a friendly amendment or if so fall to the body.
Speaker 11: Because we're ships.
Speaker 10: I guess my only I just wonder if you're getting ahead of us here because I mean if the retrofit is so expensive, the cost benefit isn't going to be there to retrofit because then you then you'd had the direction of a new building. So well, because we want to know what the what has gone on with regard to researching the retrofit. Alternative. That's that's purely my motive and what the costs might be. So, you know, they had some information in there about how we might finance it. I guess that's fine, too, I guess.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 11: So they're going to motion in a second on that counts.
Speaker 10: And then I like to offer a friendly amendment to include the public the the exploring the public private partnership with the retrofit auction as well if.
Speaker 11: I think that's part of the I that will be part of the moonshot.
Speaker 0: If we can include that.
Speaker 10: As part of the financing component. Yeah. Okay. I just want to be clear. Okay.
Speaker 11: So there's a there's a motion on the floor. I'm going to make a couple of comments. We're going to put up to the public. I think what's important for us to note is at least, at least for me, is at the end of the day, this starts and begins. You know, this starts and ends as a public safety issue. And I think what's important for us to remember is I think everyone is interested, no matter what side of the issue you're on, is that we do have serious issues with this building, with the structure of the building and the safety of the people that are in this building should always be our top priority. And so I want to make sure that we are that that is what the debate is revolved around. There's different ways of getting getting there and creating a safer environment for our employees. But that certainly needs to be at the forefront of our discussion. And also briefly, it's my understanding that. Mr.. Mr. West. From conversation that you and I had about the community outreach process is that there is going to be additional meetings.
Speaker 1: There continues to be additional needs right now.
Speaker 11: Because I think that that's I mean, I think that there's been that something that I have heard in the community, I think that's important for us to make sure that we get out there if we have even that schedule. I mean, the sooner that we let the public know when these meetings are and they certainly should be throughout the city, I think that's going to be important so that people can ask the questions. And I mean, I think for a lot of people, this is probably instructive as well to just get information out there. And so the more of those community meetings that we have, the better. And and lastly, on the visioning piece, and I just want to clarify this as well, it's my understanding that there would be an extensive if we decided to move forward and we haven't even decided to move forward on this type of a plan. If we were to decide to move forward, there would be an extension extensive, I imagine many month, year long visioning process that would go out to every neighborhood, involve all sorts of of communities to envision what we would even do on this on the site. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Absolutely correct. That, in essence, before we go out with a comprehensive visioning process and get everybody's hopes and dreams alive, we need to know whether or not we have a developer team who, in fact, can deliver a project for us. And it is absolutely critical that before we embark upon that extensive outreach process, we have that developer in hand. So that developer is in fact listening to the input and participating in that extensive public outreach. So again, really, this step that we're taking is really to determine what we want to do, whether or not it's feasible and doesn't.
Speaker 11: The way I interpret the Senate budget, doesn't this step essentially provide us an option? Correct. That doesn't mean that's the option that we will take, but it provides an option. It's my understanding that the issue would have to come before the council many times between now on numerous occasions, including any future council, on a variety of different decisions that would come before, on, on, on funding, on the project, on the visioning process, on a variety of different questions. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yes. And what I like what I like to remind people of is that we started this process back in 2005 when with the first analysis, 25, 26, and we're still at it. So this is really spanning multiple city councils who have participated in this process. And the Future City Council, in fact, will be significantly engaged in the completion if in fact, we move forward on this project.
Speaker 11: Okay. And then my last point is going to be and again, I had some conversations with with Mr. West about this. But I do think and I do believe in reviewing the engineering studies, that we do have a problem in this building. It's a serious problem. It's one that we should take seriously. And I think that, Mr. West, as as we do these reports and as you come back with more information, we should be looking at what are what are other options are, for whatever reason, we go through this process and we find out what our options are. And this council or future council rejects those options. Or the option doesn't pan pan out, because we could come back with information that says this is just not financially possible or this won't work. For whatever reason, we still have a building that is structurally unsafe for our employees, and at the end of the day, we have to fix our problem. And so we need to start. And I think we have already. I know. Ms.. Frick, you said that we don't have an official plan, but I know you guys have already had discussions about what other options would be, what leasing would look like, which would be very expensive, but what leasing would look like in many other buildings, or if we'd have to relocate to other parts of the city. So that piece of the of the discussion is critical, I think. So let's bring some of that discussion, I think, to the forefront. We should do them parallelly, because I don't want to get to a point where one thing is rejected and then we have no plan. And I think we're going to have hopefully a couple a couple of plans in the works. Thank you. We'll go and go to the public or you have another comment?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I have a couple of quick questions. Can you please then enlighten me and the public what this public process is that you're doing right now? I mean, what is it that you're asking the public to give input on what they should tell the developers, how they should go and write an RF P because they're not being given the opportunity for input as to what should be done. Since you're since the purpose of the RFP is to go find out what can be done.
Speaker 7: Councilwoman Chips Key In the RFP, we have a somewhat abbreviated process that we're following that is intended to provide the short listed bidders the requirements of. Both Civic Center and the port in in the RFP. So we're going to be providing them not only programs but the functional needs of the civic center, both from the city hall perspective and the library perspective. The port has their own needs assessment and 30 year demand analysis, and we're converting that into a document that will hopefully inform the short bidders on how to come back to us with a financially feasible project. And so the outreach to the public is to inform them that we are proceeding with this process and that we are not we don't have a project yet. We are only on the pathway of selecting a partner, a development partner. The idea being to educate and inform the public that this is the process we're going through. And this is just two of probably countless outreach meetings that will occur as this project progresses.
Speaker 9: Well, in fairness, I don't think that's what the public understood, because we've got a great deal of people in the library community who thought it was an opportunity to come and give input, particularly because in the RFQ there was a figure put in there about what the in you and I. Mr.. Conway We've had discussions on this where that figure came from about what should be the size of a new main library. And so when people are coming this morning, they really thought that it was to give input as to what direction to go. And I share and I think I've shared this with Mr. West. Unfortunately, I've heard from residents who overheard staff afterwards kind of ridiculing the people who had come up to say something by saying, Haha, I guess we got your our marching orders. And these are credible residents.
Speaker 1: I have to interrupt that. That is adamantly false. That's not the case. We listened to the tapes and that is not that comment is not attributed to us.
Speaker 9: It wasn't said on tape, Mr. West.
Speaker 1: We listen to that. Listen to tape. We heard the comment is not attributed to staff. I have to adamantly protest that.
Speaker 9: Was it attributed to the consultant staff?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 9: Oh, who was it then? Because it was not. It was not. I mean, because you're you're making the question about public input. And to have people come to something and then have them feel that their input doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: And so, again, that's the statement you're referring to is false.
Speaker 9: All right. The second thing that said, Mr. West, that there's some additional when are the additional public sessions going to be on this aspect?
Speaker 7: If I could add to that, we have been working closely, not only with the Library Foundation, but a consultant hired by the Library Foundation to better describe and define the library of the future. That information is going to be in our data room, which is accessible by all of the short bidders so that they can understand the position of the foundation and their consultant. So we believe we reached out to them. We believe that we are working together with them to better define what the future library looks like. And I'm hopeful that that cooperative spirit proceeds into the future and as that needs assessment gets translated into a design, is when we're going to go out to the public and seek their input from the entire entire entitlement process, which will be nine months to a year.
Speaker 9: Okay. Well, to questions, Mr. West mentioned the regret to Mr. Garcia that there is going to be some additional sessions. Do we know when they are so we can let the public know?
Speaker 1: We councilmembers. We continue to stand ready to respond to any member of the community, any community group, any council group to appear and go to any meetings we've done to several already. And I'm getting direction from the council that we may want to go out and schedule some of our own, but certainly we're out.
Speaker 7: There with.
Speaker 1: Our website volunteering to go to any public meeting desired and we stand ready to go to anyone.
Speaker 9: All right. And last but not least, Mr. Garcia brought something up. I don't think the rest of the council was ever aware of. You have worked out scenarios about leasing other property to move.
Speaker 1: I think the city council has heard those scenarios.
Speaker 9: Know the cost of leasing. Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 1: Yes. We can do those, too.
Speaker 9: Well, that was that was you know, that you included that in the cost for relocation, but you didn't talk about what potential buildings you're looking at to lease.
Speaker 1: Yes, the council's been informed of that and we'd be happy to provide that to you.
Speaker 9: Yeah, please. I would like to see the memo about the locations that have met. Identified.
Speaker 11: Thank you. We're going to go to the public. Please come forward.
Speaker 1: Hi, Mr. Vice Mayor. Gary Shelton, again. I didn't rush down because I think my comments are most important. I just have to be somewhere else in a few minutes. So I wanted to get my my thoughts in. I'm in favor of the motion as it stands right now. Anything that can give us an insight as to what seems to be some of the missing pieces of this conversation is welcomed. I did want to express just sitting there listening as closely as I could, that there are the cross purposes are being loudly spoken and there are there are some folks that seem to want things both ways, and it really can't work that way. What I'm what I'm talking about, I get to a couple of specifics is related to the idea of of of a retrofit financing would have to go into bond issuing and and be approved by the voters and by the issuers of the bonds that's spoken as if that's something bad . I don't know that it's something bad. We have no no concept of why that would be an improper way to move forward. Maybe it's the best way. I really don't know. That's never been elucidated or there's been no light put on that. The other cross purpose that I heard was over and over was that this this RFP process is just a a search that we really don't know what the outcome is going to be. We don't know if it's going to be feasible or not. That's looming large in the discussion, however. Then just five or 10 minutes later, Missouri State but not moving forward is a remote possibility. So like which is it?
Speaker 6: Is it this is just.
Speaker 1: Going up in the air and we don't know what's going to happen or is it not moving forward is a remote possibility. Which way is it? So learning more about the retrofit is going to help us understand that the the the remote possibility, by the way, was in the context of the $500,000 stipend. So I appreciate the motion and the second and the discussion and I hope it passes. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor Garcia. City Council members, city staff. My name is Margaret Smith. I am a resident of the third district and I am speaking on behalf of the Long Beach Public Library Foundation. We appreciate the difficulty of these decisions and we respect your need to go forward. From a cost and safety standpoint. But from the very beginning, the foundation has asked for an open, robust and transparent process for getting community input. Not just library supporters, but everyone's input about what they want for the future of their civic center. And we have also voiced our concerns about the aggressive timeframe of this process. The request for proposals, as Mr. Conway has shown in many of his public community sort of outreach efforts, goes out February 28th or let's say March 1st, three months later. Those proposals are due back from our three pre-selected bidder teams. So that's three months to do a monumentally complex proposal. And then a month later in an evening meeting, just like this one on July 1st, city staff is going to come back to you at the city council with the proposed preferred proposed proposal and ask you to vote on that all in one meeting. And at that July 1st meeting, no one from the public will have seen those three proposals that have come back. And we are making a commitment to this team for a minimum of 30 years. So with all due respect, Ms.. Frick, when you say we're just testing the waters, we're going to be committing to a team and committing, at least in concept, to a design approach that we are going to have to deal with. So I respectfully disagree that this is just a testing of the waters. This is a monumentally important decision that will be made July 1st, first with no community public input. If this current schedule goes ahead, we are asking that sometime in that month, between June 1st and July 1st, the public be given access to those proposals so we can have and make informed input on July 1st. We don't think that there's adequate time in this process for community input, for adequate time to explore all the options and adequate time for the bid teams to create a proposal that a project of this magnitude warrants. But if we do go forward, we do ask for that public input input in that all important month. We appreciate the respect and consideration that has been shown to us as the Library Foundation by Mr. Conway and Ms. Bodak. We have not heard anything about negative comments. We have been treated uniformly with respect and we very much appreciate forging this mutual partnership with the city to go forward, whatever you decide. In closing, I would ask two things that the public be given access to this retrofit cost analysis and that any additional public meetings that are going to be scheduled be done so with adequate publicity and adequate advance notice.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: Jim McCabe, retired deputy city attorney. I just wanted to point out to the council who I'm sure has read the February 7th memo. My take on what's in there and what's not in there, what we do not know. As has been pointed out, whether it is commercially feasible. So the numbers thrown out by Mr. Conway all this time of 12 something million dollars a year.
Speaker 0: Are.
Speaker 7: Essentially out of thin air unless Mr. Conway tells us where these numbers came from. There are just guesses in the wind. We do not know as well.
Speaker 0: Whether.
Speaker 7: The project is legal. The memo of February seven implies that California legislation is needed to make it legal, but says nothing about whether that legislation is likely. So we're going to be going a gaily forward without knowing whether we can ever do this project at all. What we do know is that no California city has ever used this project for a municipal building. What we also know what is known is that.
Speaker 0: No North American.
Speaker 7: Project has ever shown three PE to work in the long term. How can they? There is enormous difficulty speaking as a as a as a retired lawyer. There is enormous difficulty in defining what the maintenance and care needs for a city hall 40 years in advance are going to be. There's no idea how this is going to be taken care of. One very big question remains is whether or not the city that all the city property reverts to the taxpayers at the end of the 40 year agreement, or it's a three year agreement or a 38 year agreement. I've heard all these figures. Mr. Conway has told public meetings this a public meeting this last Saturday, that some property at least was will be owned by the developer at the end of the lease. Is this the old courthouse land and how much is it worth and how much does that figure into the supposed limit of 12 something million dollars a year?
Speaker 0: What gives? What's the rush?
Speaker 7: The memo suggests more public outreach, yet the council.
Speaker 0: Voted to limit.
Speaker 7: Public outreach. And I just I'm just baffled by the by the whole process it had. Thank you. I may have. Second, if I if I've had the impression this is a little like the like the Wizard of Oz.
Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you, Robert.
Speaker 7: I'll. I'll just finish up one sentence. Thank you. Just. Just believe the city manager and Mr. Conway.
Speaker 11: Okay. Time's up.
Speaker 7: Please don't ask who the man behind the curtain is. Thank you very much for your additional forbearance.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Vice Mayor and City Council. I'm Kerry Gallagher, and I'm the executive director of Housing Long Beach. My address is on file. I just wanted to thank you all for having the opportunity to open up this dialog to the public and with our elected officials. This is a huge opportunity for a Long Beach. It's a really big decision, and I, along with many residents of the city, have not been entirely clear on how the process has moved forward. So I really appreciate thank Ms.. Gypsy as well as the rest of the Council for having this dialog. So if the Council does decide to move forward with a new civic center, this has an enormous opportunity or even a retrofit. There are enormous opportunities to serve the communities of Long Beach, the community of Long Beach. And so I'd like to just point out a couple of things that especially jobs and housing advocates have been talking about for some time now and hope will be considered as the dialog moves forward. So from start to finish, this really has multiple spaces in which we can insert as a city community benefits that will improve the condition of life for our residents. We commend you on recognizing that the project should include a project labor agreement. However, we think we should go even further and include living wages as well as a local hire provision. It makes total sense to hire our residents, especially our low income residents, for the jobs that are going to be created from this project. And this should be a no brainer to include in the project and in the RFP as it moves forward. Additionally, it's under quite a bit of consideration, from my understanding that housing will be included in the project. And so as our civic center, as a piece of land that is intended to serve the Long Beach community, there should be affordable housing included. And so we started to have these dialogs with a few of you. We hope to go in much deeper as far as how we can include community benefits in this project. There are a number of other pieces, not just in jobs and housing, but child friendly resources, gender neutral bathrooms, a library that serves everybody, and a number of things that so many residents have come out to support. And so as housing Long Beach and our coalition of partners, we hope that we can continue this dialog with you . Thank you.
Speaker 6: Mr. Vice Mayor?
Speaker 0: Yes. Can I just add that.
Speaker 10: In the project labor agreement, there is a local hire provision? Yeah, there is. That was written into that message.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 10: That's of all the project labor agreements we've done in Long Beach. We've included a local hire provision.
Speaker 4: What's the percentage?
Speaker 10: You know, I don't know the exact percentage because it depends on the project. Realizing that some projects, some of the trades are far out. You know, you're not going to find the number of pile drivers you need in Long Beach to construct the bridge. So it's on a trade by trade project by project basis.
Speaker 4: And we could have either you or city staff help us get the.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 11: We'll get you the information. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Lee Fukui. I live in the Wrigley District, sixth district. I went to the first RFP meeting and I was really dismayed that it was less than half full. Not enough notification, not enough communication about this grand project that we have here. The Civic Center is going to involve every taxpayer here. And yet these meetings weren't communicated well. And if you look at this whole process has not been communicated well. In fact, if you look at it, everything about it doesn't look right. I'm sorry, but I know you've talked.
Speaker 4: About this project.
Speaker 0: For years, but it hasn't really been communicated to the public. When I talk to my neighbors about this. They're shocked about what's going on. You know, there's this a multimillion dollar effort here to rebuild civic center. And yet no one really knows about it except for the few here. What I really want to do is what I really came here was to ask you to support council memberships. KEYES Motion. That this is.
Speaker 4: Not fair.
Speaker 2: To to the residents.
Speaker 0: We don't know what's going on. This talk of RFP and all the money.
Speaker 4: It's not making sense first.
Speaker 0: At the first meeting, we were told that it was going to cost.
Speaker 9: $818.
Speaker 0: A square foot. Now we got another thing. Information, $685 a square foot. So, you know, there's these wide and.
Speaker 4: Retrofitting wasn't even considered.
Speaker 0: It was passed over. And yet every city in Los Angeles.
Speaker 4: City Hall.
Speaker 0: Pasadena City Hall. Venice City Hall. Venice City Hall went.
Speaker 4: Under to.
Speaker 0: Seismic retrofit because they experienced two earthquakes. They did not.
Speaker 4: Tear anything.
Speaker 0: Down. They retrofitted. And yet retrofitting was not even discussed until today. And it's this whole process has been backwards and you need to fix it. You have a second opportunity to do this by. By passing this motion and stalling this. This is taxpayer money. And we need to know exactly what's being spent and where it's going. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Speaker, please.
Speaker 0: When he was there. He. Gonzales, I just was on fire. Long term, I guess. Civic Center activist by default. My my whole course is the rooftop, the neglected rooftop that's been on top of the library. That is the whole reason we tried closing the library. What was that? Six years ago when we had the same surge? A sense of urgency. Oh, there's an the earthquake. The big one's going to come. And we haven't done anything in the past six years now, six months before the mayor is about to go out of office and many of you are leaving. All of a sudden, that urgency is back. And unlike six months ago or six years ago when it was raining and you had this big dramatic effect of all the rain coming into the library, I don't know that you guys are prepared to show us anything. I don't think you guys are ready to take the public and say, oh, here's our plan for a new civic center. Here's one how we're going to pay for it. Because, for example, I've heard and I've seen this like weird Twin Towers thing in the press telegram with the port, who's going to pay for that? And I've heard of this whole P3 is going to pay for it. From a business perspective, you don't get something for nothing. So assuming that the private is going to pay for this public entity, they're not just going to do it for nothing. They're not they're not doing it out of the generous generosity of their heart. Somebody somebody's got to lose something. And my understanding of how a P3 works is that the private developer will, in the end acquire the property. I believe that's what the former deputy attorney was just referring to. So before we make that kind of decision where we get rid of public property, probably property that was inherited to the public in 1904 when the land was bequeathed in a will, a very expensive public property, ocean and pine, ocean, Pacific. I think we need to talk to the public first, and I think that's what we keep on hearing. I'm pretty sure that's what everybody just said, including council memberships key and, you know, a few of the other councilors. So I don't understand the urgency. I don't understand the haste. I've been here for a long time now, six years, and I've been wanting to talk about the Civic Center. I've been wanting to have this big, transparent discussion. You guys know me by now. I've done this many times, and yet I haven't had anything yet. You guys have always moved forward, you know, I didn't expect to have and I'm sure you guys remember a team of architects actually draw up a proposal. I had no idea where that was going to come from. Are you kidding me? Like, I'm not qualified to come up with a proposal for how we're going to readapt to the main library. But they are. And I think you guys should take a look at that before you decide in the next five months, before you leave office, that, you know, it's absolutely, absolutely for certain that we have to destroy and rebuild an entire new library with magic, imaginary money that's supposed to come from the port, which is a big yes or no. Maybe we need to, before going to the public, know for sure how we're going to pay for it. BE And I say that also because we haven't yet paid for the current one that we're not taking care of. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you. All next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Melinda Romney and i'm president of Long Beach Heritage.
Speaker 2: I live in the Bluff Park area.
Speaker 4: I we believe the city needs to take a longer.
Speaker 2: Term view of this project. The citizens of Long Beach have a more thorough.
Speaker 4: Need to have a more.
Speaker 0: Thorough understanding.
Speaker 4: Of the rationale and why this has.
Speaker 2: Been such a hurried up process. The focus seems to be on the problems of the.
Speaker 0: Structure.
Speaker 4: Rather than on the most equitable.
Speaker 0: And possibly more visionary solutions. We have heard several figures on the cost of.
Speaker 4: Retrofitting.
Speaker 0: And they were.
Speaker 4: Dismissed as too costly or prohibitive.
Speaker 0: We have not seen a plan that included both retrofit and adaptive reuse.
Speaker 2: The City of Long Beach deserves to see a.
Speaker 4: Detailed.
Speaker 0: Report that includes both.
Speaker 2: Of these items.
Speaker 0: Our elected.
Speaker 4: Officials need to demonstrate to their constituents.
Speaker 0: And their.
Speaker 4: Staff that they and their staff are carefully.
Speaker 0: Reviewing all the available options for our civic center. Long Beach Heritage.
Speaker 4: Supports suspending this for the.
Speaker 0: Prime or postponing it.
Speaker 4: And we thank.
Speaker 2: Councilman Lipski for bringing this up. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you very much. Speaker.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Vice Mayor and council members. My name is Matt Eichner. My address is on record. I had a whole other thing planned because I really wanted to have this postponed. You and I were going to come up here.
Speaker 11: Real quick, just if you're going to speak. Would you mind queuing up if you plan on speaking on the item so we can get to it quicker? No other no other speakers on the item. Okay. Please queue up. Please continue.
Speaker 4: Okay. So I originally was we I'm sorry. I wanted this whole process slowed down. I was going to come out to public comment actually tonight. And then I discovered that this was agenda. And I'm very grateful for that. So thank you very much. I was at the library meeting on the very first one on the 25th and or the meeting at the library. And Mike Conway shared and Amy had shared a lot of numbers and the timeline, and we were all shocked by the timeline because it suddenly was very rushed is based on this motion tonight. And I guess I'm asking you a question. Are you guys slowing it down? The RFP is going to be released on the 28th or the first that's still going to happen. Is that or is this slowing that down? Is that process getting slowed down from this?
Speaker 11: According to the motion right now, the process is moving forward at the same time that's been set out, but there'll be additional information brought to the council.
Speaker 4: Okay. And I'm also concerned about the additional information because like I like Lee, it said that at the meeting on the 25th, $818 a square foot for retrofit is what was presented, whereas for 54 brand new build was the other number presented. And that number has always stayed constant, although that's the one that we possibly can't really know. And retrofitting is something that has been done in other civics city halls and as Lee had pointed out as well. Sorry if I am bouncing off of him. And anyways, my our concern is that this number that we keep hearing which dropped to 685 and then tonight, I think it was another number that was lowered. These numbers sound made up and based on some calculations from eight years ago from one company, and it just seems like this information is not necessarily good or accurate to what really is the case. And I don't understand why an RFP also wouldn't be released concurrently with the new versus the retrofit. I mean, why wouldn't you get both information? I mean, maybe that's what the motion is anyways. I'm just concerned. I wanted it to slow down. I was really hoping that the motion, as it originally was, would stick. Since it's not, I do appreciate that you're looking at the retrofit as all and we really do feel that this has not been brought to transparency as it should be. And there is a lot of suspicion and we hear lots of rumors as to why it's moving so quickly. And a lot of it has to do with the election, and we don't want that to be true. And I think I have one last thought that I wanted to say. Oh, Mr. West, I actually heard on my way to the garage the I believe it was the the woman who was running the RFP, I don't know what it's called, the consulting firm, talking to what I believe was the developers and they kind of she said, what are your marching? You know, your marching orders? And they kind of jokingly said, Oh, yeah, I put in this and put in that. And maybe, you know, it was light and on the way to the restaurant that they were going through or whatever. And I don't know who exactly it was, but I heard it and it was it did make me feel like this is a joke. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Rick Ilitch addresses on file. You know, first of all, I want to say respectfully that I acknowledge the pressure that you as the council are under. Having sat there for eight years, I know that everything could come at you quite quickly and decisions get made quite quickly. I know that a lot of times staff presents things in certain ways, and you're comfortable with that. But the public is being very vocal. I would like to remind you of everybody seen the movie Chicago. There's the song. Give them the old razzle dazzle. Well, that's quite appropriate. Here again, this reminds me so much. And I and I want to say that I respect the job that you do. I mean, you're defending what you have to do or what you feel you're supposed to do, but you have a job to do. And your job is to question everything that they put in front of you so that the people that you represent are satisfied with the outcome of that. And I would hope that there will be a substitute motion on this to stop this and make sure that everybody is informed to the best of your ability. You know, what is the right I know what the rush is. I'm not going to stand up here and criticize anybody. But, you know, I just I have to say that this smells just like the 2001 Long Beach Airport project that was pushed down the throats of council, who really didn't take the time to understand the implications . And that resulted in six years, six years of council debate and lawsuits before we finally reached consensus and did it right. So now everybody is happy and proud of that outcome. I hope that you consider doing the same thing. I will say that one, two, three, four council members had a comment on this the last time I was here and we talked about this sushi. You couldn't stop talking about it. Seize the opportunity. Hardly ever. This hardly ever presents itself, you know? I mean, don't you care? Is aren't you interested in the outcome? Don't you think that the public that put you there deserves a right to participate in such an enormous project? You know, here's what I'm hearing, Suzanne. You said that the peer review was done and now the entire building is in jeopardy. Is that because of new physical changes to the structure, because of the land that we're on, or is it because of higher standards within the industry? You know, I could not construct my reconstruct my house with the design that I did in 1988 because of standards. Is that what we're talking about? You can't do the double speak. You've got to ask for the study session, provide the information to the community and to the council, and then let's make a decision to move forward.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Joel Weinstein, 4000 Linden Avenue. I wrote a rather irate letter to you earlier this afternoon, and I don't know whether I should retracted or emphasize it. The problem is the decision you took on the 3rd of December. It's not that the project is bad. It's not that the project did not have sufficient public input or in fact, contradicted public input. Those are big problems, but they're not the biggest problem. The biggest problem on December 3rd is you opted deliberately for a decision procedure. That said, we do not want to look at alternatives. We have a defined problem and we insist on grabbing just the first alternative put on the plate and to reject and blind ourselves to any information on anything else. That's the basic of what you did on December 3rd. And until you produce a motion that looks at all alternatives, unbiased way that will solve the problem. There's really no satisfactory action here. Because the prime legacy of this process is not going to be a building or a specific rehousing of our headquarters and our city hall staff . It's going to be the decision method that you are sending as the message of your preferred decision methods. And I was really irate not only as an ordinary homeowner and taxpayer of your refusal to look at alternatives, but also as a math and logic, Ph.D. Who knows a little bit about modern decision analysis? And what does that modern decision analysis tell you? What common sense has told people who are solving problems for thousands of years that the first step in a rational decision procedure is to look at a spectrum of alternatives. Like What would it be to have an alternative building somewhere else in town? You go by Douglas Park and they're saying, Come build here. This is a project that you supported. Why isn't there an alternative that's looking at Douglas Park, among other places? You have people here that brag about how we're a digital city. What about the Internet age alternative, where instead of cramming workers expansively all together into one big, vulnerable building, you put them in distributed neighborhoods, centers economically. And this is not feeling this is how I've been working for the state of California for over ten years as a member of a six member team, which reports to six different workplaces up and down the state. And we're in constant communication thanks to modern telecom. So please, if you really value your legacy, take something like this motion. It is a lifeline to save the legacy that you will be stuck with from December 3rd if you don't do something.
Speaker 11: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Hi. Tom Stout.
Speaker 0: And I did attend the meeting.
Speaker 10: At the Water, or I guess it was the water.
Speaker 0: Department, and there were more questions.
Speaker 10: Asked than there were legitimate answers given.
Speaker 5: I mean, you need to slow.
Speaker 10: This train down.
Speaker 0: The public input has been drastic. Li reduced. I mean, if you subtract.
Speaker 10: The organizations.
Speaker 0: From the library, city employees and developers, there couldn't have been more than ten or 12 people at that meeting, and there were even less at the first meeting. You need to start thinking about and one thing that the IRP has gone out, I would like an RFP from a legitimate company that does retrofitting, not some pie in the sky figures provided by Mr. Connelly and his staff. I want somebody that does this for a living to give us an honest estimate of what it cost to retrofit this building so we can make an informed decision on whether or not that's a good way to go. You guys need to slow down. This is 200 and some million dollars. It's not petty cash. We just need more input. Go out to each one of your neighborhood organizations and make your case. Everybody I've talked to is just surprised at the speed that this is going, that nobody I don't even know what they're talking about. They've never come to my neighborhood. If it's in its deplorable condition, as you said, I know from a physical standpoint, you look at the outside. This place sucks because you have done nothing, nothing to improve the appearance of this building, because once you let it get in a deplorable state, it's much easier for you to justify its replacement, get a pressure, washer out cheese, clean the bird crap off the place, and then let's see what it really looks like. I swear, if this were, you know, if this were a resident's home, you guys would be on our cases immediately. Yeah, this place, this looks like the biggest dump in the city.
Speaker 5: And it's purposely left that way. You know, you can joke about a lot of things, but $200 million is no joke.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 11: Next speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to close the speaker's list. Last speaker. All right. Speaker was closed.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Vice Mayor. Council Mike Call live in the eighth district. I've come.
Speaker 0: Tonight with.
Speaker 5: A big solution for you guys. No more bellyaching about not disclosing to the public what's going on here. Retrofits, so on and so forth. Anybody recall here when the port wanted to buy the World Trade Center and the price tag on that World Trade Center? Mr. West, you remember that. Why don't we just buy the World Trade Center? Partner up with a port, move it all down the street. Get this land and let a developer make something nice. Retain the rights to the land. Because, quite frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of our city selling and giving away our land. I don't see anything coming back from us, selling our land and giving it away. I don't see any money flowing into the general fund from it. I just see developers, consultants doing a real good job knocking Long Beach, and that's disappointing. I noticed there was a lot of people that spoke to this issue tonight that I've never really seen at the council before. Not that I've been coming down here a lot recently, but it's very, very energizing to see the younger people come out, they see what's going on and they have something to say about it. That's our next generation. That's the ones that's going to be living with whatever you guys decide to build tonight or going forward with one way or the other. They're not going to go away. They're going to remember this. They'll remember it like I remember when that council passed and let 150, 250 cracker boxes be built across the city that devastate it to this day. Same deal in my mind. Let's figure out what we're doing. Store it the best way we can. God bless the library people. And I think we need a library downtown, but we certainly don't need a city hall downtown. Why don't we put it out the airport? We got lots of land out there. This is the most some of the most valuable commercial land in the entire city are sitting on 12.
Speaker 0: 15 acres of land here.
Speaker 5: And you're going to build it another public entity building, and it's not going to.
Speaker 0: Pay any taxes. Come on, we can do better.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you. We have gone back to the council and we have a motion. But Councilor Bishopsgate.
Speaker 9: Yes? I would just like to ask staff if we can make certain, because I don't see it on the floor as if you could post instructions at each floor for employees about in case of an earthquake. I know you've run through employees and you think everybody knows, but you know, it would be very helpful if that were publicly posted in a manner that all employees understood not to do certain things during. If we, in fact, have an earthquake in this building.
Speaker 4: A council membership scheme, we have regular earthquake drills in this building where we, in fact, simulate that there is an earthquake and evacuate the building and educate our employees that way. We're very cognizant of the safety issues and take every precaution and opportunity to educate our employees.
Speaker 9: Well, there's visitors who come here, too, so I would hope that we have some kind of posting of what they need to do.
Speaker 11: Okay. Before we go to a vote, actually, there's somebody up at the top there that maybe wanted to make a comment.
Speaker 9: That was.
Speaker 11: Queued up. Please go ahead.
Speaker 9: Good evening, Vice Mayor Garcia and city council members and the city. I am Francis Emily Dyson Harris and I reside in District one and I wholeheartedly support this matter to move forward at Sprout. I don't think that the difference in the time of waiting over the time is going to make that much of a difference. In fact, it might make a positive difference to enable in being able to move forward and not take so long to have the matter taken care of. And thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you. We're gonna get a revote. There's another customer ship scheme that we're going to a vote.
Speaker 9: I want to make a substitute in motion. I obviously know I won't have a second here, but I'd like to make a substitute that we suspend the contract for our A pending the issuance and receivable of an RFP for retrofitting City Hall.
Speaker 11: Okay. Is there a second? No. Second, we're going to go to the motion on the floor. Members. NEWSCASTER votes. I mean, yes.
Speaker 6: This motion carries nine votes. Yes.
Speaker 11: Okay, Mr. Clark, next item.
Recommendation to, by motion of the City Council, direct City Manager to suspend the contract of Arup North American Limited until the next City Council and Mayor assume office in July 2014.