News Analysis: Is Monrovia's Gold Line Deal Really in Danger?

The curious timing of a City Council vote to approve a sales agreement with the Gold Line Construction Authority this week raised eyebrows when it became clear that no definitive deal had ever been reached between the two parties.

Tuesday's consideration of the sale agreement--and the subsequent postponement of the vote--opened a window into the between the city and GLCA in a critical deal that would allow the long-awaited Gold Line Foothill Extension to progress.

But with no actual deal to speak of, a lawyer suing the city and the GLCA immediately questioned the council's motivation for its decision to move forward.

"You're here purporting to approve a purchase and sale agreement with an entity--the Gold Line--which at least publicly has rejected your current deal terms," said attorney Robert Silverstein.

An attorney for the GLCA then took the podium and confirmed exactly that. The city, he said, was voting on an agreement that had not been agreed upon, and it would have no bearing on any final deal. The attorney, Wesley Beverlin, said he hadn't even seen a revised sale agreement since April.

So the question remains: why would the city consider approving a deal that didn't yet exist?

One answer could be leverage. Though the council expressed disbelief at a GLCA attorney's suggestion that no deal had been reached, they also appeared ready for a fight. City Manager Scott Ochoa immediately launched into an impassioned defense of the city's move, followed by Mayor Mary Ann Lutz, who was glancing down at prepared notes as she ripped into the Gold Line for negotiating in bad faith.

Then, one by one, the other council members expressed their dismay with the GLCA before entertaining a motion to delay the proceedings for two weeks and insisting that the construction authority better be ready to sign off on a deal by then.

If the city was flexing its muscles by pushing the sale agreement as an ultimatum, it was doing so from a position of considerable strength. The Gold Line cannot progress until a suitable location for a rail maintenance yard is found somewhere along the way between Pasadena and Azusa.

Other cities, like Irwindale, have refused to consider building the facility in their backyard, and the GLCA Chairman himself said Monrovia is currently the only viable location. In fact, chairman Doug Tessitor .

“The facility is a key piece,” Tessitor told Patch in March. “If, for some reason, we couldn’t put a deal together, I suppose in the very extreme case, this could stop the Gold Line.”

Knowing that Monrovia is the only option for the GLCA unless it wants to delay the project indefinitely, Monrovia officials may be holding out for the sweetest deal possible before turning over about 14 acres to the construction authority.

The agreement spelled out by the city on Tuesday called for the sale of the for $39.6 million. That price included the $23.3 million the city paid to acquire the land as well as relocation, environmental remediation, demolition and maintenance costs on the property.

An additional $12.5 million was tacked on to pay for the potential loss of sales tax, property tax and fee revenues that the city could miss out on if it didn't develop the land itself.

Finally, the city is asking the GLCA to fork over $16.5 million more in public improvements to be completed at the , Monrovia's massive mixed-use development that will be built around the city's Gold Line station.

Though Ochoa repeatedly said the city had reached a deal "in good faith" with the GLCA, he also said that there were also some "big exceptions" remaining to be worked out. Chiefly, the city did not want to enter into a cost-sharing agreement to settle the lawsuit brought by Silverstein on behalf of George Brokate, a property owner who stands to lose his land through eminent domain if a deal for the maintenance facility is reached.

Silverstein asserts that a previous settlement agreement bars the city from selling the land to the GLCA because it would lead to an eminent domain action against his client. Ochoa scoffed Tuesday at the legal argument behind the lawsuit and said the city should not have to pay to settle the suit.

"We're not buying (Brokate's) property..., why on earth would we ever contribute to that?," he said, noting that the city may be open to joining a settlement in a more minor role.

Lutz intimated that the city will abandon the deal for the maintenance yard if a deal is not reached at the council's next meeting on June 21.

"When we take up this matter again, we hope that you will abide by the commitment and the negotiations that you made with us and that we made with you in good faith," Lutz said. "And if you can't, then the city of Monrovia will move on to other opportunities that will better this community."

If the city was not merely exerting leverage on the GLCA, then perhaps the GLCA has indeed rescinded commitments that it's made to Monrovia during negotiations. But whatever those commitments were remain unclear.

Hostility directed at the agency was certainly conspicuous Thursday, as several council members described themselves as "angry" at the developments. Councilwoman Becky Shevlin called the GLCA's actions "disgusting" and alluded to a purported threat by the agency to take Monrovia's land through eminent domain if a deal was not reached.

"This reminds me that no good deed goes unpunished," Shevlin said. "And now all of a sudden, here we sought to do the right thing, and now we're being threatened to be condemned? I mean, come on."

If negotiations between the two parties have genuinely reached an impasse, much stands to be lost on both sides. A delay of the Foothill Extension for years--or the utter demise of the project--would torpedo numerous plans the city has made in anticipation of the light rail project, most notably Station Square. Other cities along the extension that are planning development for the Gold Line would also suffer.

And if the GLCA truly won't budge, it will have to restart the whole process of finding a new site for the maintenance yard and getting it environmentally cleared, delays that could cost the agency untold millions of dollars. Tessitor has said that $1 million is lost each day the project is delayed, according to GLCA estimates.

The next chapter in the saga will come on June 21 when the fate of the project could be decided for good. Or, as is common in transportation projects, it could simply be delayed again.