Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance establishing a temporary Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax for general purposes at the rate of 1% for six years then declining to .5% for four years on the sale and/or use of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the City, to be placed on the ballot at the June 7, 2016 municipal election, and any and all documents related thereto. The tax will sunset after 10 years; Request City Attorney to prepare a "rainy day" fund ballot measure so that the first 1% of any new revenue source created is placed into a special fund to be used to offset the impact of future recessions; and Request City Attorney to prepare an advisory resolution to accompany the Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax to specify the council's intention to prioritize infrastructure repairs and restoration of public safety resources when allocating those funds.
Thank you, Steve. That concludes public comment. We're going to go to the regular agenda now. We're going to go ahead and. Give me 1/2, please take up item number 25. Madam Clerk. Communication from Councilman Austin. Councilwoman Gonzalez, Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilmember Richardson. Recommendation to request the city attorney to prepare an ordinance establishing a temporary transfer transaction and use sales tax for general purposes at the rate of 1% for six years, then declining 2.5% for four years on the sale and or use of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the city to be placed on the ballot at the June seven, 2016, municipal election. The tax will sunset after ten years and request the city attorney to prepare a rainy day fund ballot measure and request the city attorney to prepare an advisory resolution to accompany the transaction and new sales tax. To specify the Council's intention to prioritize infrastructure repairs and restoration of public safety resources. Thank you. I'm going to. I'm going to turn this over to the maker of the motion, which is council member Austin. Councilor Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I just want to take this opportunity to just mention as I talk to residents throughout my district and throughout the city, for that matter, the issues that I hear more about most about our fixing our streets, sidewalks and alleys and restoring the cuts that were made to public safety over the past ten years. These these are priorities for our residents. And they are looking to their elected representatives, their city council, to show leadership on this issue. These are the issues that our residents want the city to be tackling tonight. We will take the first step to giving our residents saying what kind of future they want for our city. The city of Long Beach has been fiscally prudent and made significant reductions to stay within budget over the past several years. We've partnered with our employees to save more than $250 million over ten years on pension cost. The city has eliminated more than 700 positions, including 200 police officers and more than 80 firefighters. Further reductions and efficiencies have been implemented throughout the city. But while we have worked to stay within our budget, our infrastructure and public safety resources are falling short of what is needed. We have a $2.8 billion in infrastructure needs over the next ten years, and we're falling further behind each year. Every year we come up short in investing in our infrastructure. The cost to upgrade our streets, sidewalks and alleys only increase. Trends in cities across the state are showing a rise in crime. And in Long Beach, we're not immune to that trend. We need additional police to combat this increase in crime. We also need to restore fire staffing to maintain our 911 paramedic response times and public space safety stations across the city. That's why this proposal is supported by our mayor and two former mayors, Mayor O'Neill and Foster as well. This is a temporary measure that will end in ten years, but will allow us to make key investments in public safety and infrastructure. I personally believe our residents are looking to this council to make bold steps to address these pressing needs and that our residents should be given the opportunity to have a say in the future direction of our city. We have to control our own destiny here. And for that, I would ask for full support of this council, for this motion. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I want to I want to first thank Councilman Austin and the rest of the council members for for for bringing this forth to the city council. I want to thank Mayor Garcia and and Mayor Foster and Mayor O'Neal for asking the city council to weigh in on this issue. I've been on the council for just shy of two years, but I worked here prior to that. And I think it's pretty clear folks have seen what we've come through and the decisions that the council has had to make in terms of our budget. And but the fact is, we can't keep up with our failing infrastructure. It's our streets, our sidewalks. They're falling behind. We need to make sure we make these investments. And I think our residents are expecting us to to take on these challenges. We've talked about crime increasing. I'm concerned about what we've what we've seen in terms of the the data and the statistics and to ignore it. It doesn't doesn't it's not a prudent strategy. So we need to make sure we make those investments in our police officers. We've talked about paramedic, the changes in our paramedic staffing and all those different things. And we know that our firefighters are dealing with unprecedented call volumes, that those call volumes are increasing. They're not diminishing. And yet we're dealing with, you know, not enough resources to make sure that we keep our 911 response times low. So so that said, I think this is it's reasonable. I think it's modest. And and I think it's the right thing to do for us to put this forth to the voters. So, again, thank you to the to our council colleagues for for bringing this forward. And thank you to Mayor Garcia for putting together this framework for us to take these additional steps. So I'm going to be voting in support of this tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. Many of you know that I'm a no new taxes kind of person. I've had lots of discussions with members of the community today. I believe that even when we have good intentions, good intentions can go bad. In a lot of our discussions this week, I talked with taxpayers and they believe in their right to choose and I want to support that. And I also believe in oversight. And while this council can provide oversight, if taxpayers vote in this increase, it is with them that we also want to give access and oversight. And so I hope that I can be supportive of this motion tonight. So I've come with a friendly amendment that would bring me to be a supportive member. And I think that my community would appreciate that, that if we added some language that said, at the end of the item, there's a end to that sentence, I would add, which would be reviewed by a five member citizen oversight committee in advance of utilization. So that that review would then come back to the council and we would know it before approving the utilization of those funds, but that we would be providing that access to hold us accountable, that we actually do spend the money on the things that we say we're going to spend them on. It's tough when it's a general fund tax increase and the money goes into the general fund and there's no restrictions. This would at least provide the oversight that I think would make taxpayers more comfortable and them to be more supportive of those infrastructure needs. And I also hope that in the long run, to not get us into this position again, that we start treating infrastructure as ongoing costs, streets and sidewalks and building maintenance and any nonprofit board that I sit on. If we know that an air conditioning has ten years of life left in, it cost $20,000. We start putting away $2,000 a year now. So I'm in big support of the 1% rainy day fund. And knowing and understanding, though. 1% might not be what the amortization of those maintenance costs would be. So we need to get there eventually. But this is a good first step. And so the friendly amendment is to also include the creation of a citizen's oversight committee. And that would be added to to the measure. And from what I understand, Mr. City Attorney, I'm assuming if that was done, you would come back to the council probably with more information about citizen oversight committees as far as best practices and what's going on right now in the state and locally. Is that correct? That is that is correct. As I understand the motion, it would be a community advisory committee, and I'm not sure that there is any distinction in what you just said, Mayor, but that's what I think. We're talking about the same thing. Yes. Okay. Mr. Usted. I. I will accept that unfriendly amendment. I think it is. It is a smart approach. We should have some civilian oversight. I was I've always been a big fan of that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members. If we could just get a little clarification on what the advisory commission would be or committee would be. It appeared to us in the conversation that they would direct the staff on. How to spend funds. So I think now, I mean, they legally wouldn't be able to direct. So I guess I would think that every year when we get towards budget season, all the departments bring forward how they plan to spend their budget. And I would guess that any moneys associated that come in through this $0.01 would be monitored and allocated on an annual basis, even if we pulled in, let's say. A certain amount of money, we might be able to spend that money in that year because you can only repair so many streets at a time. So I think department heads bring that forward and they review it. And so the council would approve a budget and the oversight committee would guarantee that the funds are being spent specifically for those projects that the council approved for. And let me actually make also I know what comes with my money's going. Let me let me let me make to make a recommendation here. I think there is actually there are best practices for citizens oversight committees out there. There's actually state regulation that actually approves how some of these work. And so what I think I think the idea what Councilman Longo wants to do is absolutely correct. I support it 100%. What I like to see if the city attorney can come back and then bring in front in front of the council what our best practice citizens advisory committees do. I know that Long Beach Unified has one. Long Beach City College has one. It's pretty boilerplate. They're great committees are great oversight methods. And I don't know if Councilman Mongeau agrees with that. Absolutely. I'd prefer to use best practice than recreate the will. Okay. We can we can certainly do that. Okay, Mr. Austin. And I'm fine with that. I like the idea of looking at best practices and having something come back and looking at and debating at the fine points of that. Then great. And I and I want to thank Councilman Mongo for, for bringing this forward. I know you've been an advocate on that on that issue. I think I've heard that a lot in the community. And so I appreciate that. I also just want to add and then I'm going to go to Councilmember Super and here is, I think this measure and I think it's important to have a citizen's oversight component and committee made up of citizens is great but just also want to add that we will also as part of this and as of any measure that would come before us, the city auditor will also, as part of this measure, will also be conducting regular and routine annual looks and audits of what is happening with the funds. And so it's we have that that audit piece will always be part of this. It's appropriate, but so will this additional layer, which is the Citizens Oversight Committee. So I'm very supportive of both. And thank you, Councilman Mongo and Councilmember Austin for our for doing that. Next is Councilmember Super now. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Councilmember Mongo for bringing. This item forward, this friendly amendment. This is a condition that that would be a contingency that I would have to have in place to support this. I'd just like to ask the city attorney to weigh in on what the procedure is. I know we have to turn this around quickly, but this is just a first step. And if if Mr. Barkan can elaborate on what he brings back next week and and how we get a second vote on this. Mr. Mayor and members of the city council, if directed this evening, it would be our intention to have something back on the agenda for you next week for first reading. Tonight's motion takes a majority of the council five votes. But in order to put this item on the ballot, you would need six votes from the city council next week for first reading and then the following week all ordinances. For the ballot under the. Election code or urgency ordinances. So we would have a first reading next week and then we always do the city does. A second reading on March 1st. So there will be two more opportunities for the Council to. Look at this item. But it's our. Intention to bring it all back to you next Tuesday. Okay. Thank you. That's that's a perfect explanation. Also, before we get into the weeds on the formation of the committee, I think that general purpose is that and what my constituents have told me, they want the money to be spent on infrastructure and public safety. And that's the whole job of the oversight committee to to look after that. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. So I just had a couple clarifying questions just regarding. The the accounting and how it is that we track the money. So perhaps staff could assist me with with these questions. How does the the money from the sales tax increase get tracked in regards to our general fund? I know it gets put back into the general fund, but we're going to continue to be a city and do all the things that we do as a city, purchase new vehicles, go through labor contracts, do all the things that we would normally do with the budget that we have. So how do we get to a place where the money that is coming in from a proposed increase is tracked separately to make sure that it's not spent on things such as raises, you know, new fleet vehicles, equipment, etc.. Our finance. Director and deputy director John GROSS and Lynn Erickson. Will handle those questions. Thank you. I'll try to answer that. The you're correct. The money will likely come in to the general fund. We will identify it as separately, so we will be able to know to the penny how much money has come in tracking for infrastructure? We should be able to easily track that money. We always track all infrastructure projects. To give you an example of where it becomes a little more problematic, but I don't think it's going to be a serious problem, is let's say that we use the money and council approves money to hire more police officers, for example, which ten police officers? Let's say it's ten police officers. You could pick any number you want. Those police officers, maybe they go on vacation. Maybe there's someone who eventually leaves and we replace that person in time. That becomes a tracking issue. I've done that issue before. We've had where I came from previously. We had a ballot question that did a similar thing and we used various methods to track it that met audit requirements. And that's what we would do in this case. And I think the direction from council is to report that to the citizens group and we we would it's not going to be an exact accounting methodology because it's technically impossible to do that. But there are other methods that will track that we will use probably. h.R. Our data depends on what what council wants that money used for, but it certainly is a solvable problem and we will solve it and it will be reviewed by the citizens committee as well as our auditors. Because, you know, I'm thinking down the road here and, you know, we're going to continue to do things that we do as a city. And what I don't want is the appearance that any sort of new tax revenue is being used to augment the functions of the city that weren't behind the intent of the the that the sales tax measure. So, for example, I don't want residents to say, oh, you know, police department has, you know, this well, that's probably a bad example because that's public safety. Let's say, you know, Parks and Rec has a new vehicle that they're using that's really fancy and top notch. And we didn't really need that. They probably used our tax dollars to purchase that. Or, you know, this this new labor contract was approved there, probably used our tax dollars to do that. So I want to make sure that there is a mechanism in place to be able to assure the residents that that's not what happened, that that that the business of being a city is going to continue regardless of any sort of measure. And we'll be able to do that. Yes. Okay. And then the other question I had is, have we given any thought to what the plan will be in ten years in regards to any structural obligations that we've taken on in regards to public safety funding, let's say? In. I think what you're referring to is we're talking about a temporary tax that will sunset in ten years and automatically go away. And I think the key issue in looking at that is that this city has always had a structural budget that makes it a a point to for council to but but has to balance the budget every year and structurally balance it every year. I think we would continue to do that and council would continue to do that as we get towards if we're spent all the money, for example, if it's spent on infrastructure, it's not a not an issue. If it's spent on other things that is ongoing, then I would expect that council, as it always does, will be looking at the budget situation as we get towards that. See, have revenues gone up enough to cover that it will be a year by year basis that council will have to look at as we have done in the past. And of course, as we get close to that, that end of that ten year period, 2 to 3 years out, we could start really looking at the budget and determining whether or not, for example. Seats that employment positions that are maybe going to be open as a result of retirements maybe don't get filled or things of that nature in order to make sure that we're not in a position at the end of the ten year mark where we're we're faced with a problem budgetary gap in regards to having to cover positions that we have filled. That is correct. And it could be that revenues will go up. It could be revenues will go down. We just don't know. But, yes, just looking at it, as you've described, for whatever solutions there are available will be what we will have to do. Even if it means possibly having to go down a number of public safety officers in terms of not filling positions in order to make sure we're not overbudget. I'm it's whatever council will decide to do with the budget. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Councilmember Ranga. Thank you, Mayor. Excuse me. I am really pleased that we included incorporated in there a oversight committee. When I was a trustee at City College, we had a similar bond measure go to before before the public, and it was overwhelmingly accepted. And I think one of the one of the the benefits of that was that it had an oversight component to it, where citizens could look at the projects and either recommend pursuing that project, continuing it, or looking at it another way. I really do believe that we need that kind of participation from our community in terms of looking at that. I also very pleased at the fact that there's going to be a sunset on this. But the challenge with the sunset will be those that are somewhat referred to by a councilmember price is that if we start incorporating or using some of these towards salaries or towards building positions, that we might put ourselves in a in a hold sort of speak in respect to now that we have these additional employees, who what are we going to do with them when the tax goes away? So it's going to take a lot of close monitoring. Obviously, we're going to have to really be prudent in how we expand those funds. It would be also it would behoove the council to look at the progress we are making with with these monies in regards to making a significant impact on our infrastructure and making an impact on re constructing or reinstituting some of our police and fire services back into back into service. It would be my expectation that after six years it goes to it goes down by a point, half a percentage point by. And that would also give us the additional four years of being able to plan ahead. Now being able to look at where we're at and then being able to adapt once we reach that that point in time when we have to solely, you know, cut that cut that out in terms of depending on it as a budget resource. So I like the red like the plan, I like the the component, the oversight and the fact that it does have a sunset. And I will be supporting this on this recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to communicate my support for this item and thank Council member Austin for bringing it forward. Thank you. Council member Andrews. Yes, I would like to close sentence for my vice mayor because I think this is a great solution to get our additional police officers and, you know, off the streets and more fire response like a fireman and emergency services. Well, and you know, and especially dealing with the infrastructure, because a lot of the individuals that live in our district think that infrastructure comes once every five years. But I think with the with the tax increase of this type will help us all know that we can get these things done before that cycle comes around. So I think Council Austin and the mayor bringing this up and I totally would support it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. I want to thank Councilman Austin for bringing this forward as well. I didn't have too many questions, just more comments. And, you know, I know it's been decades since we've conducted a ballot initiative such as this. And I know that with the growing need for infrastructure, all of us have received plenty of calls on alley repairs and in streets and sidewalks. And we do need more police officers and paramedic units out there. And so I think this is just one small part in which each of us can play to be able to contribute to the greater benefit for for our city. I think we certainly deserve it. I know this is a little bit scary for some people, but I think that this is something that the you know, we're looking at and and taking, you know, a very cautious approach. And I believe the first I was kind of taken aback by the Citizen Advisory Committee, not really understanding exactly what it would do. But I am looking forward to hearing more from our city attorney next week and all that will entail. And also, I definitely know our city auditor will be very involved in the process and I certainly respect her expertize. So I look forward to more information. Thank you. Thank you. Before we turn over to any public comment, I'm just going to make a few comments on on the on this item as well. I want to just start off by thanking Councilmember Austin and the others who have signed on to support this. This is a very big step. It's an important step to give voters the choice. And this is really about voter choice and giving them the opportunity to invest in their future and in their city. I especially want to thank Mayor Bob Baxter and Mayor Beverly O'Neill for joining me in supporting and proposing this measure for a citywide vote and conversation. I think that if you think about the two decades of leadership that both Mayor Foster and Mayor O'Neill have witnessed and led, I think you see a time in our in our history where there was always a need. I think they both recognized that the need existed when they were here, and they recognize that the need still exists today. They also understand, like I do, that every single day that we don't invest in our infrastructure. It gets more expensive the following day. And the more that we continue to put aside the important investments that we need to make in our public safety officials, firefighters and police officers, the more dangerous our community could become. And so I really appreciate and I want to thank this council for taking this issue to the voters. I also want to note that I think it's very important to reinforce I'll say it today, I said it in the past and will continue to say it. The intention of this measure and this measure is to fund two key areas. One is to make a historic investment in our city's aging infrastructure. And two is to ensure that we maintain and support our police officers and our firefighters that are out there every single day in very tight budget situations. And there's no question that we need to support those two organizations. I've also publicly said that I believe our top two. Initial restorations need to be. The engine in Belmont Shore and the restoration of South Division for a police department. And as we know, this isn't a geography issue. It's an issue when we handle both those. The entire city system on both the fire side and the police side become stronger and become safer for all of our all of our residents. There are no question that there are other restorations that are important. There are no question that there are other needs in those. But those are my two initial top priorities as presented to to the Council. I will also just note that this is going to really transform our city when it comes when it comes to construction and rebuilding our streets, sidewalks, alleys across the city. And it's going to be a very exciting time for the city if voters decide to support this. And really what is what will end up being to voters the cost on a on a monthly basis, the cost of a Starbucks coffee? That will be the cost of this of this increase. And so I want to I want to thank you for bringing this for bringing this forward. I think it's a great investment in in the city. And as a reminder, as mayor, I know it's also my responsibility to present the budget to the council. It's a it's then the council's responsibility to adopt it. And you can take it to the bank that I as this budget will be presented if this measure passes with a focus on those two items, infrastructure and public safety. So thank you. And with that, any public comment, please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and City Councilor Gary Shelton, 240 Chestnut Avenue. I'm here sort of speaking on behalf of folks like myself who can't afford a Starbucks coffee. One thing that I can say that I haven't heard this evening is any clue as to the amount that this one penny is going to amount to over a year's time, let's say. I don't know and my friends don't know. Are we talking about $38,000 or are we talking about $38 million? Somewhere in between, somewhere above or less? I want to also say that you're missing politically a tremendous opportunity here to avoid sending this out to the public with a yes or no up or down vote . There are other ways and yet friendly amendment tonight to the writers of this to bring it back to you. You know, they're going to have to have this ready by Friday to get it out to us next week. So they might as well do a little bit more work between now and Friday. You have another way to go. What we're dealing with here is the folks who can't afford that Starbucks coffee have somewhere around 600 to 1200 dollars, maybe a month, in expendable funds left over after they pay their needed payments, rent, so forth. Every single dollar of that is taxed in sales tax. We spend all our money on sales tax. That's what's called a regressive tax. That's exactly what sales taxes are. We have nothing left over that is not taxed at that 10%, which is what you want to have on on on our tax roll. So what that means is that you're trying to balance the gap in this budget, not to say that you don't need the public safety funding and the street repair funding, but you're trying to balance the need for that on the backs of the folks who can't afford to pay it. That's what I'm trying to get to you. So what do you do? You ask a city attorney to come up with some second alternative that is not a regressive tax. I don't know what it would be. I don't know what it would really be a humanistic increase in the uut that would still let folks like me, senior citizens, get some of that money back. I don't know if it might be a luxury tax on perfumes and yachts that are sold here in Long Beach. I don't know what it would be. It's not my job to know what it would be. It's my job to stand here and tell you that a regressive tax can be voted down as soon as the people understand that the poor folks are the ones that are going to be paying it. Again. We don't even know how much tax it is. I can't go out and get a Starbucks coffee unless somebody gives me a gift card. So to say that that's all it's going to cost me, it goes right over my head. I'm sorry, but come up with an alternative way and they got the wise nurse there to do it so that it's not simply an up or down vote, but you'll still get somehow the money you need to close that gap. Thank you very much. Next me, Will. Yes. Joe Sopel You have a name on file, Mr. Mayor. City Council Member Staff You as a council are going to want to sell this. The Republic of course you want. You want it to pass. A lot of things that were said here tonight were very good. I would like to. Add on this. Price to your friendly amendment. Not exactly sure how to say this, but in ten years you're not going to be here in ten years. I will. And this temporary tax will still be here. Besides watching how this money is spent, we also have to watch how to replace it. Because in what, six years it's going to drop down to a half a percent. Well, you have to get some kind of mechanism going to replace whatever amount this 1% of the tax will be. And then the next four years, if we're going is going to have a sunset clause, we have to replace that half a percent . So sitting up here, being public. When when politicians talk about a tax that has since a sunset clause in it. That's hard to believe. But I believe you. But we have to find some way to replace it, not just say, Oh, it's going to be gone. Public safety is going to cost less money. Officers are going to be there's going to has to be more officers. In ten years, won't crime increase? I hope not. But it will. So putting a sunset clause on this. Maybe we should start telling the truth. Truth? Either there's no sunset clause on it and let this tax live or die with the truth. Or create something that's going to replace this percent. You know, we as a real estate agent, we're always marketing ourselves. We want you to call us. So we have to. Talk about how great we are, what we do different, or. Why call us. The City Council needs to start telling the citizens of Long Beach shop this shop. Long Beach shop, Long Beach shop Long Beach. I don't hear that. And it's not going to. Take a big budget to do that because. You reach out. You get a bill in the mail. There's a lot of ways you reach us. You got to keep saying that. It's to our benefit to shop Long Beach. But I don't hear it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Sopo. Next speaker, please. John Deeds again. Don't know who the famous man was, but somebody said the pathway to hell is lined with good intentions. And that's all your measure has, is intentions. No guarantees whatsoever. The only guarantee is that of a tax increase should this pass. Secondly. Business friendly, which you'd want us to leave. You are begins with being consumer friendly. This is not consumer friendly. This makes Long Beach businesses and it puts them at a disadvantage. I can easily see that people will take their money and spend it outside of Long Beach. They'll go to Signal Hill to go to Lakewood. Lago to Cerritos. Just to say 1%. Or after you get 2% out of shape with Orange County, they'll go to SEAL Beach, Los Al Garden Grove, Westminster can very easily. Rule of unintended consequences. This thing might actually wind up costing you money. I can count well past five. I know you're going to be unanimous in putting this on the ballot, but above and beyond that, and someone along the lines of what Gary Shelton was talking about, I see this as nothing less than an open declaration of war on senior citizens and retirees. You may think that the Great Recession is over. It's not for us. The only person behind that real that has any age on me is Dee. You've got one year on me. And I can tell you from my perspective. People are trying to live on fixed incomes and retirement. The purchasing power of our dollars is declining at right about 10% a year. And we have no hope of any significant increases whatsoever. I'll share something personal. I'm very heavily invested in California municipal bonds. I used to have a bunch of bonds, real fat coupon rates, some as high as six and a half, 7%. All those bonds have been called. I have to struggle to get two and a half percent on tax free bonds now. Where is the money supposed to come from for senior citizens to pay for this? I would anticipate that every senior citizen with a car and half a brain will take their money outside of Long Beach and spend it where their body will go it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes. Larry Bolen, another senior citizen, back again. Folks, any of us who have ever taken a class in economics knows that this is a regressive tax. And I and I cannot believe the number of you who I know care about poor people, about the seniors, would actually, rather than look within the city for cost savings, go outside and make a regressive tax on the very people you're trying to protect. I just told you about my $17,000 a year tax because of my and my insurance. We have the food, the minimum wage we're having. This is a regressive tax. Look, folks, we pay as a city $18 million a year more to predominantly fire and police for a overtime. System that does not meet federal standards. You know about that, right? That consultant said there's 18 million. Why don't we take that 18 million at four or five years, five or 6% a year, and reduce our firefighters and police back to what other firefighters and police make instead of having overtime start, then minute the seconds that they go over there shift. 18 million a year. How about looking at the ambulance service, going to private ambulance service revenue after the service handles 3 million people in the county of L.A. and you look at all the the taxes both fixed and and non fixed for the ambulances. Do you know that we have 23 fire stations, non-medical fire calls for about 8500. Last statistics I saw. Divide 8500 by 365. You know what you get 23. That means our fire stations right now going to fires have one call per station per a 24 hour period. For non-medical calls. Why don't we just have the county take care of it? We're out of the fire business, folks. We can save four or $5 million there and reinvest that money in new paramedic vans. More paramedics take the paramedics that are on those fire engines. You get them off the fire engines into a paramedic under the health department. However, have the medical people run the paramedics. But what, you never brought up any cost savings from here? And I know we have council members who have said that you will not be in favor of cost savings if it means you lose jobs. Well, we're not a full employment society. The Soviet Union was there, gone. Former Union of Soviet socialist republics had full employment. We don't use the last time I looked. We didn't. Thank you very much. Thank you. Bad idea. Next speaker, please. This are your last speaker. Looks like Mr.. Good to you. Very good. You, Kirk, as he addressed a number of items. First of all, I think to demonstrate good faith, what you should do with them pledge for the rest of your term. That you will spend no dollars whatsoever traveling. Period. You will Skype. That's it. Number two, work in conjunction with the city auditor and go back to all of the properties that you gave away willy nilly. Through redevelopment. Look at it and then go back intact. I would call it an ops tax. Folks, we made a mistake. We gave it to you a little too low. So here's what you really owe us and collect that way. See what happens there. The second thing to consider is reducing the size of the council. Cut it down and eliminate a full time mayor. If we're in that dire situation, and I really believe we are. And we've been I've been coming to these meetings since off and on since 1977. And we always have these problems. Period. So somebody has got to step up to the plate. And I would suggest, again, you go to the city auditor. Let her take a look at the list that you handed out. And I even, quite frankly, go back to those two pieces of property that Bob Foster gave away, the one awesome piece of property that nobody , nobody wanted. And before the ink was dried, Tom Dean made a million bucks on it. And then two months later, they discovered it had a sibling. Must have been but ugly because it only one for $0.08 an acre. And you sold the American Hotel. For $1. $1. I'll always remember that because that was at the same time that. The Secret Service. Trying to chip away at the ladies of Cartagena. And they were hadn't such enough businesspeople to hold out for their price yet. Long Beach did $1 for a piece of property that's a 42nd Walkman. First plate for an. Ocean Boulevard. So again, the most strict the most stringent recommendation would be go back with the city auditor, review all of those. Properties. See what can be done about going back and doing a mea culpa. We made a mistake. Go forward. Thank you. The last the last thing would be. Don't have a tax. Rather have it a voluntary tax. People want to pay when they go up. See what happens. You never know. Thank you. That concludes public comment. We're going to go to a vote. Just one clarifying question, Mister City Attorney. I know that I think there's a question was brought up, but the actual item today clarifies that this is a six year, 1%, four year half, and then it's over. And the council cannot extend that. The only group that could ever extend anything beyond a sunset would be the voters themselves. So it's a ten year temporary period. That's my understanding. Absolutely. Would be will require a vote of the people to do anything after the ten year period. Okay. Thank you. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote. I smell a long bow. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Madam Kirk. Next item, please. Item number one, the hearing. This hearing requires an oath. A report from financial management. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of APA Long Beach to 93 Days Avenue for entertainment with dancing operating as a Hall Rental District two.