L.A. City Councilman Parks On USC-Coliseum Agreement

On an issue that you've given great attention to over the years, USC and Memorial Stadium just agreed to a 50-year lease. What are the details of the lease, and what promise does a final agreement hold for the communities surrounding the Coliseum and for greater L.A.?

It's a great conclusion in that the team will be there for certainly 25 years, plus options that will take us to 47. That goes with the 80 years they have been there-since the inception of their program. After some very tough negotiation, it's a deal that should benefit both sides.

The community is going to benefit because you have some guaranteed employment; there are a number of people working in and around the Coliseum at these events. Those large crowds-particularly since this program is on the rise-highlight a park that's growing, with the museums expanding, the Science Center, and also the repair of the Natural History Museum, the Ted Alexander School, and the African-American Museum. That just makes this a total package to have ‘SC play in the Coliseum. Also the Coliseum will get refurbished to the tune of several million dollars.

The parties have 60 days from the signing of that letter of intent to finish the deal. What issues are being ironed during that time?

The commission unanimously agreed on the agreement in the term sheet. From term sheet to contract the "legalese" steps in: what the lawyers work out and hammer out and what the agreements mean in terms of prior commitments. I don't think that any of that is going to dramatically change any of the most important deal points. The state, the city, the county, and USC will be looking at issues of liability and default. Those are legal issues that will not impair the deal points.

The deal calls for major improvements to the venue, which the commission would fund with the sale of stadium naming rights. If that funding proves insufficient, USC would have the right to opt out of the agreement after two years. What are the details of that provision?

The naming rights will be just one of many sources of income to the Coliseum. We have the income from the ‘SC games; we also have income from our escalating soccer program. We have the potential of income from concerts that might be forthcoming.

Also, the Coliseum Commission works for the Coliseum and the Sports Arena in unison and has something in the neighborhood of 200 funded activity dates a year. If we're successful in getting an outstanding naming rights deal, it's our belief that we will be able to not only fund the improvements that we are looking for, but we also are going to be able to fund the increase in rent after all these years, 80 years. With the first contract, the city, county, and state were paying $80,000 a year in rent to the state. Our rent now jumps up significantly. All of those additional costs are going to come into play, but it's not just the revenue from naming rights that will be of assistance.

The letter of intent with USC stipulates that an NFL team could not play in the Coliseum without the prior written consent of USC. The commission, I gather, could still negotiate with an NFL team, if the USC would take part in these negotiations. Elaborate on that provision.

There is a lot of confusion with this issue. During my tenure on the Coliseum Commission, the NFL and ‘SC negotiated with each other. The Coliseum Commission never negotiated on behalf of ‘SC. Any deal in the future that's cut with the NFL is going to have to have ‘SC at the table. Everyone at the commission has said all along that, ‘SC being their longest tenant, that they'd have to be happy with any arrangement.

Plus, with the NFL, if they should come here, the fact that they would bring something in the neighborhood of a $800 million or $1 billion stadium-that would be a major enhancement to the park and a major revenue source. Also, where the building is not taxable at this time because it's public land, there would be major tax increment money coming to the city, the state, and the county, because all of a sudden, the land would become taxable.

So, there are a lot of benefits, but again, you can't stop your life waiting for the NFL, because they may not come. But you always leave the avenue open that, if they do come, you're able to accept that and they would be a major financial enhancement for the community and the city.

Describe the other assets that surround the Coliseum, such as, the African-American Museum, the Science Center and Natural History Museum, USC and now the Expo Line.

It's an area that's exploding with opportunities: you have the largest Rec and Parks facility in the city of L.A., which is built where the old Olympic swimming pools were-brand new pools in play. As you mentioned, the Science Center is going through a several-hundred-million dollar enhancement. The Natural History Museum is going through a several-hundred-million dollar retrofit. The African-American Museum recently went through an expansion. The Ted Alexander magnet science school is there. All of those activities are going to bring literally millions of people to the park for those activities. Plus, we have major events, like the Revlon Walk. And you have a university across the street that's the largest employer in the city of L.A., plus the 40,000 students that attend there.

The Expo Line will connect the city of L.A. It will reach all the way to Santa Monica when it's finished, to Downtown L.A. USC just built a brand new credit union next to the freeway. There is a major student development project at Figueroa and Jefferson-the Gateway Project. ‘SC has purchased the shopping center to the north of the campus, and we understand that there are plans there for development.

When it's all said and done, the Coliseum is no more than a mile-and-a-half away from Staples Center, which makes Figueroa an entertainment and sports corridor that can match any place in the world.

Focusing on the area and your CD-8 council district, elaborate on the developments underway for new housing, commercial, and industrial space that our readers ought to know more about.

For the first time in recent memory, we are attempting to deal with transportation, housing, and our job sectors in the same manner. We're not looking at them as individual and building them in three different places. Also, as a city, we're beginning to be more protective of where our industrial land is so that we can ensure that, if the opportunities are forthcoming for job enrichment and enhancement, that such land is available to bring forth businesses. We know that the city, because it's built-out considerably, could not adapt to a business coming in, looking for several million square feet of space. But I think that, with the change to the business mode of smaller business-microbiology, high-tech, furniture businesses-we can accommodate a large number of smaller businesses, housing 200-300 employees. Those are the kinds of things that make it available.

Hopefully, when these communities are developed, there will be housing and rapid public transportation in the near vicinity that eliminates the need for people for get in their cars with three or four people from one residence driving to the same location with one person in each car. We hope, one day, to have a situation where you live upstairs, you walk down to your business, you get on public transportation to get where you're going. Those are the kinds of things that would eliminate significant irritation on the environment, and would also provide a better use for our resources.

What obstacles remain for the completion of the Expo Line?

The major obstacle is financing. When the line first started, it was about a $640 million-plus expectation for the first half, from Downtown coming out of the 7th Street tunnel to Culver City. Now, Phase 1 of that line is approaching or going beyond $700 million. They're already projecting Phase 2 from Culver City to Santa Monica to be well over $1 billion. For every bid that we send out for the construction of that line, cost has come up larger than what was planned. Although people labeled it as a cost overrun, in effect, these cost analyses came about with little or no engineering information. As the engineering reports come in to identify what the true costs are, the prices are going to go up. The costs of metal, steel, and concrete are not going to go down.

Also, as we look to mitigate a line that is at grade, it's going to be more costly. Every innovation since the Blue Line dealing with mitigation and safety is going to be placed into this line to ensure that the residents are safe as they go through intersections or come in contact with that line. It's going to be costly in that regard.

And I think, over time, the community is going to begin to clamor for more parking lots in the near vicinity of the rail system so that they might drive a mile or two, park, and get on the rail system, and either go to Santa Monica or Downtown, which will save them significant dollars on parking. It's not just the line; it's going to be the amenities that go with the line, it's going to be that each station should be viewed as a node for development. Building the line is one thing, but all of the costs of addressing the amenities are another.

You're chair of the L.A. City Budget and Finance Committee. The challenges for cities like L.A. are immense: budget cuts in Sacramento and issues of deficit. What challenges do you face as chair of that committee?

We have to look at the budget in two phases: we have to get through this year with a minimal amount of deficit, and then we have to look at next year and see how we can continue to match our intake in funds with our output. Normally when we have been over budget in the past, we compensate for that by the revenues coming in at a higher projected number. This is the first time in probably 50 years that revenues black-lined and expenditures are going up. So, we're going to have to reconcile that and really put some holds on the budget, as we're doing now, so that people are not over-spending. We have very little money or time to recover over-expenditures.

It's going to be a very tough situation for the next two to three years, to keep spending in line and generate the revenue that allows us to do the tasks that we have at hand, whether it's raising fees for recovery of services, ensuring that we're getting our proper allocation of sales tax, or dealing with a property tax.

The other issue that's going to be a struggle is to keep Sacramento from taking funds that rightfully belong to the cities and either holding them for extended periods or not paying them and the significant number of millions of dollars of state mandates that go unfunded. These are all issues that are going to have to be addressed so that the residents of the city of Los Angeles get their fair share, plus the services that they've come to expect.

We'd be remiss if we didn't ask you to comment on your decision to seek the supervisory opening with the retirement of Supervisor Yvonne Burke.

I'm looking forward to this race. I'm very fortunate that Yvonne Burke endorsed me last week; in fact, we have the endorsement of five mayors of the nine cities that the Second Supervisor District represents. One of the issues that got me interested in this job is that the issues match the city's but on a larger scale-dealing with a lot of infrastructure and parks. But the core issues we're dealing with are foster care, medical care, issues with child support-fundamental issues that can change the whole poverty equation. As supervisor, you get a much broader area: nine cities, plus a large unincorporated area. You also get a significant amount of people: 2.5 million people versus dealing with 250,000 in the city of L.A. And again, you have the fundamental ability to deal with the core issues of any community, and that's what I'm interested in. We're looking forward to the June 3 election, and we're looking forward to winning it and continuing many of the legacies of Yvonne Burke.