Recommendation of the Budget Oversight Committee to approve the revised financial policy on fiscal impact statements.
Item 21 is a communication from Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Lowenthal Chair, Budget Oversight Committee Recommendation to approve the revised Financial Policy on Fiscal Impact Statements. Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make the motion to move this item. And second, a couple of comments. Thank you. The Budget Oversight Committee felt that there was a need for more fiscal information when city council considers items from departments and council offices. We certainly try to impose that discipline on ourselves when we're bringing forward our own items to try and evaluate the fiscal impact. This does not include items deemed insignificant in terms of staff time or cost, but the Budget Oversight Committee felt there was a need to include year over year information and the standing financial position of the city to better equipped council members for its consideration. As Councilmember O'Donnell is now an Assembly member and no longer with us. I'd welcome any comments from my other be a key member Councilmember Mongo and financial management staff and I'd also like to thank the financial management staff for their efforts. Councilman Mongo. Several weeks ago on one of our agenda items, we had an item before council which stated an amount of money that the city would be obligated to for a particular item. But what that item did not disclose without questioning from council members was that the price of that item was $4 million over the prior year costs. And so I think it's important to have all of that information in advance, both for us and for the public to review those items. And so that in partnership with the discussions with some staff related to sometimes the significant amount of shift for resources and staff time to put together certain things. I just think we need to be cognizant of those items and be aware of it. Not saying that it's not appropriate because we absolutely need those items to come back and those reports are important. It's just important to be able to quantify it and to be honest with ourselves and each other about what that cost is. So I'm very supportive of the item and I look forward to increasing the fiscal discipline of the Board of the council and for our city staff as well. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I wonder if there's and I wasn't privy to the discussions that led to this item, but I wonder if there's a way to also amend our policy of writing no fiscal impact on agenda items when there in fact is either a fiscal impact or an unknown fiscal impact, because sometimes we'll get an agenda item and it says no fiscal impact. And it's very obvious that the item might have a fiscal impact. And then further, when you ask staff, is this going to have a fiscal impact? And they say, we don't know, and yet we're voting on an item that says no fiscal impact. I think if there was a way to add this within the spirit of this proposal, I'd be interested in doing that because I think we really need to be honest with the public when we put an item on the agenda that if we don't know what the impact is going to be, we should just say that. And that way we can vote on an item not knowing how much it's going to cost the city, if that's what we want to do. So that's merely one thought. The won't accept that. I do, and I wanted to seek some guidance from staff on how that wording would appear. For instance, I'm familiar with working with other cities where we don't actually put no fiscal impact unless it really does mean that if it's unknown, we're asked to put something akin to it is unknown at this time. But we do anticipate being able to evaluate the fiscal impact, something that states or at least acknowledges that there is a cost to it, even if it's just staff time. So, Mr. City Manager, I'm wondering what your suggestion is. I'm going to ask our finance director, John GROSS, to respond to that. Now this item, what you're seeing in front of you is an update to an existing fiscal impact statement, which existing fiscal impact policy, which requires all council matters that come before you to have a fiscal impact statement. What Councilwoman Brice, you are talking about is and Vice Mayor Lowenthal is making sure that the three items that the EEOC asks us to look at are included, and that includes the clarify that expenditure information is on there, particularly past expenditure information and resource utilization, including staff time as a fiscal impact, specifically as an impact. So those two items have been included and are in the current wording in the last item was to require EFM review, financial management department review and I think that addresses your last item and that that if an item if it comes before us and it says no fiscal impact, we as financial management are required to review that . And this document, as worded as we thought we had addressed, what the BOC asked for, would allow the financial management department to change that fiscal impact to better reflect what resources might be required or utilized. So I believe, subject to your review, that the wording has revised and as requested by the PRC, already incorporates a fix, so to speak, to an incorrect or what not might be totally correct. No fiscal impact. There will be some that have no fiscal impact. We will review it and we will change it if we believe it has a fiscal impact and its mark. No fiscal impact. Hope that answers your question. It does. Thank you. Okay for the comment on the item. Please come forward. Larry. Who do? Clark has the address. Do not have a statement of what? A project, let's say over $10,000 should cost is just inane. It's like the DNC policy pop out a kid. Don't worry about what it cost. We'll take care of that for you. There should be no project here. And you could I think it's it's fair to argue what the dollar amount should be. But once you establish that, then there should be no projects that are approved unless you know exactly where the dollar amount is going to be buried. Unless you've got a printing press downstairs to print the money. I don't know who came up with the idea of of having a policy that you should have no office, no statement of official impact. But that's clearly a disease thought in my view. Thank you. No more public comment. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I think that including financial, you know, fiscal impact statements are important. I think it's the right thing to do. However, there's a few things here that I'm certain frankly concerned about, particularly the EFM review. So there's a line in this policy that says if time is not sufficient enough for the required fiscal impact analysis, financial management may hold the item, provide for a preliminary fiscal impact analysis, or may indicate on the council letter, fiscal impact statement that additional analysis and information is recommended. So I'm concerned that I'm concerned that if we submit an item. It can be held up or delayed from a discussion here at the city council before that review has taken place. There is a number of examples tonight where sometimes you just want to have the discussion and it will. You know, obviously city staff will weigh in and say, you know, there are some you know, this is unfunded mandates on and so forth. You know, there was a there was a substitute motion on the floor about or friendly about expanding from 5 minutes to ten on parking meters. And they said very clearly, hey, this, you know, this, we haven't studied this. We haven't evaluated that. I thought that was fair. And I expect city staff to step up and let the council know. You know, just the last item on loops, we asked city staff to work on that. I think that's an appropriate way to go about it is to you know, I think the checks and balances are built in here in the fact that we all meet together and we catch things when they haven't been vetted appropriately. I think when we take that power away from ourselves and hand it over to city staff and say, you can unilaterally hold up an item, I think that creates some some problems for me and in the fact that our ability to serve as council members really rests on this and our ability to place a proposal on the on the city council agenda item and have a discussion. You know, I would also say that there are already tactics in place that are used, whether they're in writing or not. When a councilmember promote proposes an idea. You know, there are a number of city staff that will visit all the other council members and say, hey, I've got issues with this. This, you know, is going to cost us a million bucks, so on and so forth. And a lot of times our phones ring and it'll say, Hey, fix this. And a lot of times they get fixed. So I would say I'm not prepared tonight to hand over a hand over that ability for for city staff to unilaterally hold up or delay an item. So so that said, I'd like to see I mean, I appreciate the work that's been done. I certainly feel like the fiscal impact the three elements here. So the past expenditure information and staff time, I think those are important, but the require fiscal management review, I'd like to strike that. So my substitute motion would be to to approve the first two, but take out the required financial management review because I think that's going to happen anyway. And this goes to sort of the if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think we've acknowledged certain things that are broke, but I don't think the fact I don't think that element of bringing things to the city council that I'm prepared. I don't think we fix that by taking that entirely away from city council members. I think we we hope we should express to city staff that we expect them to catch things and inform the city council members. Given the fact that we don't have researchers on our staff and it's our job to really put our beliefs and our ideas out there. So that would be my substitute motion. Thank you. I have Councilman Ranga next, but I do I do have a question. Maybe it's to the the the chair of B of C. The way I understand it is the motion. And the item would give councilmembers options. So so option A would be this has been reviewed by by city staff on the on the fiscal impact. Option C is a councilmember could put that the fiscal impact has yet to be determined. That's still an option, right? Isn't that right? Okay. And then third option would be that there is no fiscal impact or that that it would require analysis. Is that right? Okay. So so the ability for so a councilmember could still bring something forward if there has not been a fiscal impact yet done on the item, it would just be noted that it hasn't been done yet. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify, Councilman Ringo. Thank you for bringing this up, because obviously transparency is a big issue with any elected body in regards to its budget and how things are brought forward and what the expectations are in terms of any reports. And if the expectations are, there's going to be a fiscal impact where no fiscal impact, I think obviously we should know know that in advance. But I have to agree with Councilmember Richardson in the fact that, you know, I don't have the type of staff to be able to do that kind of research. And if I want to bring something forward, how much of a delay am I going to have in putting that through the city council agenda because of the fact that I need to have the background done on that would when I would have to talk to our financial management people to get a background on how much of a physical impact would my ordinance or proposed ordinance would have on an idea or on a project that I want to put forward? And even if there's no fiscal impact, you know, they could probably tell me that, too. So I think that yeah, I know that this is an effort to streamline and to get our council agendas much more intact and much more efficient. But I also don't have an issue with the fact that I think it would be more time taken by each council office to bring something forward that can be done in, say, a month. It'll take two or three week to two or three months to get forward because of the background and the research that would need to be done on that. And that hasn't practical impact by that. So I mean, it's it's sort of it's sort of a disingenuous it goes sort of backwards. And I think at this point for what I see and Councilmember, it's that you took the words out of my mouth. You know, it's if it ain't broken waiting it waiting, need fixing cause all the wording is already there. We can as council members that we feel that there is going to be a fiscal impact. Then we asked staff, give us what the fiscal impact will be on this ordinance. So I think that that the the the the the semantics and the structure it's built in already and the way we present our agenda items for consideration by the full council. So I, I'd like to see maybe a substitute motion to, to substitute with a substitute substitute, okay. To receive and file this. And it does have some good stuff, but I would use to file a second. All right. There is a substitute substitute to receive and file and I'm gonna go to Charlie. Charlie partner, city attorney and then Councilwoman Price there. I'm sorry, was there a second? There was a second. Mayor. Or members of the council. Just for clarification, there currently exists in the Long Beach Municipal Code 2.03076. The requirement for fiscal impact statements by those items submitted by a council member requires the Council member to state the fiscal impact of the requested action, and it requires that the fiscal impact statement be prepared by such council member indicating the significance or whether it has a significant fiscal impact. No significant fiscal impact or no fiscal impact at all. So I think the policy and the from the. Policy is to help. Staff and council implement the a requirement that already exists for the council. And so or maybe, maybe not, maybe there's further direction. But currently there is a requirement under the. Municipal code that there's where this comes from. So I just I'm not sure we were discussing that in this context. Okay. So let me let me go back to where we are. I have Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilwoman Pryce and then Council member Austin. So, Mr. City Attorney, thank you for clarifying that, because in hearing this discussion, I realize that the item was not as clear and my comments were not as clear as they could have been. Those policies that Mr. Parkin stated, they exist for council members. We want them to exist and extend for staff. That was the budget oversight committees recommendation. We want the. Staff. When staff. So all the items that we consider are not just council member driven, we have staff items from different departments and department heads. City manager brings an item. Gas and oil brings an item. We want the same requirements for fiscal impact statement to apply to staff. So what we don't want as a council hopefully is for staff to bring forward an item like any item. And not let us know what it costs. So we sort of are blindly taking action based on the merit of the proposal without understanding the the cost. So as council members, when I bring forward an item, I have to I am required to state what the fiscal impact is. But according to those three items that Mr. Parkin mentioned. Hey, someone has a mic on if for I thank you. But staff doesn't have the same requirement. They may operate under the same metric, but it's not required. And so we're trying to align council member standards with staff standards extended to the staff. Is that? Mr. West, drop your career with that as well. Oh, we have no issues. Right. Okay. Everything is gets vetted from. It takes us about. Eight weeks to put an agenda item through because it goes through the city attorney's office. And that. Mr.. Parkin And you got your clearance on Vice President of the motion. And Mr. Mayor, if I might also address a salient point that Councilmember Richardson brought up, this would not allow staff to hold up a council member item. What we're asking through this item, and probably not as artfully stated as it could have and should have been, and I apologize for that. We are asking staff to make sure they're not bringing forward an item for our consideration where we don't know how much that's going to cost. The ideas could be fabulous, but we should know what it cost before we vote on it. Next nexus. Councilwoman Price Pryce. Thank you. I appreciate all of the conversation that we're having here. I do want to respond to Councilman Richardson regarding his comment about if it's not broke, why fix it? The problem is it is broke right now. It's broke. And I'll give you a classic I'll give you a classic example. We as council members can put an item on the agenda, either in the regular timeline or on the supplemental agenda. And we can request a staff report regarding the fiscal impact case in point looping system tonight. Okay. We can also put an item on the agenda, regular or supplemental, where we are directing staff to take an action, not study fiscal impact, but to take an action. And when we write on that supplemental agenda item, there is no fiscal impact. Where there might be a fiscal impact, then we've got a loophole in our responsibilities pursuant to the ordinance that the city attorney just specified. So I'll give you a classic example. On November 11th, we were at Halton Park and agenda item three, which was the plea, said there is no fiscal impact. That item was put on the supplemental agenda during the process of trying to educate myself at the council meeting. I asked. John GROSS whether or not we knew what the fiscal impact would be and staff specific. I watched the video like four times specifically said we do not yet know the fiscal impact because the item was filed on Friday. Something to that effect. And so we have a fiduciary duty to if we and I completely understand. Council Member You're on the statement about not having the staff for the resources to be able to do fiscal impact. Certainly that's way beyond something that my council office could do, although they're amazing, brilliant people. It's just they don't have the resources. So that's one of the reasons why most of our items usually request a staff analysis so that we as a body, all of us can have adequate information with which to carry out our fiduciary duty . So there's a loophole right now wherein we can say there is no like, for example, item number three had in it a proposal for a possible additional position. And yet it said there is no fiscal impact, not fiscal impact is unknown, not fiscal impact to be determined, not anticipated fiscal impact, but minimal. But it specifically says there is no fiscal impact. And so what I would like to see is something that allows for us to be able to have a fiscal impact. That is a reasonable fiscal impact. That's honest. What we think may not be 100%. It may be, you know, fiscal impact. The range is going to be somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 or something. But to say there is no fiscal impact when staff is telling us we don't know, I think that there's a little bit of a loophole there. And it it is in conflict, in my opinion, with. What the city attorney just read. So I think there was an issue there because we have a duty when we're filling out these agenda items to, you know, be answer the the required components, which fiscal impact is one. So that's where it's coming from. But you raise great points and I agree with you. I don't want items to be held up because of that. I really don't. I would hope staff wouldn't do that. But I think that's a great point. And I think, Councilman, you around those statements are really you know, I take those to heart as well. So thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you for clarifying, Vice Mayor, that the intent was for staff. I just see that it says originating department or elected or appointed offers or office must be reviewed by the financial management department. So that is, you know, that being called out is what concerned me. And then but I understand if that wasn't the intent and I get it, sometimes you have one expectation, but one lands is something else. And it seems like there are two understandings from multiple understandings here on the dais about what this policy actually does. Like so I just heard from Councilmember Price that it does it is expected that council this would apply to council people as well, which I get it. I'm I'm in a position where, you know, I think that we should have we should be responsible when we say there is no fiscal impact. But the check the accountability to that are the eight other people that you have to sell this to, as well as the city manager. They are expected to look at what they vote on. And so while, you know, my staff and myself, we try to try our best to do our diligence to really evaluate if there's an impact, because we know if there is is going to have a tough time getting through the council. I think we get that. And that's just the reality of, you know, this democratic process. Just one of the thing, the if it doesn't broke, don't fix it. I was talking about like a narrow version of that. Like, I know there are elements that are broken, but I'm talking about like our ability to put things on the agenda. That's what I'm talking about, because before it makes it to the agenda, the number of checks in place when it makes it to the agenda. If is late, you get two other people to sign on. If it makes it on time, they've got a week. Council's got a week to review it. You know, if it's flagged by city manager, he'll make it clear to everybody here there are some major problems with this, with this item. I've seen it as a chief. I've seen that councilmember. So there are mechanisms in place. So I'd say that's the if it isn't broke, don't fix it for me. However, we're discussing we're debating the substitute substitute right now, which is the the receiving file. So that said, I think if if this were to come back in some other form at some point that like calls out, hey, we're talking about specifically staff being held accountable to listing fiscal impacts. I'd be open to to entertain that discussion and and supporting that. But I think it's needs to come back in a different form. Okay. Councilmember Mongo. I am so appreciative of the healthy discussion here today. And I will start by saying that this item before Budget Oversight Committee came from several different discussions that have happened, both at Council and Bossie that got us here today. Specifically, as I mentioned in my opening comments, an item came before this body that was a $4 million annual increase to the city. And it was not listed for council review. And most specifically, the checks and balances that Councilmember Richardson talks about of having additional people sign on. The staff don't currently have that. So this is a comprehensive item that is both for staff and for electeds. And in that case, the staff put that item on. But in any item that comes in on a Friday, while you do get two other council members to sign to, agenda is the item. The public doesn't have that amount of time to review it, and nor does anyone put in place to, quote unquote, validate that there's no fiscal impact if an agenda item would like to come forward. I believe that under the way that the original motion was written that if you wrote fiscal impact is unknown at this time, you'd still agenda the item and it would not require that getting to that point. Instead, it would alert both the council and the public that there were still things to be determined in that process. And so with that, I would say that. In certain occasions, depending on which group of individuals you serve in front of. There are times where you might say this may include an impact of 700 hours of staff time, or this might include 600 hours of staff time. And while I appreciate that some of our staffs might not have financial analysts at the level of Mr. GROSS in our offices, we are all able to make general estimates of an average city employee who makes X dollars an hour plus 56% benefits times 20 hours a week for 16 weeks. My estimated impact would be etc. and these are easy to do. These are things we've all done in our home budgets, in our previous employment, in our campaign budgets. I mean, we know how to allocate resources or none of us would be here today. And so for that, I hope that we get back to the original motion and move it to protecting the financial, health and welfare of the city. I really appreciate the comments made by Councilmember. Price and Vice Mayor Lowenthal in trying to pull us together in where the intent of the item came from, because this did come from many discussions in front of this body, which is why healthy discussion is so important. So thank you to everyone. Councilman Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you. Yes, very healthy discussion, I think. I believe the intent of it all. Absolutely. I do agree that there needs to be more details when it comes to fiscal impact. And we we do need to do a better job at that. Some people are subjective and looking at that. Is it a fiscal impact in terms of staff time? Is it a fiscal fiscal impact in terms of, you know, do we still have time to come back and review that? Which oftentimes we do. And I know that the city manager in cases like the play did come back with memos that did include fiscal impact. You know, there's time to to be able to do that. I would say, you know, we need to look at perhaps a disclaimer, something that is pretty universal depending on what we're were putting out there. I think we've kind of discussed that. Something that would state, you know, what the general fiscal impact would be, not the intricacies. I think it's too detailed on the front end to do that, and I believe it would delay the process. So I would support a receiving file. Okay. Next is Vice Mayor Lowenthal. One. Excuse me. I wanted to ask the city attorney in the. Statement that Councilmember Richardson read about. Where are you reading this from, Councilmember Richardson, where it says the elected. So we're talking page two on the revised policy on impact statements. Yes. Top of the page. Oh, got it. Okay. Mr. City Attorney, is that the current policy? Or is that a combination of the current policy and what the new item is asking for? I think maybe I can ask answer that question. This is a council policy, and as such, it's not explicitly in code. It's adopted by resolution. And the current policy is on the last page of the attachment. It's not marked. It's page three. And the current policy is there. There have only been minor. I won't say minor, obviously not. But there are only been the changes requested by the BRC. So if I might understand the part that gives greatest concern to Councilmember Richardson specifically, is it the portion that it must be reviewed by financial management? So at the beginning of the paragraph, it said, it calls out those three departments elected or appointed office, and then it goes further in the third sentence to say, if time is not sufficient for the required fiscal impact analysis, financial management may hold the item. So it just continues. So it's the third sentence in the same paragraph, continuing that same discussion on this fiscal impact statement on that item. So the whole paragraph is problematic. The entire paragraph or the part about having it being held. Because. Currently we're required to provide a our policy is to provide a fiscal impact when we bring items forward that exists. Yes, I believe what I'm hearing you indicate is that. You're finding difficulty with financial management having the ability to hold the item. Yes. So it says. So here's where it's problematic. So on the second sentence, it says the proposed city council letter should be submitted in accordance with normal administrative timeframes to allow financial management departments review and comment if time is not sufficient for required fiscal impact analysis. So who's to say it's efficient or not? Like if. So, if we were to put something on that we think is a very basic standard item and someone takes issue with it and they haven't had an opportunity to do it. Like are we saying supplemental? Are we saying supplementals are not enough time for city staff to review so that that time frame brings up an issue that I have concerns about? Then it says that they may provide some options for them. They can hold the item. They can provide a preliminary fiscal impact analysis, or may indicate on the fiscal impact statement that additional analysis and information is recommended. It's saying that they would add that to our item. Fiscal financial management will add that statement to our item, not that we would. That's how I interpreted this. Whereas if I submit an item for discussion, I want that item to be presented as we presented it that. So I have an issue with that potentially being held up or altered by financial management. However, if. I mean. I mean, there are a few ways we could do this. No. And I'm and I'm I'm very appreciative of you explaining this, because I'm I'm able to hear what the concern is. And so I do think we can get there tonight. And that's why I'm thankful you're expressing your concerns. For instance, if I can just use an example, I have a council agenda item I'd like to bring forward. I'm aware that there is a fiscal impact, but I'm asking staff to come back with a recommendation. And so typically what I would do in my office is I would say there is no fiscal impact in requesting staff to come back with the item or a recommendation. But when they come back with the recommendation, we'd like them to identify what the fiscal impact might be so I could make that statement. We will still have the ability to do that. You will still have the ability. I will still have the ability. You will still have the ability all of us would to bring forward a supplemental item for consideration. That does not change. And if I can ask Mr. GROSS to weigh in on that. Yeah. The the item I'm happy to the statement may hold the item financial may hold the item was never intended to apply to elected officials. It was this is a generic fiscal policy. So it was intended to apply to city manager departments. So if I can suggest, at least in terms of what it was intended to say, adding a parenthetical after May hold the items put in parentheses only for city manager departments that would probably represent more accurately what was intended. And that is the intent. And so Councilmember Richardson, I'd like to add that on the floor in parentheses, parentheses, only city management items. City management department items. The intent of the committee was not to have financial management hold up council items. Again, this is really to temper and measure staff bringing forward their items without the proper fiscal impact. So in parentheses. So in parentheses I'd like to amend in there only city management department items. So that financial management, so that there is not misinterpreted, that they have the ability to hold up our own items. Being council items. So. So before I jump in, so I want to have that discussion. But before I do that point of order, are you allowed to change that? Because we've got to to. Well, prevailing motions. Absolutely. So there's a motion on the floor for receive and file. And prior to that, is is your substitute. And you'll have to remind me what your substitute. I mean. Let me. Let me. Mr. Parkin, I think that her being the maker of the original motion, she can certainly adjust her original motion. At this time. The discussion on a. Point of order should be. To the motion on the floor, which is the receive and file. The the ability to amend the original motion wouldn't return to the maker until the other two motions are dismissed. Okay. So as part of my comments, Mr. Mayor, I. Now that I fully understand what my colleagues were concerned about and I agree with you. If I if I could just state that unequivocally so I agree with you. I have the I would have the same concern. I'm willing to change the item on the floor, if you will, allow us to revert back to the original item and vote no. Either withdraw the received file and let's go back to the original item and give us an opportunity to amend it on the floor. Okay. I have a list. You want to respond that Councilmember Austin next cued up. So technically. It's Councilmember Rounds. That we got to respect. Councilmember Rein does most of the questions should be directed to him prior to. I'm sorry, I was I was looking his way while I was linking. To. Councilmember your NGO's is not removing his his motion right now, is that correct? Okay. Okay. So Vice Mayor Lowenthal, anything else? No. Then I would urge a no vote on receive and file so that we can have an opportunity to apply councilmember standards onto our own staff. Next is Councilman Braxton. So I've been sitting here patiently and I think this has been a very educational process. And in terms of our fiscal responsibility as a as a council. Our practices and protocols are policies. But I am I want to be clear about how staff items actually get to the agenda and what process they go through to get there . Because I am not aware of any any, any, any agenda items and none have been brought to to the floor in terms of examples where there is a real need, I believe, to to to modify that. I want to speak to Councilmember Richardson's point, meaning that these nine council members are service checks, as well as our budget oversight committee. There are there are so many mechanisms in place to keep us fiscally responsible. And so, Mr. City Manager, can you walk us through how our staff checks themselves in terms of fiscal responsibility, in terms of bringing agenda items forward, forward? I'm going to ask John GROSS to respond to that on how the Finance Department looks at all council letters done by departments. Wait, not all council letters. These are these are agenda items that are. Given what we call. Letters are agenda items. Okay. By depart by city manager. Department, I think. Correct. The the city management has a process by which all city manager council letters that are proposed to go to city council, go through the financial management department. We have a process to do that. The what this and we've been doing that for years so that what you see in front of you is is every every week are fiscal impacts that have been reviewed by the financial management department. What this strengthens and is makes required and currently isn't is that, for example, if public works or police department write their own fiscal impact, although they write it and we have a process to review it, this change in the policy explicitly allows the financial management department to make whatever changes are needed to make it clearer to City Council what the impacts are. And we do do that. And this makes that process that we use more clear, particularly when you have departments. It doesn't happen often, but occasionally those who who think they have written a good fiscal impact. But we believe that it isn't clear enough to city council and may not provide the information City Council wants this change to the policy, allows the financial management department to formally make that change. We actually do do that now. This makes it clear that it's authorized. So what I'm hearing is that you do do it already and that these these occurrences are few and far between. Is that correct? We do do that for city manager departments. Yes. And we do make changes. I won't say that's few and far between. We actually quite a few times make changes to the fiscal impact statements. Okay. So I'm troubled to understand why we need to move forward and set additional policy. I'm really concerned about over analyzing just about everything we do lately. And I do appreciate the robust conversation. I do appreciate council members interest in tweaking the system to make it make it better, because we should always look towards continuous improvement. But I don't think we get there by adding bureaucracy to policy making or or ignoring the checks and balances that are already in place. And so with that, I'm I'm open to receiving 2 to 2, supporting the motion to receive and follow. Councilwoman Price. Okay. Councilwoman, if Councilman Andrews, who hasn't spoke and then I'll go to Councilman Mongo. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. You know, since I started as a councilman, you know, I've made every effort to run, you know, my agenda item to the city staff so I can get their input from the various departments that might be involved in my agenda item. You know, this is a good practice for all council. Members to, you know, for the intact. But I just think at this point, if we're doing it the way we're doing it, I mean, this could be putting the cart before the horse. And I would also would recommend, you know, to receive and file. Okay. Councilman Mongo. Okay. Now what? On the agenda items 27 and 28 tonight. I think that there was extensive questions that I've received from the public. I feel that I've done my due diligence as a council member to speak with city management specifically on the 5.5 million a year for two years, etc.. But but the council but the item as recommended by development services, though thoughtful and I appreciate the way it is presented, it leaves out how much has been spent each year over the last five years. How does that compare? Are we spending more? Are we spending less? The same is true of the item from several weeks ago which spurred this discussion, which I won't call out my colleague, but I received a call at 10:00 at night thanking me for bringing the item to the attention and pulling the item and making thoughtful discussion about a $4.5 million annual increase. These are real dollars for real services. And to not have the discussion and to say that the stuff being brought forward already is clear. If it was clear, we wouldn't receive so many questions. And I think the intent is that it is clear in advance when being put on the agenda so that I know that my staff does do a lot of relaying back and forth between constituents and community members and the staff departments, as does Councilmember Price's constituency, to ensure that they have all the information so that they can submit comments in advance without coming all the way downtown several miles to make their comments. And so I think that there's a lot of value in this. And so I would prefer a friendly amendment to Councilmember Uranium's item to send to Bossi for revisions and more clarity to come back to this body more thorough. Is that something you'd consider? I think for the city attorney, we have to only speak. The only thing we can do right now is vote on the receiving file before we could do other amendments to other motions. Is that. Correct? Actually, this is this is directed to the. Maker of the motion that's on the floor at the time. The receiving file, I think, was a friendly amendment. Friendly amendments to. The. Friendly minimum standards to Bossi. Instead of receiving in file send received to Bossi. I believe that Councilmember Mongo has requested Councilmember Urunga to consider that as an amendment to his motion. Is that correct? That would be appropriate at this time, as discussion of the receiving file motion is a different. Well let's well council councilmember Ranka do on to respond to that. You missed your item. Well I appreciate the the effort I think that it. Changes my motion frankly. And I think I'll stick with what I get right now. Substitute substitute is receiving. Okay. And now we're back to the vice mayor. Thought they were going to go for a vote. So. So. First, Mary Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I. I think in the interest of what I've heard from our council colleagues, my council colleagues, not just tonight, but truly throughout the various meetings that we've had, the the better alternative would be to send it back to committee this. I acknowledge that this item is not worded, even reading parts of it with Councilmember Gonzalez, it's not worded exactly as it should be. Just in hearing the misunderstanding of what a council letter means as a staff member to another city council letter comes from staff. It's clear to me that all of us don't understand that to be the same because it sounds as though it's a council agenda item. This should be reworded. I do think it does speak to the spirit of what each of us wants, and receiving and filing doesn't provide that opportunity. I think sending it back to committee, I might humbly request that of Council Member your anger. I would appreciate that as chair of the Budget Oversight Committee, I think it's very important for us to at least have the opportunity to review these fiscal impact statements from from staff and look at a good policy that we would all agree on. Comes from Ringo. What I need at this point, I guess, is a clarification going, you know, say I'm old and I get sleepy in late. Perhaps I could get a read from the city attorney in terms of a definition and a clarification as to what it means to receive and file. From what I'm hearing, from what I'm hearing is that there is some issues with this as it is currently presented. There's a willingness by the EEOC to revisit it, reword it and bring it back. Does receive a file, provide that opportunity their counsel merry around the the answer would be it doesn't eliminate the ability of the EEOC to bring up an item again to discuss policy. What I think the the maker of the substitute or the request for the friendly amendment would be that this would be a more efficient way of directing the EEOC to revisit this issue. But either way, it could be revisited by the EEOC. Okay. So so Councilmember Turanga, is your is are you keeping your receiving information or are you accepting advice, Mary? And those the received information apparently brings it back eventually, later, when when the beauty has another opportunity to revisit this item. Okay. So I'll stay with the receiving file. Okay. I'm going to go back to Vice Marie Lowenthal and then we need to get to a vote soon. We have right now on the floor is the motion to receive and file Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank Mr. Parkin for his explanation. So, Councilmember Your Honor. What I want each committee chair has the authority to set an agenda for the committee, and. And that's clear. What I wanted to align with the committee agenda is, is really support from this body to consider this policy. We could still do it and we may still do it. In the spirit of collaboration, I'd prefer to do it knowing that our council members would like to have that discussion. And so do we have the authority as chairpersons to do that? Certainly I can set the agenda, I can do that, but I'd like to do that knowing that you'd be open to that conversation. And that's what I'm urging from you. I think I think Vice Mayor Lowenthal clearly would like to bring this back to the BRC. And that's that's a request. Certainly she could bring it back regardless. But I think she's asking that in this and in the spirit of of taking it back and collegiality. Councilmember. Go ahead. Well, I'll defer to if you if you drop your motion to. Accept this. And change your motion to take it back to the. EEOC. And I think I think if you accept the friendly amendment to take to go back to the U.S., that takes care of that. Well, then we're good. I just wanted you to be the author of that motion. We also need the second. Yeah. So is there a second to. Okay. Okay. So we have okay, everyone, we have a motion on the floor which is to send back to Bossie. That is the motion on the floor. Councilman Richardson. So I would I would just say and I'm going to support this motion. I'm going to say as another friendly that with this direction to the C, we're unequivocally clear that what should come back is this policy. But to address ensuring that what city staff do they have the same requirement that what we do as what city council does and that. You know, our city council items will not be delayed, tampered with, adjusted. Stamped anything before we actually placed them on the agenda. So I want to I want to make sure that that's protected in this recommendation. Guaranteed. I think it'll just be in plain English. This document is not in plain English. So. Okay, so there's. We have a friendly amendment. Did I. Did you even do public comment on this? Because I don't. I think we did. It's been such a long time ago. So great. We have it. We have a motion on the floor to send back to B or C. Please cast your vote. Councilmember Richardson. Bush and Kerry. Eight zero. Okay, next item. Item 23 is a report from the City Manager recommendation to execute an amended and restated lease with legacy partners. One. Long Beach Ocean Gate for the use of city owned property located under the Queensway Bridge along West Seas Highway District two.