Committee delays decision on Los Angeles Convention Center expansion after staff flags cost, schedule and revenue risks

The Los Angeles City Council Budget and Finance Committee on Sept. 9 heard a detailed staff briefing on the proposed expansion and modernization of the Los Angeles Convention Center and agreed to continue consideration of two related items for one week while staff returns with more information.

City administrative staff told the committee the project’s current total cost estimate is about $2.72 billion, with $2.04 billion in construction costs and roughly $565 million set aside for city-side costs and contingencies. Staff said the city already has incurred approximately $82 million in pre‑construction costs, of which about $54 million has been spent and roughly $28 million remained. The total amount to be financed, including interest and other financing costs, was presented as about $3.2 billion.

That presentation, delivered by city administrative staff (identified in the record as Matzebol and other project staff), emphasized three main risks: rising construction costs, a hard deadline tied to the 2028 Olympics schedule and uncertainty about two expected revenue streams — highway signage revenue subject to Caltrans review and power capacity from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Staff told the committee the project would expand exhibit and meeting space and that construction would create thousands of jobs, but cautioned that delays or scope changes could significantly raise the city’s cost exposure.

Why it matters: staff warned the committee that the project’s financing would place a long-term obligation on the city’s general fund. Staff estimated an annual net impact to the general fund of about $111 million under the presentation’s revenue assumptions, and projected ongoing operating costs rising from roughly $30 million today to as much as $60 million after completion.

During public comment roughly two dozen speakers — representing unions, industry groups and event organizers including the Los Angeles Auto Show and local carpenters’ unions — urged the committee to move forward, citing job creation, hotel and restaurant revenue and the city’s competitiveness for major events and the Olympics. Several union representatives and business leaders argued delays would further increase costs and risk losing events to other cities.

Public comment examples: George Bocanegra, identified as representing a regional carpenters’ council, urged approval and said the expansion would "generate good union jobs" and hospitality opportunities. Lisa Cass, identified in the record as owner of the L.A. Auto Show, asked the committee to delay demolition for 60 days only if necessary to protect the show’s ability to operate and to direct staff to develop a mitigation plan for the event if demolition cannot be avoided.

Committee members repeatedly pressed staff for specificity about the financing plan and the city’s exposure if revenue assumptions fail. Staff said the estimate assumes certain parking and signage revenues and included conservative contingency amounts, but told council members that the signage revenues are at risk because new state-level language requires Caltrans to confirm the program’s consistency with existing federal and state agreements dating to the 1960s. Staff described that federal-state signage agreement as limiting the size and scope of new highway signage and said the city’s proposed signage program may require additional Caltrans approvals.

Committee members also sought clarification from project staff on LADWP’s assessment of power needs. Staff reported LADWP proposals to add capacity for the project but acknowledged continuing uncertainty about the final megawatt requirement and timing. Committee members requested a follow-up presentation from LADWP and asked the city attorney and finance staff to return with updated revenue and debt service analyses.

A staff member said there is a verbal amendment to the project recommendations that would replace recommendation number three and "instruct the city to approve a lease and the 2025 bond series not later than September 2025," but the committee did not take an immediate final vote on that amendment during the hearing.

What the committee did: with no formal roll-call vote recorded in the hearing transcript, the chair moved to continue items 1 and 2 for one week to allow LADWP to provide more analysis and to allow staff to report on recent Sacramento legislation affecting the signage revenue assumptions. Committee members agreed to the continuation.

Background and numbers presented by staff (as stated to the committee): project footprint increases, 3,300+ construction jobs during the build, an estimated long-term economic uplift in the tens to hundreds of millions over decades under the assumptions presented, and the need to finance roughly $3.2 billion when interest and financing costs are included. Staff said earlier cost estimates (cited in the presentation) rose from about $1.1 billion in 2020, to $1.4 billion in 2023, and to the current estimate above $2 billion.

Next steps: The committee instructed staff to return next week with additional detail from LADWP on power needs, with updates on the Caltrans/signage issue and with refined financing schedules by the next hearing. The committee also signaled interest in preserving time-sensitive scheduling related to the Olympics.

Ending note: Committee members emphasized the magnitude of the fiscal trade-offs the project would require and requested more granular monitoring and risk mitigation terms in any future contract or bond sale documents.