Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Harbor Lease topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long Beach board reviews new Long Beach Harbor Resorts lease; attorney says new lease will be subject to tidelands rules
Summary
The City of Long Beach discussed an updated lease with Long Beach Harbor Resorts, moved into executive session to review contract differences and heard legal counsel say the new lease would not be grandfathered under the Tidelands Act and would be subject to Secretary of State requirements.
The City of Long Beach Mayor and Board of Aldermen debated an updated lease proposal with Long Beach Harbor Resorts that attendees said would affect use of the harbor and could allow gaming south of U.S. Highway 90.
Alderman Frazier, the motion's mover, told the board the measure under consideration would permit gaming south of Highway 90, describing that policy consequence as central to the vote. "This is allowing gaming to go south of Highway 90," he said.
Board members raised concerns about material differences between the city's September 3 draft lease and the company's September 26 revision. Because the changes involved contract negotiations, the board voted to move into executive session to discuss legal strategy and details. After the executive session, the city attorney summarized the legal implications for the board: the proposed instrument is a new lease, not an amendment, and therefore "will not enjoy that grandfathering and will be subject to the Secretary of State's Tidelands requirements," including any Secretary of State oversight tied to the tidelands regime, the attorney said.
The attorney also noted a prior court judgment that had found the earlier, expired lease predated the Tidelands Act, and that the prior arrangement had prohibited gaming south of U.S. 90; by contrast, the board was now discussing a new lease and its attendant obligations. Board members asked for clarification and legal review; the transcript shows the board asked counsel multiple clarifying questions and then moved on to subsequent agenda items.
The transcript does not record a clear, unambiguous final vote on adoption of the updated lease following the executive session. The board debated the motion, called the executive session for contract negotiation, and resumed public proceedings; the record shows legal counsel's summary and discussion by the board but does not provide a definitive, roll-call outcome in the transcript provided.
The next procedural steps recorded were additional legal review and public discussion of related harbor matters; the board did not publish a signed lease in the meeting minutes included in this transcript.
The item remains one for follow-up by the city attorney and the board; counsel advised the board on tidelands requirements and recommended appropriate legal consideration before final action.
