Briefs Lori Ann Farrell

Published on December 4th, 2013 | by Zamná Ávila

0

LB Council Approves Farrell as Harbor Commissioner

Long Beach — On Dec. 3, the Long Beach City Council voted 8-0 to confirm the appointment of Lori Ann Farrell, to the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners.

Mayor Bob Foster nominated the city’s former finance director to the seat vacated by Commissioner Nick Sramek. Sramek resigned on Nov. 19, two days after the removal President Thomas Fields, in a 6-3 council vote. Sramek said he quit because was tired of the board’s politics.

Foster said he had lost confidence in Fields and questioned his port-related travel.

Fields responded that his removal was retribution for disagreements with Foster related to the port headquarter moves and the executive director of the Long Beach port, among other things. Foster has not named a replacement for fields.

E-Cigs

The city council also voted 8-0 to have City Attorney Charles Parkin change the municipal code to give the same restriction to electronic cigarettes and vapor as apply to tobacco, including prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes in public places.

E-cigarettes are small battery powered apparatuses that heat a coil containing flavored water, vaporizing and allowing users to inhale nicotine. The liquids include propylene, ethylene and diethylene.

The ordinance would restrict new retailers of e-cigarettes to 1,000 feet of a park, school, church, government facility or other areas used primarily by minors.

Sounds familiar?

Civic Center

In addition, the council  voted to hire Arup North American Ltd. to help with proposals to rebuild the Civic Center.

The CivicCenter rebuild includes City Hall and the Downtown Main Library.

The city council voted to put out a request for proposals for the design, finance and maintenance agreement for the project, which was precipitated by reports that the center would not be safe in the event of an earthquake. The management firm would help with public input in the preparation of the RFP.

City Manager Pat West proposed a contract an almost $1 million contract with a 10 percent contingency for 18 months so that the firm helps with the RFP process, the contracting and the design of the Civic Center.

District 3 Councilman Gary DeLong wanted to reduce the contract to $75,000 for the first phase of community engagement excluding them from the design process.

DeLong’s proposal was approved with Councilwoman with District 5 Councilwoman Schipske, who questioned the lack of information for retrofitting as a opposed to rebuilding, against  the motion.

The following is a 10-point list Schipske sent in an email blast about her reasoning for voting against the motion:

The Long Beach City Council on a 7-1 vote (Schipske voting “no”) approved spending over $1 million to hire a consultant to put together a “Request for Proposal” that will be sent to developers for the demolition and rebuild of the City Hall and Main Library that were built in 1976. The demolition and rebuild are projected to cost at least $435 million. ($12.8 million x 34 years). City staff has already told prospective developers that the project could be financed with “either taxable financing, tax-exempt financing or any combination.” The current City Hall is valued at $86 million.

10.  The City Council wasn’t even shown the proposed contract with the consultant so it didn’t get to review what over $1 million was buying in terms of services, number of hours for the services, etc.  It’s just money, right?   We still don’t have a fire engine in BelmontShores or a rescue unit in North Long Beach. But we’ve got consultants. 

9. The Council has not been given an extensive seismic report, as requested from City Management, that details why the current buildings are: a) unsafe and/or b) cannot be retrofitted. So if the buildings are so unsafe that they need to be torn down, why are they still occupied and will be for the next several years while this project gets put together?

8. The Cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Pasadena have all retrofitted their City Halls instead of tearing them down, even though their buildings were constructed in: 1912 – San Francisco; 1928 – Los Angeles; 1927 – Pasadena. And, the shock of it all, these cities involved their City Council and their taxpayers.

7.  The City Council was told it will not be allowed to read the “Request for Proposal” before it is sent to the developers. Only city staff will get a look at it. Ergo – a consultant will determine what type of financing, what size of the buildings, what other buildings will be on City property, etc. Is this so elected officials can say “gosh we didn’t” know if the project goes bad?

6.  The Council removed a large portion of funding for “public outreach” efforts that would ask the taxpayers for their opinions on this mega project. Seems only fair? If the elected City Council doesn’t get to give input on this project, then why should taxpayers…

5.  The developers responding to the “Request for Proposals” will be compensated with up to one-half million dollars each for just responding because it takes a lot of effort to put plans together – even plans that might not even be accepted by the City Council. Nice work if you can get it.

4.  Part of the proposal that has already been given to developers for a “new main library” calls for a much smaller structure of 50,000 – 70,000 square feet down from its current 135,000 square feet. When City staff was asked where the smaller figure came from, the staff person responded “I made it up.” Amazing. Perhaps the entire reasoning that this project has to go forward was “made up” as well.  

3.  The City Attorney has indicated that the City might need to ask the State Legislature to pass legislation to allow the City to set up a special financing of this project with a private developer. That’s because there are limits to on-going financial obligations. But heck, just maybe we can get them waived.

2. The City Council would not even discuss a proposal by Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske to prohibit campaign contributions from developers, contractors or anyone doing or bidding to do business with the City of Long Beach. So watch the campaign contributions start flowing in on this project that has no direction from City Council, minimal input from the taxpayers and no documentation as to why the buildings can’t be retrofitted instead of torn down and rebuilt. Merry Christmas.

1.  Only 4 council members currently serving in office will even be there, when the final proposal is given to City Council next July 2014. So a brand new Mayor and Council and City Attorney will be handed a project they didn’t review or approve but which already had cost the City several millions of dollars and may cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions more. Now that’s political planning.

Tags: , , , , , ,


About the Author



Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑
  • CRAFTED at the Port of Los Angeles

    CRAFTED at the Port of Los Angeles
  • YOUR Thoughts On The ‘Road Diet?’

    Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world’s leading questionnaire tool.

  • Get Home Delivery!

    Get Home Delivery!
  • Reset The Net: Protect Your Privacy

    Reset The Net: Protect Your Privacy
  • Take a Trip to Havana

    Take a Trip to Havana
  • Like Us On Facebook!

  • Join the RLn Network

    Subscribe Today:


    Options


  • The Guide to Fine Dining

    The Guide to Fine Dining