Manhattan Beach faces $15M Scout House price tag as council weighs funding paths

Council members heard more than two hours of public comment from longtime donors, scout leaders and seniors pressing the city to restore financial support for a long‑delayed Scout House and senior center project and were presented with updated cost and financing scenarios.

The community group Friends of the Senior and Scout Community Center has raised about $2.7–$2.8 million in private donations for the project, speakers said, and many residents urged the council to reinstate a previously listed city contribution the community cited as about $4.6 million. "The project is ready. The plans are complete," said Erikica Netting, a Girl Scout leader who urged council action on behalf of dozens of troops (public comment, May 5).

City staff presented a class‑2 cost estimate for the two‑story design, with a projected construction subtotal near $11.2 million and a total project estimate that, when permitting, utilities, soft costs and a standard estimator contingency (+15% for a class‑2 estimate) are included, rises into the mid‑teens of millions of dollars. Staff described two preliminary financing paths: borrow the remaining balance after the community donations (a 30‑year bond at a projected true interest cost in the mid‑4% range would carry estimated annual debt service near $890,000), or reduce borrowing by adding an additional city cash contribution (for example a $4.0 million city cash infusion combined with donations would reduce the needed bond and lower annual debt service to an estimated $645,000). Those numbers were presented as working illustrations; staff emphasized final debt costs depend on market rates and exact scope.

Councilors and staff also reviewed a long list of other capital projects that could be deferred or rescheduled to free capital dollars in the CIP. Public‑works staff provided an initial menu of candidate deferrals (facility renovations, some parking lot items, and selected non‑urgent park improvements) and estimated that deferrals across the five‑year CIP could free multi‑million dollar sums, but stressed that each potential deferral has community tradeoffs and timing consequences.

Council gave staff direction to return at the budget/CIP study session with more precise scenarios: (a) a refined, line‑item cost and contingency breakdown for the Scout House (soft costs, permitting, environmental costs were highlighted for clarification), (b) options for combining or sequencing debt with other capital borrowing, (c) a prioritized shortlist of CIP projects that could be deferred without creating safety or regulatory risks, and (d) the feasibility and timelines for any ballot‑based financing options if council wished to explore a voter measure. Staff noted some funding paths — for example, adding projects to a future bond or refinancing existing debt to free capacity — depend on market interest rates and legal/timing constraints.

The council did not adopt a final funding plan on May 5. Instead it asked staff to return with more complete financial scenarios and the likely service impacts of any CIP deferrals so elected members could decide whether to reallocate city funds, pursue bonding, ask voters for approval of a new measure, or combine approaches.

Ending: Council members repeatedly thanked the chorus of volunteers, donors and civic groups who have pushed the project forward and asked staff to deliver a clear set of tradeoffs and dollar figures at the next budget and CIP study session so the council can weigh public commitments against available capital resources.