Skip to main content

Long Beach city government - Google News

Open Government - Google News

LAO Estimates LB Courthouse Will Cost $160 Million More than It Could Have If Private-Public Partnership Not Used

The Legislative Analyst's Office in Sacramento has issued a scathing report about the model used to finance and build the Long Beach Courthouse. The courthouse project entails using a private developer to finance, design, build, operate, and maintain the Long Beach courthouse over a 35–year period in exchange for payments from the state totaling $2.3 billion. 

The LAO found that had the courts not used the private-public partnership that it: would result in the cost of the Long Beach courthouse project being less—by as much as $160 million in net present value terms—in the long run under a traditional procurement approach than the chosen P3 approach.

The LAO reports also provides a chart listing the problems with the LB Courthouse project:



See the entire report: Maximizing State Benefits From Public–Private Partnerships

But the bad news doesn't end here

An article on the Judicialcouncilwatcher has more bad news about the LB Courthouse: “This whole story of the Long Beach Courthouse and the spending of SB1407 bond funds by the AOC has legs” the note concludes, “as bad as you think it is now, it is far worse than anyone can possibly imagine” 

First payment is due on LB Courthouse -- Who Will Pay

Also on Judicialcouncilwatcher is an article by Capitol Accounts reporter Cheryl Miller pointing out the current financial problems related to the LB Courthouse that will not open for another year:
The bells and whistles reflect the hype over the judiciary’s first attempt at a public-private financed courthouse project on the site. Private investors provided the capital to build the 31-courtroom downtown facility in a scheme that promised a cheaper building delivered faster. The public will cover the costs over a 35-year lease-to-own plan.

Problem is, that first bill is coming due soon and nobody seems sure who is going to pay it. That could spell trouble for other courthouse projects planned around the state.

In an Aug. 20 letter to Interim Administrative Director of the Courts Jody Patel, state Senate Budget Chairman Mark Leno warned judiciary leaders not to look to the state for help when the first service fee for the Long Beach courthouse must be paid in the next fiscal year.

Lessons Long Beach Should Take Away From This

The spin on the streets and backrooms in Long Beach is that the City should enter into a similar private-public partnership with a developer who would demolish City Hall and the current courthouse and build a grand, new Civic Center which the City would lease to own. (Let's leave the argument aside about why we can ill afford to build a new city hall when we can't pay for enough police...)

Well, if the LAO is correct, and government has a long ways to go before it knows fully what it is doing in entering a public-private partnership -- then don't you think the City should wait before we jump on this band wagon any time soon?

A Tunnel Not Built -- But a Million Dollars Spent

The news about the overall courthouse project is sobering. I am still trying to get the official answer from City Management to, why if a tunnel was needed to transport prisoners between the Long Beach jail and the new courthouse, the tunnel was not included in the current plans (and now certainly should be included with the $160 million dollars extra this project is costing).

The other questions not yet answered are:
1) who did the City pay $1 million dollars in oil monies to do a feasibility study about building the tunnel (a study that was supposedly done a considerable time after construction on the courthouse had been underway);

2) why did it cost $1 million to find out that a tunnel was not feasible;

3) what did the City receive for the $1 million dollars (that could have been better spent on police, fire, recreation, libraries, streets, sidewalks....); and

4) where is the $ 1million dollar study/report that apparently concluded the tunnel wasn't feasible?

Just as the entire courthouse project was found not to be "transparent" -- it appears that the issue of a City of Long Beach financed tunnel connecting the courthouse is lacking in transparency as well. Taxpayers deserve to know how the City of Long Beach spent $1 million dollars and more importantly, why it spent the money.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Popular posts from this blog

Four Taxpayers Step Up To Oppose The Taking of Utility Revenues

Four Long Beach taxpayers stepped up this month to write arguments in opposition to Measure M which will appear on the June ballot. (Click here to read more about Measure M)

The Measure asks voters to approve a 12% transfer of gross revenues of the City's natural gas, water and sewer utilities.

Tom Stout, Joe Weinstein, Diana Lejins and Gerrie Schipske submitted a 300 word argument in opposition to Measure M that outlines why the tax measure should be defeated:



Dear Voter,


VOTE NO. STOP THIS BLATANT MONEY GRAB. The Mayor and Council are spending more than one-half million dollars of your taxes to put this measure on the ballot. Special interests will spend hundreds of thousands in support. Why? The Mayor and Council were caught taking millions of dollars in illegal fees from the Water Department’s sewer and water pipeline budget. They raised your sewer and water bills to pay for the illegal fees. A brave taxpayer stopped them. She filed a lawsuit which forced the City to return …

Sign the Petition -- Repeal Officeholder Accounts in Long Beach

Sign the Petition to Stop Political Slush Funds in Long Beach
The Long Beach Mayor and City Council have totally changed the purpose of "officeholder accounts" by voting to triple the amounts they can raise and by voting to allow the transfer of the officeholder accounts to political campaigns. The voters of the City of Long Beach enacted campaign finance reform back in 1994 to try and stem the flow of special interest money into local elections and to "allow candidates and officeholders to spend a lesser proportion of their time on fund raising and a greater proportion of their time dealing with issues of importance to their constituents." A measure should be placed on the ballot that allows voters to repeal officeholder accounts so elected officials can get back to spending time representing their constituents, instead of doing year-round fundraising.

Things They Need to Tell Us Before They Lease Community Hospital

By: Gerrie Schipske, Author of “Historical Hospitals of Long Beach”
Before everyone gets too excited over the announced possibilities of a new operator of Community Hospital, taxpayers need to be aware that the City of Long Beach owns the deed to the property on which Long Beach Community Hospital sits. 
The actual deed has a restrictive covenant that only allows the property to be used for a “public hospital.” This is because the taxpayers paid for the land and then raised millions of dollars through bonds to pay for the construction and expansion on several occasions. Also, the City even gave money directly to keep the hospital operating. The City holds title to the property.
Historically, the hospital has been operated by the Long Beach Community Hospital Association and then Healthwest, UniHealth, Catholic HealthCare, the Community Hospital Foundation and most recently Memorial Medical.
Memorial is ending its lease because it cannot (or will not) retrofit the hospital to meet state e…