Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an Agreement with KPMG Corporate Finance, LLC, to assist the City in the evaluation and selection process for the operator of the Grand Prix of Long Beach, in an amount not to exceed $150,000 over a one-year term.  (District 2)
Motion carries. Okay, let's go back to number seven now. This year. Item seven is a report from Economic and Property Development recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an agreement with KPMG Corporate Finance to assist city in evaluation and selection process for the operator of the Grand Prix in an amount not to exceed 50,000. District two. Hi. Thank you. I wanted to thank everybody that's worked on this and ensuring that, you know, we are doing our best research to choose the best operator for this event. And I wanted to just clarify that this study will also include outreach to other cities and financial impacts that have been positive and or neutral or negative in those cities. Could you answer that for me, please? So we now have John Keisler, the director of Economic Development and property management. Honorable mayor and city councilmembers. So the consultant that's been selected for this study is KPMG. And what they will do with regard to outreach, to the references that were contained within their proposal, is that they'll both review those references and reach out to contacts familiar with the projects and other cities that are similar to the Grand Prix . They will structure. The review to get information to support the city in evaluation against the criteria noted in the RFQ and. Help the city identify other cities that are not included in the proposal. But the responses are still of relevance. And so essentially they will conduct outreach of of places that both the Formula One and the IndyCar race operators have have previously run races and work with those. Organizations to both review technically what what was accomplished there and ultimately what the financial impacts and results were of. Those those events. Great. Thank you. I just wanted to, you know, state that I think, you know, making sure that we're activating the space in downtown is so important. And the fact that we're taking the time out to really look at the best financial impact for the city is a great opportunity. And so I just wanted to make sure that this did include that research. So thank you. Thank you. I have Councilmember Austin. Somebody rang. I'm sorry. Thank you. Yeah, I suppose. Support this, this motion. But I also want to keep in mind that we did get I'm wearing my other hat as a member of the Coastal Commission that we did get a four year permit for the current operator. So I hope that when the study is completed that that is taken into consideration as well. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. With that that actually thank you, Councilmember. That that actually begs another question that I guess should be studied here is in terms of any any other applicants to to to run this race. Would they have to go through other agencies for approval? And and what would that look like in terms of timeline? What will be in terms of the US looking at the study, what will be the and this is first of questions will be the and have we considered the financial impact to the applicants in terms of prolonging this this process? I'm a little concerned about that piece of it. And then lastly, I do appreciate staff and the opportunity to have this this conversation behind the rail. It was on consent college calendar. But just some clarification, Mr. City Manager, could you tell us what is the policy for for contracts? Because I think this this falls underneath the threshold. This was a sole source. So this would fall within the policy that we've had in the past. And the other questions. I'd be happy to entertain. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was incorrect. I'm going to let John and I'm sorry. Council member. My apologies. I didn't jump on the button. Yes. So we did issue an RFP and received two proposals for the evaluation of the responses we got from the operators. What we have in terms of policy is that anything that is competitively bid and we receive, you know, three or more proposals under $200,000 we would not . Have to bring to City Council per the purchasing policy. However, there are two stages to this review. In the first stages, as it indicates in the staff letter, there was a $50,000 effort to help in the preparation. Of the original RFP, which was awarded to a separate consulting firm. Mr. Schaefer And then this $150,000 proposal, which took us to the $200,000 amount and triggered the need to come to council was the technical and financial review of the proposals that we received after the RFP had closed. So there were two phases. To this review and per conversations with the city attorney and with with purchasing, it was determined that was the same project. And so even though they're different operators, same project, we reached the amount that we should bring this before the city council. Okay. And then my other question was in terms of the financial impact to the bidders. Absolutely. And so so we're very cognizant of the the timeline, given that 2018 the Grand Prix is coming soon and the current operator has obligations as well as commitments from sponsors and others. So we've committed to the council and KPMG, the consultant here, has committed to returning this review within a 60 to 90 day period so that we have time to. To bring back the recommendations to council this summer, hopefully early this summer, and provide a sufficient timeline for the existing operator to. Make make plans and make those commitments. Thank you so much. Do you count to membership or not? Thank you. I just want to follow up on that 60 to 90 day window. Believe me, I'm the last man in the world who wants to bring this up. But we had a study done by someone on the international terminal. That original timeframe just got expanded so much and we were criticized for that. Is there any type of just absolute number they can plug in here not to exceed? I'm thinking 60 days. And then after that fact, we don't take it to other commissions or whatnot, but it's a hard and fast time. Also, I don't want to speak for the current operator, but I'll just tell you my personal experience and anyone within the sound of my voice can go to Joe Joe's Facebook page. And what the association did was they loaned us a two seater street legal Indy car the week before the the race. We drove it over to Jojo and took a picture in front of that establishment. They put it on their Facebook page, and as of right now, it has 925 likes and 99 shares. That kind of energy, I think, is diminished as time goes on. I think you strike while the iron is hot, you reel in these sponsors and boy, if this drags out too long, I just think it it really destroys the energy from the race. Thank you. Thank you. Is your public comment on this item? Please come forward. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. Councilmember Suber, now thank you very much for your kind comments. My name is Mike Murchison. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Grand Prix Association of Long Beach. I think we all agree it was a successful event. It was a terrific opportunity for the city to be showcased. What we're asking for tonight is basically what Mr. Keisler referenced in Darryl, what you reference, which was basically a timeline to get this back a time certain we can ill afford as a city to have this extend out towards the end of the year. And if you looked at the staff letter that was written in the agenda item, it mentioned the third quarter of 17. It didn't say that there was going to be a vote at that time period. It just mentioned that the eye would come back from KPMG. My concern on behalf of the association is if you watched the city process, the city process would then take that back to management. Management would review it, put it on the closed session calendar, and you're now looking at towards the end of 17. That's a big concern for the sponsors of the Grand Prix. Those are existing, those that are considering. So we're asking much like what Councilman Super and I mentioned that you have a time certain of 60 days, then plenty of time. We've had this RFP sitting out there now. It was quiet from December to March. The RFP was out. The two teams responded. They were submitted back in November. It's time to move this forward so we can get forward with a great race for 18. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any of the public comment, please come forward. CNN. And I think, obviously, Mr. West, I think what you're obviously hearing from from the Council on Folks is want to make sure that this is done. Obviously, we have to we have to go through the process, but that was done expeditiously and that we're not lag in this at all because I think clarity for, you know, for our our current partner and other possible folks who are interested I think is really important. And so I know that I and others will be kind of ensuring that we stay on track and get this done as soon as possible. Okay. There's a motion on a second. We're going to take a vote. Voice vote again. Councilman Austin. I. I. I. I. I. Okay. Unanimous again. Thank you. I just did the consent calendar and the item that was pulled off consent. We're going to go on with this yet, right. So let me do some some of the public comment that we didn't get to Summer Hanson, then Sherry Martinez than Dan O'Leary.