Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to negotiate an agreement with the City of Bellflower to undertake a traffic study at the intersection of Downey Avenue and 64th Street in the City of Bellflower for the purpose of determining if installation of a traffic control device at that intersection is warranted.  If said traffic control device is deemed appropriate at this location, authorize the expenditure of $175,000 in 9th District Discretionary Infrastructure Funds and an additional expenditure of up to $75,000 in general fund money for construction of the traffic control device.
Item 38 is a report from Councilmember Councilmember Richardson recommendation to authorize city manager to negotiate an agreement with the City of Bellflower to undertake a traffic study at the intersection of Downey Avenue and 64th Street in the City of Bellflower for the purpose for the purchase of determining if installation of a traffic control device at that intersection is warranted. Okay, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I wanted to first thank our residents for hanging out this late. We have represented representatives from the Ramona Park neighborhood and the St Francis and Andy Street neighborhoods. So the Downey Avenue and 64th Street intersection has been a common problem and complaint in the ninth District for a number of years. The most common complaint is the speeding along Downey Avenue due to due to no traffic signals along the no slow, you know, traffic measures between Artesia and South Street, which is a long stretch. And so another complaint is the inability to turn onto Downey from 64th due to low visibility on the street. And again, the need to pick up speed very quickly due to the speed of oncoming traffic. And while the area on the on one side of the street is Downey is the city of Bellflower. On the other side of the street is in Long Beach, and its residents of Long Beach are where, you know, they heavily use this intersection. So this isn't this isn't new or unique to our district. Our district borders, Lakewood, Bellflower, Paramount, Compton, Rancho Dominguez. We board are five agencies, and we commonly have issues across across boundaries and borders of those agencies. For example, when El Camino College, Compton Center, when they went to construction, it impacted our residents because on the other side of the border was a college. It was no residents there. So we came to the we were nimble enough to bring it to city council, create a new ordinance, a temporary construction related preferential parking ordinance to mitigate those impacts. And there are examples across all different corners of our our our borders when sometimes, you know, the cities don't get along so well and the cities may not communicate very well, such as this experience. The city has tried unsuccessfully to work with the City of Bellflower for coming up on maybe a year now to address the issues of speeding. So now we're at a point where we've asked our city manager to speak out and to engage the residents and the city manager in Bellflower and the City of Bellflower about a study. And so they've they've brought us to a point where we have to we have to bring it to city council to make sure that we give them we prepare the the city manager with the ability and authority to go in, negotiate a traffic study. Now, I'm going to ask the city manager to chime in on some of these discussions with the City of Bellflower. But my it's my understanding that City of Bellflower has outright said if the study will allow the study, but if the study comes back that indeed you need a traffic signal, we're not going to put anything we're going to require the city of Long Beach to pay every dollar of this. So that said, that prompted a couple of questions for me before I place this on the city council agenda. The first question it prompted, which is, was, have we ever engaged in signal agreements with other agencies, other border cities? And the answer was yes. We're engaged in a number of signal discussions, signal agreements with a number of bordering cities. Secondly, what's the cost to install such a signal? So that's been vetted out and it could be a range between 175000 to 250000. The last thing the last thing I would want to do is bring in a recommendation, the city council that was unfunded. So we've identified $275,000 from our District nine infrastructure funds to in case a signal is warranted. We can fund that if it is on the higher end up to 250,000. I would imagine that this is going to come back during the budget cycle so we can identify additional funds to make sure that this is funded in FY16. Given that it's going to take us a while to finish the study and we're going to be well into the budget discussion then. So that said, my motion is to accept the motion as written, but where it says funds fund an additional expenditure of up to $75,000 in general, fund money for construction of the traffic control device. I want to make sure that I clarify that we're willing to pay 175,000 from District nine infrastructure funds and requesting that if there's additional funds are needed, that those be considered within the 516 funds, traffic CIP funds available. So that would be my motion. But there's a motion and a second. Oh, and I want to hear from city manager, too. There's been emotion and a second. Mr. West, do you want to comment on Councilor Richardson's comments? Mayor Councilmembers I just want to. Reiterate what the councilman said. The City of Bellflower has indeed said. That they. Will allow a traffic study to be made. And if that traffic study shows that there's a need for a traffic signal, they will require us to build a traffic signal. They will split some of the costs in maintaining the traffic signal. And there's certainly you know, it's up to the city attorney to advise us on what a liability issue would be. We haven't had time to look at that. Okay. Any member do we want to take members of the public first or come from Boston to join in? Because two members of the public, if you want to come speak on this, please come down and identify yourself for the record. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Phil, so I'm here. 35, 18 lira. I live next to Downey Avenue. Downey Avenue. Between the two signals. That Councilman Richardson's talking about is. Approximately, I'd say, in regular city blocks, probably about ten, 12 blocks. Long. So there's quite a distance and. Both the city of Long Beach and the city of Bellflower. Often the police departments got to the point where they have radar stops on that particular street because of the the speeding on that particular street. It's I've lived there for a number of years, and the traffic has increased quite a bit, primarily at the south end of that because of commercial development in the northern part, three quarters is residential and. The last part is commercial and. It's also used primarily by one of the commercial things at the South End is Lakewood Regional Hospital. And we get a lot of traffic going down there for the city of Compton uses Lakewood Regional Hospital as their for their emergency services. I hear sirens all the time. Coming down there. It do. There's a market actually at the intersection that we're talking about. And many times when you come down down the avenue, you will find people trying to cross the street there. And it's very common to see that they're trying to dart between cars. And there has been problems with accidents further down where I live, we do have a problem getting on to down the avenue because of the traffic there and you kind of take your life in your own hands to get onto that street. So. And those are for those reasons, I think we really need to address that street, you know, traffic control and that particular street for those issues. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I have lived in the ninth district for 42 years and right off of Downey Avenue numerous times I've heard accidents. Even just the short distance that I'm away, we measured Downey Avenue between Artesia and South, and it's a mile. I have seen where Bellflower, the city of Bellflower, put a speed limit sign of 40 miles an hour, and you go barely one block and into Long Beach. And it's changed to 35 and they just don't recognize it. I personally have had an accident at that intersection just a year and a half ago. There was another one where an ambulance was tipped over, but somebody trying to come out on Tony Avenue. So I'd really appreciate anything that the city can do to help control our speed on that particular street. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Members of the council. My name is Laverne Duncan. I represent the Andy Street Association and I'm here this evening. First, I want to say that I came downtown from up in North Long Beach because I feel that if we just send our comments in, we can't see how you're reacting to what we're saying . So I really appreciate the fact that you guys listen and hear what we have to say. I represent a lot of residents that may not necessarily come downtown or may not have a voice yet. And that's the voice I want to bring here tonight in support of this agenda item. Our council member attends all of our association meetings. We cross, attend each other's meetings. And this particular problem has come up many times in the last couple of years, especially. We now have a WinCo that's in Lakewood, actually, but it's on the corner of South and Downey, and that has increased the traffic tremendously because people come from all over to go to WinCo from other cities. And so we have a tremendous amount of traffic. We have kids that come from Collins that get off the bus. And because there are no traffic lights and any traffic crossings, there is that major potential for kids to be harmed. So I'm a youth advocate as well as for the elderly in our area. We really, really need some type of traffic signal because that's a very long stretch and people just continue to speed down that freeway and that makes it harmful for everyone. I just want to encourage all of you to take a take a ride up there and see exactly what it looks like. I know some of you, especially your new members, are very much data oriented. I appreciate that. But take a look at what we're doing. I know our mayor knows what I'm talking about because he's been a great supporter of of of Andy Street and what we've done. So I just want to encourage you guys to please, please support this, because there is a human cost, not just dollars and cents. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Dale Utterback, the Ramona Park Homeowners Association. I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for doggedly pursuing this. For the last three years, I've been in the resident of the area for five years and I've seen the small business on the corner. It's a. Market there. Wall has been destroyed three times. There's actually I believe there was a fatality of a pedestrian at that intersection. I'll just echo what my. Fellow participant said. We need to slow it down. It's a safety issue. Thank you. Thank you. Now I have Councilmember Austin. Thank you. And I do appreciate, first of all, Councilmember Richardson for bringing this forward. Pedestrian traffic safety is a very important role for this council and for the city. Safety for residents is is our primary responsibility, I think. And I appreciate the residents for coming down and adding a human touch to this this this item I did. The thing that I'm going to support this, number one, because, you know, Councilmember Richardson is putting forth and contributing a significant amount of resources from his own discretionary infrastructure funds that are limited to this and to to this particular community, which he should be commended for. You know, that money could go toward fixing sidewalks or, you know, getting new treat new streets. But he's he's committed it to the to the Ramona Park Andy Street communities for for safer pedestrian and vehicular traffic. But I'm concerned about the the the sheer cost or the lack thereof from the city of Bellflower. And, you know, it would be really great to see the residents in that city who are just across the Downey Avenue organize the way these residents are due to go to their city council and demand the same. You know, because I think there is there should be a shared responsibility. And I think Councilmember Bridget Richardson raises some some significant issues in terms of border cities and, you know, our shared responsibility. So with that, I had a few questions, but I'm going to leave that alone for now and support this item and urge my council colleagues to do so as well. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you. I also just had questions for the city manager. I want to thank you first for bringing this up because I know sometimes we have to do what we have to do in order to make sure that safety is the first and main concern. But what is the city of Belfast? And perhaps this was mentioned when I left, but what is their take on all of this and their stance? And why aren't they involved? In discussing with the city manager. He didn't feel there was enough of a need at his level to initiate this, and that could have been represented that maybe Bellflower doesn't have the the quarter million dollars to build a traffic signal to. Sure. But but certainly he made it very clear that they were not interested in helping to fund this. Okay. Thank you. By Mary Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to. And I'm sorry if this question was already asked of the city attorney. In terms of liability, I have a limited understanding of what conducting a traffic study would do in terms of where it places us on the liability spectrum. If we can if we conducted the traffic study and installed the traffic light. The Vice Mayor The way I. Understand the amended motion is that the City of Bellflower would be requiring us to conduct the traffic study in a maybe shared or not shared cost. I'm not clear. And then if the traffic study indicates that a traffic signal needs to be installed at that location, the city of Long Beach would have to fund that. And that, I believe, is the motion this evening. So if there was 175,000 and whatever the additional costs above 175, the city tonight would be approving our commitment to fund the entire requirement of the traffic study. And the reason I think Bellflower is requiring that is if the if we do it, they have knowledge of a traffic study that requires some sort of mitigation or traffic calming measure, and they don't do that. It could potentially expose them to liability while the city this isn't in the city of Long Beach, so there would be no liability to us. Mr. West, I have a question because I am wondering. It appears that there's probably been advocacy in the past for this intersection from the community or from the council. So I know it's been our practice that when there is advocacy on certain certain intersections, that we include those in our annual CHP book, and then we get those through the budget process. And I'm just wondering, is has this been on the on staff's radar? Is why is it not been in the past possibly allocated? And is there an intention for it to be included in the future? Is there any comment on that? Or maybe I don't know. Mr. MALONE If I can comment or if you can comment on that. I'm. You want to comment on that? Absolutely. We need. To visualize. This intersection that, you know, there's a map that was submitted. But basically this intersection, 75% of it is in City of Bellflower. Only 25% is in City of Long Beach. We cannot initiate a city project in another city unless the council direct us. So. So you're saying that that 75% of the project is in the city of Bellflower. Okay. I think for from traffic purposes, there are four legs to this intersection. And if you can see the city boundary line, which is basically at the curve face of westerly side of. The street. There's only. Let me look at this. 64th Street is the only street that it's in city of Long Beach. So the entire Downey Avenue is in City of Bellflower. The. That's at the bottom corner. Mr. Maloney, you're essentially saying that in the past it appears that there's maybe been some discussions about this intersection, but because a portion of it is in another city, we couldn't add it to our side people. Correct. But I'm under the assumption that. So we couldn't even in the past have added a traffic study in through the CIPA process or through the general budgeting process, or has that ever been considered? I just want to make it clear that if to do a traffic study, Vellfire is requiring us to build the signal that the traffic study says there is going to be a signal signals necessary. I mean. That seems be very honest, just completely unreasonable. So we wouldn't initiate that on our own without knowing that the city council's ready to fund the quarter million dollars. And I'll also just say, regardless of what happens tonight, that I'm more than happy to have a conversation with the mayor, you know, tomorrow or the next day. Because if it's if at the management level or not, it's not you know, it's I would think that the elected officials would be a little bit more open to hopefully working with us. It seems completely unreasonable that this community is not able is suffering because of an issue that is being. Kind of stopped because of another city. And just just to add to that, Mr. Mayor, and I want to be clear, like, I don't want to have to spend hours Long Beach money in a different city if we don't have to. I want to like the city staff has indicated to me they're stuck at a place where they can't continue negotiate until we give them some direction and appropriate the money. I think they've set the range 175 to 250. I'm willing to put up our 175 so that they can continue to negotiate and that we're in a position to that we should commit to building it. So that they they don't have to come back to us and keep checking in about this awkward situation. And you're absolutely right. It's been unreasonable. There's been outreach to the residents on that site. On one side is single family homes and the other side is apartments. And it's more difficult to engage them to engage their their council representatives. There's been outreach to the council and there's been numerous discussions, staff to staff, and I've had discussions with council members as well as the city manager when I was chief of staff. So some of these, again, we border Lakewood, Bellflower, Paramount, just around this area. If you go to more blocks now on both sides of the street or in Long Beach, so it's literally just awkward intersection that we can't we can't study. And we're stuck in this place until we give them some direction. And that's my understanding. And I wouldn't have brought this the city council, because I feel I personally my position was that our one time dollars could have been used on a study because there's a nexus on that area. But they're at a place where they need direction, right. They need to bring it to the city council in order to continue this fight. Okay. Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, I completely understand the advocacy on behalf of the residents in the community. And and I'm glad for the question regarding the capital improvement project and understanding which corner belongs to us and and the other city. I think from a from a precedent standpoint, I struggle with this because it is applying general fund dollars toward. A project that's in some part not in our city, regardless of the benefit. And in those situations I'm looking to Mr. the city manager. I have observed circumstances where the COG or some other regional agency would step in and and offer some opportunity to conduct perhaps not a traffic study, but there have been other circumstances where it's multi-jurisdictional. Maybe just two jurisdictions are involved where it's not one city that's on the hook for the resources. Have you observed that in recent memory? A For a. Traffic signal, an entity like the Gateway Cities Council of Government would not get involved. They wouldn't look at this as a regional issue, and they certainly don't want to get involved. Between a scuffle between two municipalities, unless it's a regional issue. So I think this is probably the. The. Best advocacy that I'm hearing would be for the mayor to reach out to the mayor of Bellflower and see if, indeed the elected officials feel that way. And I would agree with that approach as well. I, I want this to be resolved for our residents. It becomes a very, very. Undesirable precedent setting standard, and one that I don't believe this council should be willing to exercise because then it it obviates the responsibility from other jurisdictions. And I struggle with that. We have similar issues for services such as language transit. They have they go beyond the city of Long Beach, even if they want a bus stop in a particular location outside of the city of Long Beach. And we would want to fund it. We don't fund it because that's that's a bad precedent. And the when lobby transit goes outside the city, that. City funds everything for for Long Beach Transit. Absolutely. And the and the benefit isn't just to the residents of that city or our city, but there is a mutual benefit there. And in keeping with that spirit, I'd like to support that effort. I'd like to support the mayor's reaching out to the council members and, and going forward. Mr.. Mr.. MALLOY And even if the project is only a certain percentage in the city of Long Beach, could you not include in your cap consideration when you bring it forward to council a notation or a request that there is there is an interest because my interest would be to make sure that we keep in line with how we budget and and make sure that we come through a budget process and that these requests are considered with the larger context, within the larger context of our entire budget. And so if there's a mechanism to do that going forward, that's something we would look at. I still do not support funding this from General Fund. My first option would be to go through the route that the mayor suggested. Let me make a comment to go out to Councilman Richardson. So I just want to make also very clear, I think, Councilman, what you're doing because is the right thing. I mean, you're you've hit a wall. These neighborhoods these neighborhoods need relief here. And so we're try to come up with a solution. Just to Mr. West, I would think that moving forward also, I understand there was a roadblock in the budget book that you'd council approval. But this would be I would I would think that regardless of whether part of it's in Bellflower or not, we have a responsibility to still try to fix the problem. And so I would think that in through the budget cycle or moving forward, if there's issues like this arise, I think those could be brought to us through the budget cycle and let us know, by the way, this is an important intersection. We've got it. We need a light. But if we, you know, we need additional approval because part of its in Bellflower or what have you and I think I think the council would probably you know, we don't know yet, but it sounds like that's something that we would be very, very supportive of. So I, I'm not sure where everyone's at on this. I'd be happy to have some additional conversations, but I think this issue has got to get resolved. And clearly this intersections are a problem for us. Councilman Richardson. Thank you. So. So a couple of things. So I want to thank you for your suggestion or your your your offer to reach out. And I would hope that I would want to include that as a part of this. But secondly, I want to just chime in on the precedent. So, Mr. City Attorney, are we engaged in any any agreements with other cities about signals? As a question. Have we done that in the past? And we have done that in the past. Okay. Can you give an example? Well, the example that I'm aware of is at the on Carson Avenue, when we built the town center, we reached an agreement, I believe, with the city of wine gardens, but not I'm not sure if we've agreed to build a signal 100% of it for any city. So so for me, what this is, is it they've been very clear with us that you cannot conduct this study. We don't know if that even warrants a signal. You will not do this study unless you commit. You are prepared to build this signal because we have no will to do it. So what I'm saying is I'm willing to put up our our my district nine resources. If it if that is tapped out, then bring it back in the context of the CERP, the traffic CIP in the next budget, which is in line with what Vice Mayor Lawndale said. But I want to give them I want to give you the ability to go negotiate. I want to give the the city manager the ability to go negotiate and let's get this done so we don't have to come back at every incremental point in this. So that's it. I mean, I want to continue the main motion. I think that I think that we can accomplish what I think we want to. I don't know if I need to say it because it sounds like you're going to do it anyway, which is good. Do you need me to put that in the motion for you to engage the city? I think I'm going to I'm going to talk to Mr. West and we're going to, you know, okay. Think about it. And just to be clear, if you don't have to spend our general fund dollars, don't. But I just after going through this for 2 to 3 years, I know what was at the bottom. You know, at the end of the day, this is going to be on us to do that. Just to clarify, Councilmember, I think are you asking that that that this item be considered through the CIP general fund budgeting process access? Yeah. If if 175 doesn't get us there. The rest of the rest the rest would be done through yet through the separate. Three CFP budget process. Well that is the general fund. That's what they mean by general fund. No, Mr. City attorney wants to chime in and then I'm going to go to Vice Mayor Lewis. I want to clarify my motion. Yes. If if for some reason that's not enough, then yes, it would go through our CFP process. And I had that conversation with the city manager about what would that look like? You know, how long would that take, considering we're not asking for a quarter million dollar signal after 175 hours spent , we're talking about, you know, whatever the gap is, 25,000, 50,000, 75,000. So that was just I just wanted to clarify that. That's my intent. Okay. Mr. City Attorney. My point or. Clarification for the council members motion is that at that point there'll be there'll be no obligating, there'll be no opportunity for the city council to say no. The only thing you would be doing at that time is allocating finding where that additional money would come from. Tonight, as I understand, the maker's motion, you're committing to building whatever is required there. So the and I don't know where the estimates came from, but if it's $175,000, then you have completely funded the project. But if it isn't 125 or if it's more than 175,000, the city is going to be contractually obligated to pay that difference . And what would come back to you is whatever that difference was, is where the council would like to take that money from. OC Vice Mayor Lowenthal. In fear of sounding redundant. Councilmember Richardson The 175, as stated in your agenda item, is coming from Discretionary Infrastructure Fund. Your motion tonight is not requesting any general fund support. Is that correct? Outside of adding it to the CHP for the next fiscal year, which is a process that I would support. But tonight tonight I want I. This will be a better question for the city manager, because they're the ones who brought it to me and said, we're stuck. This needs to go to city council. So I need to find out what action they need tonight. This recommendation, this motion was, you know, submitted and consulted over. If I want to make sure what we vote on tonight gives them what they need to go negotiate with Bellflower. So let me ask this. Mr.. Mr. West, Vice Mayor, if I may. So, Mr. West, how can we what's your suggestion to craft this in a way where where we can work together and come up with a solution, and so that this community knows we're moving forward on this and this issue. Mayor Councilmembers, again, this is a supplemental item. So it really came to us yesterday. So we've been noodling this since yesterday to try to come up with an opportunity where we would come up with an extra potentially up to $70,000. So going forward right now would lock us into spending the 0 to $70000 and do the the signal. So my conversation with the city manager of Bellflower was yesterday and again, I don't want to delay this or anything like that. But it would be nice to have a chance, a letter to the city, to the city. Manager, asking him for to take this to his city council. So that the city council looks at it or something. Because right now I'm just dealing with the city manager. I don't have the ethical opportunity to talk. To his council members. I can only talk to the council, to the city manager. So it stops at that level for me without sending a letter or something like that and raising it to that attention. Okay. Councilmember Austin. Yes. Thank you. And I do appreciate the the the robust conversation here. Again, Councilmember Richardson has has committed a significant amount of his discretionary infrastructure funds to set aside for this project, including a traffic study. And I'm not exactly clear what his original motion was, because it sounded like he had modified the with what is written here on the in the agenda item to say instead of coming from the general fund for construction that it would be B laid over for the CHP. The question I have regarding CHP, there is a priority list in terms of CHP projects that have already been approved. Is that correct? That's correct. All right. And so and if we were to approve this in this this the way it is laid out before us or has been presented in this motion, which I seconded, it would would that somehow leapfrog the did the list. Or will it put. Priority on this? Again, if the traffic study mandated a traffic signal, yes, we would be required to find the 0 to $70000, which would could leapfrog a list and or do something like that. But we would be required to bring to you a $70,000 solution during the fiscal year 16 budget. So. So if Councilmember Richardson were to to say and I want to get to a solution that that is that is responsible here today, fiscally and fairly for for all parties involved. If he were to instead of saying committing the CHP budget, instead say he's committing his infrastructure budget for for FY 15, would that would that would that be better or more? More, I guess, responsible way to to do this? I don't understand you for his thoughts. So instead of CHP it would be infrastructure dollars for future for future year for for ninth district. We we. Would. Given what the council's talked about, we would love to have the opportunity to sit down with our public works director, our traffic engineer, to look at other opportunities, maybe to backfill the general fund money and go for Prop C or some other funding source or gas tax money that would do a traffic signal. Look at the priorities of the traffic signals that are supposed to be funded this year and next year. And look at all that. That would be nice to have the time to do that. So. So council. Richardson would you be open to just using the or committing the $175,000 of your discretionary funds to fund this traffic study and committing that toward the the the the signal? And then if there's anything above that. That's my motion. It would come back in the C. But you're saying skip which, which, which. Is what we approve every year in the budget. I had a conversation today with Tom Modica, who indicated that there's one and a half million dollars that's already allocated this year. This would have to come in a subsequent year. Are you comfortable with that? Yes, Mr. Assistant City Manager, absolutely. And I know also that just saw this the other day. I've got an email from my chief of staff to our Malloy in agreeing on the motion, the recommendation. So this is a lot I mean, this is I'm really surprised that this has taken this. Turn what this this issue. And I think the only thing reason I bring this up is that the cap has been voted on. It's been approved that that list is approved every year. And there are, I'm sure, a number of our districts that that have traffic studies that need traffic signals. I know of three of mine that I'd like to get on that CLP list as well. I think this is this isn't because this traffic signal hasn't been and this isn't in the city of Long Beach, Holly. It hasn't been considered on that VIP list in the past. I think you're asking for for some consideration. But what I'm hearing is that it would it would take priority, you know, over other over other projects. Future years haven't been established yet. So this year is already budgeted. This will not knock any any of the of the traffic signals that are in that one and a half million dollar fund. None of those are impacted. So I know a lot of the council was was out of the room when I opened this up. But the first thing I said was, there are two things I took in consideration. And one of them was like, How will we pay? How will we pay for this? Is there a signal fund? I knew that this would be an issue where it would potentially be put lower down on the rail. That's why we committed our funds. And we're saying if there's anything additional, put it in line, take it to the CHP, put it in line for that, but make it an official project. Next, I have Councilman Mango. I want to say that I really appreciate the dialog. I think that what I'm hearing from Al is something that I really agree on, which is while I would it is an unsound fiscal practice to commit future dollars, especially from the AP. Right now, oil prices are very low and we're not sure what kind of one time moneys are going to come in. And the Budget Oversight Committee has a process to review each and every one of these. And so while I appreciate the dialog between you to what I'm hearing from Councilmember Richardson does not match what I'm hearing from city attorney parking, which is where I'm having a big challenge. And so until I have a resolution of that, I have to vote no because I'm uncomfortable committing general fund dollars outside of the budget process. And as my colleague said, frog jumping or lily pad in other projects that have been in the queue. I completely agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I also am very uncomfortable with this city taking on quote unquote unfunded mandates. This is us being given a mandate by another city stating that if we do work on behalf of our constituents, we are going to be stuck with the responsibility to pay for their traffic signal. If they were willing to put up their share of the traffic signal, of course we would want to partake in that. But my district borders several cities, Lakewood, Home and Gardens, Los Alamitos and more. And so in all of those areas, when those cities aren't willing to pay their share, that that's not acceptable. And I reach out to those councilmembers and I'm excited for the mayor to reach out. So I'm open to moving this to a future agenda item after the mayor and the city manager have been able to come back. You've been with this item for three years. Your commitment and dedication to the residents is appreciated. In the same way, I hear commitment and dedication to the projects that are already scheduled in our district and I'm sure and many others. And so thank you for bringing the item. And from what I'm hearing from City Attorney Parkin, this is a commitment of general fund dollars, whether it's next year or this year outside of the process Connex have. Councilor Richardson, did you have additional comments at this time because you're next queued up? So is the is the issue the gap between 175? And what the what the cost of signal is? Is that what is that? The discomfort that I'm hearing is that folks might think that this might stop an existing project in their district since this wasn't eligible to be factored into the CIPA discussion, does it not? And is that in general what it is? I and someone else jumped in. I think what I've heard from the counsel one is there's a there's a concern about something coming out of general fund dollars, not through the general budget process. And so I think we have an annual budget process we go through where those dollars are set aside. And I think that what I've heard is that there's some concern from some council members that this is outside that process. And then I think the other concern I heard is this idea of the other city having to pay or being or being part of paying a fair share of their portion of of that. I don't know if I missed anything else, but that's at least what I have heard so far. Okay. So what I would say is. My motion is $175,000. That does not impact anyone else's projects. If it's above that, it would come in within the budget process. Within the budget process, which means there is a need throughout the year. Departments all the time come across a need and established need and they factor that into their budget process. This would be adding to that list. There's a there's millions of dollars of projects on that list. And then if for some reason, you know, it factors into CERP and I'm five years out on the list that's on me to figure out what's my priority for the next if I want to move it up by using my my one time dollars in our district, because the priority that at least allows us to do that, we don't have any more red tape from Bellflower. My priority tonight is getting where we need to be, so we have a path forward entirely within the city, along beaches, wheelhouse. And so my motion, the motion that I set out, just to be clear, it's to get it entirely in our wheelhouse, give the city manager the ability to go, negotiate an agreement, be as aggressive as you need to. But we need to be prepared to move forward on this agreement. And yes, we border a bunch of different cities and these agreements, again, this is not precedent setting. We have these agreements in a number of cities. One of them was cited tonight and in Hawaiian Gardens. Okay. So just to I know that Mr. Parker, I wanted to wanted to chime in. And so the motion that I'm hearing from Councilman Richardson right now is different than the motion that was originally presented as you laid it out. So I want to make sure that we're all clear. So what I'm hearing, which sounds reasonable, is but as Councilor Richardson would like us to, he would like to dedicate 100 so 175 from his dollars to this project. Then he would like this project to be added to the CHP book list of projects which we do all the time and not he's not asking for it to, you know, jump ahead of the project. He's just adding he's asking for it to be added to the CHP book as a project to be worked on moving forward . And in the meantime, the city manager and I and whatever else are going to engage in a conversation to see if we can move this project forward. That's what I've heard. Mr. City Attorney. May or members of the council. The only issue that that I would raise with that is the way I understand where the City of Bellflower is, is if the city commits to the traffic study. We are legally. Committed to install the traffic light. So unlike other projects on your city list where the council can prioritize those and approve those, you're going to have a legal obligation to pay that. Know what I'm hearing the councilmember say is there may be other sources of funds and. We're not and we're not. I think what the motion is now is we're not going that step yet. He's setting aside the 175 for this project and and the city manager are going to have some conversations and then the project is added to the scrapbook or. Councilman Richardson. So I would say I want to be able to give the city manager what he needs to go begin negotiation now and to continue the process. At the end of the day, the study might come back and say there is no no signal. We can't even have a study without agreeing to with the City of Bellflower to do this. So, like I said, if, if, if, if the real concern here is falling in line with the city, I would ask the question city the city staff, based on any research that that's been done, where would this fall in that the list as of today, because I know there's been some preliminary research done. So I'll take a first shot at that. When you asked us to take a look at where this falls in terms of the CHP process, you're correct. We do have about $1.5 million with the projects that are currently funded in our CHP. In our initial discussion about this today, the thought was that it would not impact that 1.5 million. Those are already projects that are allocated. We haven't allocated projects for FY 16 yet. We don't quite know what those resources are going to be. And so that was the concept and that's how any typical budget process would work within the city of Long Beach for our projects. I think what the wrinkle is that the city attorney brought up today on the floor is that essentially by by providing that direction to do the study and given what we know of City of Bellflower as constraints, they are going to require us to sign an agreement to say we will fund the entire allocation. So it may not be even 75. It may be more than that. It may be less than that. And so by providing potentially, you know, the 175 that you're providing and given the direction of the manager to go discuss with them, that would give us the ability to negotiate. But it is that extra step of saying every single or that we need to complete the project is what puts is what changes from our normal budgetary perspective, you know, our process. So just a quick. Question So what in terms of a timeline, if they were to say you have to do it, if they were to say you have to do is met your mandate to build this signal. And our study concludes, you know, after the budget process and we don't revisit this until the 2017 budget. Are we do we have a gun to our heads to get it built right then? Or can we say we don't have the funds allocated right now? But when we do. I'm I'm going to turn this over over to Ana. So I guess it would depend on the severity of the traffic study. That's correct. It becomes a liability issue for both cities. I mean, if if Bellflower is now been given notice that this study shows that you have to build a traffic signal, then the traffic signal needs to be built. And in case there are accidents during that period, then there's liability on that side. But also we need to negotiate or have a clearer understanding of who maintains this traffic signal and what portion of it, as far as liability goes, who's going to maintain. And who's going to absorb the. Liability. So in a typical situation, let's say we have a neighboring city and if three sides of an intersection belongs to another city and we. Own one, so it's one. Quarter or 25% of the city of Long Beach, we would be liable for 25% and they'll be liable for 75%. And also the same way we will split the maintenance cost. That would maintain 75%. Of the traffic signal and we will maintain or will be responsible for 25% of it. So, yes, the traffic study, if it comes positive, then puts everybody on notice that there is a need for that traffic signal. And this city of Bellflower will not allow us to do the traffic study unless we have a contract with them that says you will build this you shall build this traffic signal if the traffic study comes positive with the results. So it's it's it's a zero 200%. There's nothing in between. So either we do the traffic study and we pay for the whole construction of it, or we cannot do the. Traffic study period. Based on Bellflower comments. Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to restate my concern about. The potential of expending general fund dollars. I agree with Councilmember Austin in how he had articulated the piece on the cap, which I know has been resolved. What I understand, Councilmember Richardson, is your intent not to set back any other projects in. Q but in hearing Mr. Parkin's opinion, I am leaning toward favoring that leaning toward making my decision based on his opinion, which is that legal imperative is what guides us as opposed to our intent to solve the problem and solve it by not impacting other projects in. Q So I'm taking my direction from the city attorney's comments, which I firmly believe are accurate. And I think he perhaps, if I might just ask one one more clarifying question of you. Mr. Malloy. And so there is no in-between. It's either zero or 100%. And so one of the alternatives that Councilmember Richardson had suggested is that he would assign 175 from his discretionary infrastructure dollars. Would he be able to assign the rest if there were future discretionary dollars? And I believe the answer, while technically is yes, it doesn't help in this situation. That's correct. My understanding is that council members objective is to be able to come live here tonight with a project that the city can move forward with. It's my concern is that we're legally committing to a part as to some amount of money that's unfunded at this time and legally obligated to pay by us. Thank you. And that's and that's my concern as well. Mr. West, where are you going? Mayor Councilmembers. One of the an option might be and again, this is all up to Councilmember Richardson rather than we the the motion the basic motion doesn't give us an option to negotiate. It just says do it. So if given the fact, if I if I can go to the city of Bellflower with $175,000 that Councilman Richardson is putting on the table, that gives us an opportunity to negotiate. And I firmly believe if I'm sitting in that city manager shoes, it's going to you know, I would say. Yeah, absolutely. We'll go ahead and do that. It's a good gesture. And we then Bellflower will cover everything above the 175. But I think if I have that opportunity to go and negotiate that, talk about that, then that gives us an opening to talk about liability as well. And I can come back as quickly as possible to meet the councilmembers needs there. But $175,000 is nothing to sneeze at for a traffic signal. And it, as the councilmember pointed out, it very may well be, you know, close to that 175 and not be above that. But I think that might give me the opportunity to negotiate with the City of Bellflower. Along with that. Public works director, to use their property dollars or their gas tax dollars. To do that. And that shared responsibility and shared obligation approach as well as action. I would. Negotiate. Yes, absolutely. And as opposed to us saying we're going to fund it no matter what, there's no incentive on their part. And Councilmember Richardson, if you would be open to that, to changing your motion to that, I would reverse my my no vote to a yes vote. Absolutely. Okay. So the motion, just so we're clear, the motion is to direct the city manager to your city manager to negotiate with your Bellflower on this project and to set aside 175 as from from his infrastructure dollars to as a starting point for the city manager negotiate a price. And I'd like to say to protect councilmembers. Richardson's wallet up to 175. Right. Okay. And then as and as part of that. And. As part of that, I'd like to ask that. Councilor Richardson, you're okay with me sending a formal, formal letter over to the mayor, and we'll have a conversation about that. Okay. So that's the motion on the floor. I'd love to go to a vote counts from your end. Could you have another comment on. This discussion when exactly as they wanted it to go? Okay, great. Okay. We've done public comment. Councilmembers, please cast your vote. Okay. Next motion carry a general. Nexus item 25. We're going to jump to 25 because we have some folks here for that. Did you say 25? Yes. And Mr. Mayor, I've been advised by the city attorney that I should recuse myself from this particular vote because I serve on the board of the Fairfield Family YMCA. And so I need you to do that. Oh, okay. No. Not yet. 25.