Recommendation to: 1. Receive and file a Medical Marijuana Initiative-Analysis report from City Manager regarding the proposed initiative petition entitled Regulation of Medical Marijuana Businesses; 2. Adopt resolution calling for the placement of a voter-petition initiative measure on the ballot for the November 8, 2016 special election to repeal the City's ban on medical marijuana businesses; adopt new regulations to permit and regulate medical marijuana businesses; to repeal the City's current recreational marijuana business license tax; and to reduce the City's current rate of medical marijuana business license taxes;
Motion carries. Thank you. We're going to go and take item 24, please. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation two one received and filed a report from the City Manager regarding the potential impacts of the voter petition measure to adopt a resolution calling for the placement of the Voter Petition Initiative measure on the ballot. Three Adopt a resolution providing for the filing of primary and rebuttal arguments relating to the voter petition measure. Four Adopt a resolution calling for the placement of a tax measure on the ballot to amend and update the city's existing marijuana taxes. This will require a unanimous vote of the City Council pursuant to Proposition to 18. Five. Adopt a resolution providing for the filing of primary and rebuttal arguments relating to the city tax measure on the ballot to amend and update the city's existing marijuana taxes. Six. Adopt a resolution requesting the consolidation of a citywide special municipal election with a statewide general election on November 8th, 2016 and seven. Adopt a resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles provide specified services to the City of Long Beach relating to the November 8th, 2016 election. Thank you. And I know, Vice Mayor, before I call you up, I think there's going to be a staff presentation by Mr. Parkin who's going to kind of go over some some of the items here and we'll turn it over to to Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council before you this evening are a number of article, a number of items that we are going to be asking or were asked to prepare and bring back to you for your consideration. The first is is a report, and obviously the staff could city management could give a report on the proposed impacts of the Citizen Voter Initiative. The second item calls for and places the Voter Initiative on the ballot for November 8th of 2016. The third item requests argument ballot argument writers for and against the Citizen Initiative. The fourth item was requested by the City Council for the City Attorney to return with a placement of a tax measure on the ballot. The fifth item would call for the valid argument writers for and against that tax measure. The sixth asks the County Board of Supervisors to consolidate our election, our special municipal election with the statewide general election, and the seventh item request that the County Board of Supervisors provide specific services and includes our reimbursement to the county for those services for that election item. At that time, that concludes my report and staff is available to talk about the first item, which is the initiative petition if there's a desire by the body. Thank you. Before I turn this over to Vice Mayor Richardson, just as a as a reminder, I know that we we discussed this last week, and we have a series of motions to make. We'll take public comment as one which the city attorney said we're able to do. But then we've got to go through a series of motions, one of which is to actually needs a unanimous vote of the council to put the tax measure on the on the ballot. So we want to make sure that that's very clear. Thank you. She's correct, Mayor. That is the third item. And I would point out that the third item that the mayor just mentioned did have a revision that was just emailed to you. It was a change to the language of the actual ballot question that will be placed on the ballot. The fourth item was also I'm sorry. The third item was a call that was a change for the citizens initiative. We had a typo on there where we called it the City Initiative and it was the citizens, the Kelton measure. So we corrected that. The fourth item was an oversight, or we had a change in the what was presented to you as one of the drafts of the questions, and we corrected that. So that's the final question. And the fifth is that same correction in the call for ballot arguments. So the motion would amend those three resolutions to make those particular changes. And I'm available to discuss those or to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And first, I just want to thank staff we it was a big ask that we made when we leveled this this motion. And there was a very stiff timeline. But it's been tremendous work and a lot has taken place. So I do want to acknowledge that. So we did ask for a lot and you delivered a lot. Secondly, I just want to remind the public that this is this measure is intended to ensure that we ensure a public benefit for our city, as well as recover the cost that we, you know, that we believe may be associated with, you know, any any ballot measure that might be adopted. So I want to move forward right now, and I move to adopt the resume, the recommendations that stated in the council letter, including a few slight amendments or revisions to the following resolution. So number one. Resolution number three, correcting the reference to the voter petition. As the city attorney just stated. Number two, resolution number four, which amended the ballot question for the city's tax measure. And resolution number five, amending the ballot question in the call for ballot argument writers. In addition, there's been a lot of discussion on how we can make investments should this tax measure pass. So I would like to request that the city attorney work with the city manager to prepare a non-binding resolution indicating the Council's intent to use tax revenues for public safety, public health, homelessness, and general services for regular for regulation and enforcement. And that is my motion. Thank you. Thank you. And just to clarify to vice mayor's motion, motion was essentially Mr. Parkin's motion. He just clarified those points. So there was no change there with the with the addition of the of the resolution, which will come back to council on a separate date. And so that we're not voting on tonight, we're voting on the attorney to prepare it, and then we'll actually have a discussion when that comes back. The second to that was Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I want to appreciate the staff for the amount of hard work it took to get us to this point. I think it's really important that as we see this. Ballot initiative through on two November that we have the city resources to ensure the health and safety of the community through whatever the new regulations may or may not bring. It's a very uncertain time, and I think that the way that we can provide that certainty is to make sure that we are able to fund public safety and homelessness and the other components that have been connected to public safety. So thank you for your hard work on this. I think it was remarkable. I know a lot of analysis was done. Thank you. And then we have Councilman Price. We'll go to the public and they will take a vote. Councilman Price. Thank you. I, too, want to thank staff. You've done a lot of work on this issue over a long period of time, and most recently, as a result of our action, after we voted to put the initiative on the ballot, we asked that you prepare a fiscal and basically citywide impact report and you did that. And I wanted to get a brief presentation from staff regarding what that impact would be, because I think that's relevant to the discussion on taxes. Absolutely. Can we please. Mr. West? Can you. Yes. Our budget manager, Lia Eriksen, will provide that response. Good evening, Mayor, and members of City Council. On July 12, City Council approved a motion requesting an impact report for the ballot measure that will appear on the November 8th election. If the ballot measure is approved by voters, it will require substantial city resources and staffing related to approving and regulating of the station businesses closing or moving into compliance, any unsanctioned businesses and dealing with the expected increase in public health and public safety service demands. If approved, staff members will need to immediately begin working on implementation of the ordinance as it goes into effect ten days after the results are certified by City Council, as detailed in the report. Staff expects 32 dispensaries. Our analysis includes a range of possible cultivation, manufacturing and other non-retail marijuana businesses, as the ordinance allows for an unlimited number of these business types. It is anticipated that city staff will use a team model for administration and enforcement. The initial licensing process does have tight timeframes and will require significant diversion of city staff and other one time cost. However, after that period, we do not envision there to be any major problems with enforcement of the sanctioned businesses. We do anticipate, however, a significant number of unsanctioned businesses. The actual number is unclear, so we included a range in our analysis. It is anticipated that it will take a long time and a team based approach to shut down the unsanctioned businesses or move them into compliance. On the revenue side, we estimate revenues from the ballot measure in a range, but the middle estimate is about 7.1 million. This includes gross receipts for dispensaries and a per square foot tax for cultivation, as well as sales taxes for retail sales. The measure has minimal taxes for the other medical marijuana business types and eliminates the recreational marijuana tax rates. It also prohibits the city from charging a regulatory fee to cover the cost to administer the sanctioned marijuana businesses. On the expense side, we estimate both the direct cost of administration and enforcement, along with potential related public health and public safety impacts. We have a range for that as well, with the midpoint being about 12.2 million. Based on those numbers, the net ongoing cost, which is expense minus related revenues, it's expected to be about 5.1 million. In addition, there are some onetime costs related to the startup, which at the midpoint is about 2.4 million. The actual cost and revenues to implement and enforce the the ballot measure, the Kelton measure, will vary from our analysis as our estimates are based on a set of assumptions that could and will likely change. Staff will be working with City Council if this is approved to fund any expected short falls, and it is noted that this could mean that we have to redirect funds for other purposes or potentially use the city's operating reserves. The Fiscal Impact Report contains more details on our analysis. This concludes the staff report and department representatives and I are available for any questions you may have. Okay. So just a couple of questions. The the impact to the departments. Was that figure derived from the department head making an estimate based on, you know, prior experience with this industry, these types of businesses and studying other cities? Or is that is it an arbitrary number? Councilwoman Price Using the set of assumptions that had a low number of both sanctioned and unsanctioned businesses, a medium number and then a high number and past experiences. Departments did do their best to to develop these revenue or cost estimates. And it included, as I mentioned, both the administration and enforcement and potential health and public safety impacts. And but for the tax measure, what would the funding source be to fund that gap in terms of our ability to meet the ongoing demands of this new business? So that and I should note the analysis I just said was the original Kelton measure before you today is a competing tax measure that would generate additional revenues, $2 million additional revenues for medical marijuana only at the middle middle point of the range, an additional 4 million at the max. And then if there was recreation, an additional 6 million at the midpoint and an $11 million increase at the max. So those those resources would be able to cover these costs, these estimated cost, if not for that competing tax measure, we would need to come to city council with some other options to fund the cost in 17 . And then we would have to build the shortfall directly into the 18 budget. And so it would be competing with other cost of general city services. So without the tax measure, what is our anticipated shortfall, the first year of operation? So for our first full year of operation, it's 5.1 million, plus an additional 2.4 million of one time costs. Okay. So we're looking at about a $7 million shortfall for the first year without the tax measure. That's correct. And that money would have to come from cutting from other departments and other services that we provide to our residents. That is correct. I have a question for the city attorney. Perhaps it's the city attorney. What is the feasibility? Or is it even feasible to have some sort of a call for service fee? So similar to, for example, people who have a home alarms. If the alarm goes off a certain number of times beyond what's allotted, then there may be an administrative fee that's put for cost recovery in terms of, you know, the fire department having to respond to your home, could there be something like that in regards to calls for service? So after ten calls for service, let's say there would be an additional that there would. Be a fee. A significant fee. Councilmember I'm shooting from the hip here a little bit, but the the initiative itself prohibits certain fees and it limits the ability to for the city to collect fees. But, you know, I don't think that it eliminates, you know, all fees or regulatory fees. But in this particular case, we'd want to take a look at that scenario. But as I read the Citizens Initiative, it prohibits those type of fees. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further at this time. I'd like to hear from the public. Thank you. Council Member Pearce. Thank you. Thank you, staff, for putting together a dense and exciting report to read. I just wanted to clarify this and I think you guys just said it. This is a competing measure to the Kelton measure. It is qualify that as a competing measure. It conflicts only in the area of taxation. Both measures discuss and set taxes at different rates. The city has no regulatory portion to our ballot measure, so there is no competition or it does not compete in the area of the regulatory ordinance. So we have looked at this and believe that they would coexist and in the area in which it competes, the if the cities measure were to receive more valid votes than the Kelton Citizen Initiative, then the city's tax regulations would go into effect. And their regulatory ordinance, if it passes, is going to go into effect. Great. Thank you. And my second question is, in regards to coming back for a nonbinding resolution on the plans for spending the funds, what's that timeline to come back? That we could probably come back in a couple of weeks or so to come back with. It'll be a range or options, and I think what I'll be looking for is some direction from the council to see if those are the specific items that you would like to identify and then take your input. And if it's acceptable, they could move forward that night or if not, we would take it back and refine it until we have the what the council would look for. Great. So it's not a quick short timeline. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Public comment on this item. Please come forward. Please come forward. Everybody, if you can, just please line up. We're trying to be expeditious tonight. Just give your name for the record and begin. A good career as it is adamantly opposed to the concept of marijuana on its very face. And as a as everybody knows, a medical marijuana card is as easy to obtain as a political promise from a political pipsqueak during an election period. I was just informed that Washington, D.C. has something that. Might help. Prevent the disaster that would befall us if we move forward with this motion as it is that they have. There are only two to. Doctors. Which can issue the prescriptions and the medical marijuana. That is something we should follow. Absent that absent that, I would figure out whatever. The direction we need to go or whatever method to place a tax. On if it's measured in terms of grams or ounces. I do not know. But $500 a gram, $500 a year out, period. The. Criminal element, the cost in terms of enforcement and the crime that will ensue. Well, this city will not be able to absorb. So I think every single ounce of effort should be used to forestall saddling us with this disaster in the making. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Take your place. Stephanie Dawson, so a resident of Second District, previous to working in the marijuana industry, I actually was a legislative director for the First District, and as a result, I kind of gained an M, if you will, in looking through patois. Usual method of destroying legislation and programs in which he did not like. One of the main examples of which he would do this would be not providing comparable data from cities that would be more relevant to the piece of legislation in which he was actually being asked to discuss. In our particular situation, from the marijuana perspective, looking at other cities in California and Oregon who have property tax deregulated, this particular commodity would be far more relevant to Colorado, which as I see the sale older style of regulation, which was not going to apply inside this inside of the state. We have a healthy new supply chain that's going to be going that's going to be going throughout the entire state. Thus we're not going to be relying entirely on an indoor grows, especially from a local area. The other method that he would be using that uses frequently to destroy pieces of legislation he doesn't like would be adding maximum costs without any citations. An example of this can be found in the way that he basically glommed on nine state costs under the universal pre-K initiative, as well as a no no kill shelter initiative from 2015, which he somehow was able to price out beyond any sort of recognition it when it comes down to it. 20 additional code enforcement officers would actually be great for controlling the slumlord problem that we have inside of the city. But is a long term strategy or necessity for regulating the marijuana industry? This wreaks absolutely no sense and has no basis in reality. The reason that I bring this attention to you and frankly, you know, is because you you as legislators, regardless of where you stand on this issue, need objective information from a nonpartizan source. With no pit, with no reason to stand for it has an established record of of destroying targeting of this industry and lying to you, the legislators, about this specific issue. And it goes back to when Robert was on the council. The reason that the last ordinance failed was not because of the legislators on the dais, and it was because of a city bureaucracy that took it upon themselves with no direction from the city to be able to attack this industry at every single, every single part. That will cost the city billions in litigation fees that are unnecessary and puts patients in danger. Be careful about weed taxes before you before you know all the regulations. Say, for example, medical growers are going to be based in the city, of inner city, are going to be highly regulated from the state and federal authorities. The county recently withdrew their their their 10%, their homeless tax, which is going to be assisting us. But at the same time, we are still looking at businesses that with iris to 80 are going to be taxed in an effective rate from 50 to 80%. While I'm running out of time here, the issue of unsanctioned businesses, look at that data from L.A. and Santa Ana. Those are created by incomplete legislation where secondary were illegal. Secondary markets for manufacturing or growth were created simply because they were not included in the original legislation and there were not enough dispensaries meet adequate demand. Thank you and have a good day. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Evening, Mayor City Council. My name is Gary Hetrick. I reside in the fourth district. I want to speak just briefly to the nonbinding resolution. I want to put something on the table so that as we come back to this, I think this is an important issue. And I think the previous speakers sort of raised this. And this is building in a process of community engagement so that the residents of Long Beach themselves can can weigh in on in a decision making process in terms of how this this this new revenue is going to be spent. Rather than having that come from the council, I would like to see, for instance, participatory budgeting process, which we already use in Long Beach as a as a way to engage residents, assuming this goes forward in how they want to see this money spent, it may be spent along the lines that we're already thinking. It may not. But I think this is a way to really engage residents in a meaningful way around money that's going to be coming from the residents. And so I want to put this on the table. When we come back to the non-binding resolution, I would like to see some form of community engagement built into this. And participatory budgeting is something that's already been used. It's something that's sanctioned by or not even sanctioned, but identified as a best practice by the White House for HUD Community Development BLOCK Grant Program. So it's got a fantastic track record and creating a mechanism for residents to have meaningful decision making power over taxpayer money. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes, sir. Mayor and City Council. My name is Steve Updike. I was a drug addict. Marijuana was my gateway drug. And thank God to the Church of Scientology. They got me off dope. That's the only reason I'm here. I'm not dead. It's a true story. Go ahead and laugh. But it's true. Anyway, the truth of the matter is, you will never be able to get enough tax money or money for this problem of dope in our society. You're going to kill our people. You're going to be responsible for the deaths of people. You know, I know people laugh. I finally came out of the closet and said, hey, dope is for dope. Okay. And you're talking to a guy who was on dope, almost died from dope and got off dope, thank God. And the truth of the matter is, it's poison. A poison that screws up your mind. And that's the God honest truth. And you know it deep down. I know you like to get high people. I know you like to feel good. Sure. Have a drink, smoke some pot, do some dope. But you know what? It's temporary. It's not going to solve your problems. I know you're doing dope to solve your problems. It's not going to do it. What you're doing is you're killing yourself. And now we're going to. And you'll never make eye with the chief. You're never going to make enough money to fix the society when it goes into shambles. You think it's bad now? It's going to be a lot worse. And, you know, it really does kill people. I know I grew up at a time when my friends, the famous and others were dying as a result of dope, all kinds of dope. And so, you know, I was there. I did that. I know for a fact because I was there. I was one of those people who had a needle in his arm. It's not the way out, people. It's not going to help you. Dope is not the solution to your problems. You can sit there in your high and mighty positions and you can make your billions of dollars. And I know you're greedy and you want it, but it's going to cost you more than you can afford. And another lifetime from now, you're going to if you survive, you're going to find out the cost in public lives, the destruction of the minds of our children and our people and our our future. It's going to be a major problem. And you know that somewhere deep down in your soul, you know that drugs are a poison. I'm talking dope. I'm talking heroin, marijuana, anything that leads to getting high like that. People don't need it. They don't have to have it to survive. And it's poison. And this game you're playing with, Oh, we're going to make all this money. You're going to spend every penny you have and more than you can afford. And the lives are going to be ruined as a result of this dope is going to be you're not you have no idea what you're doing. You're like, it's a big mistake and you have a chance to turn it around before our society goes down the tubes. And that's exactly where it's going. Thank you, Mr. Next Speaker, please. Tough act to. Follow. My name's Larry King, the seventh District. I served on the Medical Cannabis Task Force. I helped on the Kelton initiative, and I was chosen by Mayor Foster to work with former Councilperson Chips Key to write the argument against in the 2014 tax measure in the election. I'm for taxing. I'm for regulation. I've worked as a consultant in other states. I was a legitimate operator here. There is no place in this country that does not bring in a good a lot more revenue than than the costs in medical marijuana. I mean. If this is going to be the same fiscal report that we're going to read that we received on the task force, it's a joke. It's based on the only thing accurate in it is that they say it's based on guesswork and it's based on bureaucrats who don't know anything about this business or this industry. And they don't have to look too far to see that it's worked in other places. So I'm looking for that report. But again, it's going to be more of the same. They hired a shadowy figure named The Revenue Whisperer to to base all their facts on. And we pretty much shot it down in a task force, but nobody was listening then. And I'm sure nobody is going to listen now. So this is going to be on the backs of the patients and the sick and the people who have been deserving and waiting for the last seven years to get this in our town . Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. You queued up and looked at the queue versus the next speaker, sir. Hi. Dave is Keith. I'm a resident here in Long Beach. And I just want to say that I oppose to this medical marijuana, let's call it for what it is is drugs, is dope pot. It is not good for our community. That's what it all boils down to. I work with kids and I and I work with high school kids, too. And it breaks my heart to have my kids come to my classroom and they're high as a kite. In much of it that they get is from the so-called medical marijuana, from their parents or whoever the situation is that they get access to it. It's no good for us. Just like the gentleman said back here in regards to. This drug ruining community and its pot. And the thing is, is that people are able to get access to it and there is nothing wrong with them. I'm not saying not all of them, but there are some people who get access to it and they go to the doctors, so-called doctors, and they get the prescriptions written up and then they're able to get access to it. I know of a person who was Muslim. Absolutely nothing wrong with them. But he smokes weed every day. He had a problem getting it. He was buying it on the streets. Well, he figured out that he was able to go to a doctor and get a prescription. And he did. And now he smokes weed every day and he gets it legally. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. And I told him, I said, Man, you're Muslim. You're breaking all the rules. So I'm just going to advise you guys to think of this long and hard. Where I live in Long Beach, Oliver Chestnut on the third floor, I look over my balcony and I see some of the people because I'm right next to an alley. Hiding in a corner. Getting high. Doing drugs. And that happens maybe about once a week. Just footsteps away from the police department. Think about it. It gets into the hands of the kids. Even if the the dispensary is miles away from the schools and the parks, trust me, it doesn't mean that it can't travel back to the neighborhood to where the children are. If any of you guys have children, think about it. Because your child can be a victim. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers, please? Looks like it's our last speaker. Last one. Okay, I'm closing the speaker's list, then back to the council. Please. Good evening. Diana la genes. I would like to answer just a couple of things. I noticed the last gentleman was talking about the access that people have to it now. Well, yeah, because it's a black market. It's easy for kids to have access now, but it is much more difficult for them to have access when it's regulated . Take a look at alcohol. Same kind of thing. It is harder for them to get alcohol than it is for them to get marijuana because it's regulated because nobody wants to lose their license over selling to a minor. So I'm just saying. And in the states where it's been decriminalized or legalized, teen use goes down. It is a fact. The irony and that's the irony of it. The other gentleman that was talking about his addictions thing is. I'm I'm sorry if he has an addictive being. But people that are going to be addicted to something are going to find something, whether it be opiates. In fact, opiates right now are the biggest are the most abused drug in the nation. Now, do we stop our prescription drugs because prescription drugs are the most abused drugs? No, of course we don't. And if we want to talk about that and saving money, we could talk about the alcohol in Long Beach. We have almost 900 liquor outlets in Long Beach. And yet I know just about every I've seen every single person on this council drinking liquid drugs. So if we're going to stop something, let's stop that. Okay. So I did pass out something regarding children and that is really important to me. And do I have children? Yes, I have three children. I have five grandchildren and I have five great grandchildren. Do I care about children? You bet I do. And I'll tell you what. I passed out something to you. It talks about a child who uses it to control her epilepsy. It has saved her life. And there have been many, many children who have died waiting in their state for it to become legal in their states. So if we're worried about the children. Let's make sure it's available. And to tax medical, I think is pretty sad. If you want to tax recreational, I don't have a problem with that. But to add to the burden to people who are sick, who really need it, who cannot go to their insurance companies and ask for their to be reimbursed, it it's really very greedy. And I hope, you know, again, recreational fine. But if you're taxing it where it becomes a burden on people who are truly sick and really need it, I think you better rethink it. Just remember, if Jesus was standing here, what would you really tell him and how do you think he would react? You're welcome. Thank you very much. That closes public comment will now go back to the counsel counsel woman price. Thank you. So I want to make a couple of comments to clarify a few things. First of all, I want to thank our speakers, especially those who spoke against the marijuana initiative. And the reason for that is sometimes it's very difficult to come in and speak, especially when I mean, I've been on this council for two years now, over two years now, and there are very few groups that actually will come in and heckle when they don't like what they're hearing. And unfortunately, this is one of those groups we have, you know, legitimate business leaders who will heckle because they don't like what they're hearing, which is a really unique way of fostering a long term relationship with the city entity. So I it's a strategy I've never really understood and calling out the, the city manager and everybody is as being, you know, crooked and, you know, not doing their work is just in my opinion, that's not really a spirit of let's do business together for the next few generations. The bottom line is that we as a so I appreciate the people who came forward and spoke tonight because I know that's very difficult to do. I will also say, however, that it is not this council that is initiating marijuana dispensaries in the city of Long Beach. This has come to us by way of a petition that was circulated, and they have earned the right to be on the ballot, and that is a right that they have earned. And that's a right that I respect. And we have voted to put the initiative on the ballot because we are in a democratic process and they have done the work to earn their spot on the ballot. And that is something absolutely I respect. It's part of our system. So when people come and, you know, I appreciate people coming and telling us the harms that this is going to cause on the city, I would say to them, watch the council meetings where this has been on the agenda for the last two years. And you will find very quickly that your concerns have been shared by some on this council. The concerns that I have is based on talking with the police department when we did have sanctioned marijuana dispensaries in the city and illegal operations showed up, some of my colleagues, some of whom are on this council, some of whom are no longer on this council, but were at that time were some of the most vocal demands of service by our police department, requiring them to do everything that they could to shut down those illegal dispensaries because they were having such a negative impact on the quality of life of the residents. And that's just the reality. I mean, you can heckle if you want, especially if you don't live in the city, especially if you don't take hundreds. Of calls and emails from residents every day you can roll your eyes and say it's stupid. But at the end of the day, when there's a medical marijuana dispensary that's not supposed to be there and it's impacting residents lives in a negative way, that's a real issue we have to deal with. It's not an issue that we can ignore. It's not an issue that we can say is silly. It's a real issue for our residents. And we, every single one of us is required to do everything we can to protect the quality of life of our residents, the children who are trying to sleep with the lines outside the door, the people who hear noises from the nearby businesses, whatever the business is, we have a duty and a responsibility to respond to the residents. So you can heckle all day long. You can be unhappy with the decisions that impact your interests in a negative way. But the bottom line is we have a duty to make decisions that are in the best interests of our residents. The medical marijuana industry is an uncertain industry everywhere. When people say, look to the you don't have to look far to find this and that, there are all sorts of statistics and data. I was recently at a nit's a study, I nit's a conference in D.C.. I sat next to the chief of police from a jurisdiction in Colorado. Trust me, you can find data everywhere that supports whatever you're trying to to convey. The bottom line is it is a drain on resources. And I want to give kudos to our city staff for doing their best to come up with the estimates. We can sit here and criticize it all day long. But you know what? They're not investors in this industry. They are not investors in this industry. So, yes, they don't have intimate familiarity with the inner workings of the industry, but they are looking around and and doing the research. And let's not forget, they're comparing the data to to what we experienced here in the city of Long Beach. It's not operating out of a vacuum. And their analysis shows very negative impacts, impacts of this measure. If it were passed, if the if the measure passes, it will be a substantial increase to our responsibilities and result in large decreases in our ability to function efficiently, effectively and safely. It's going to place an undue and unsustainable burden on countless city departments, from business licensing to code enforcement to the city attorney, the prosecutor's office to police to fire to our health department, and yes to our school district, because our school district unfortunately does not agree with Miss. Our last speaker in regards to the positive impact that this is going to have on our youth. In fact, they they conclude to the contrary. All of this means we're going to have less police response, a lower of quality, lower quality of life for our residents who may call and get a response from the police department that this is a low priority call and long processing periods for non marijuana related businesses. We are trying to be a business friendly city. The report explains in great detail the significant financial costs that the measure is going to cause and for both short and long term analysis. Although the goal that I'm sorry, although the stated goal of the measure is to allow patients with serious health issues easy access to medical marijuana, the effects of the measure go well beyond the issue of patient access. I think even patients undergoing cancer treatment would agree the multimillion dollar net losses the city is projected to sustain are bad for everyone. The increased demand for police response due to the huge number of illegal businesses and statistically likely crime that are associated with legal and illegal marijuana. Businesses are bad for our residents. Extended approval and permitting times for businesses and licensing is bad for our residents. And extending by weeks the ability of code enforcement to investigate code and safety violations is bad for residents. And when we say you don't have to look too far. The city of L.A. has 135 legalized medical marijuana dispensaries. They currently have over 1000 dispensaries operating in their city. That's not too far. And we're looking there. The measure provides for between 26 and 32 dispensaries to be open citywide. However, the measure goes much farther than just allowing for dispensaries, which would benefit patient access and includes allowing all marijuana related business types to operate in Long Beach with no limit cultivators. Testing manufacturing, distribution and transportation all have no limits on how many can be in the city. Additionally, the measure was poorly written with some ambiguous language that could result in legal challenges, which would place another burden on our city city attorney's office. This information is not based on some political ideology. I know it's easy to blow it off and roll your eyes and think that's what it is. But we have a thorough report that is provided to us as a decision making body by department heads who have come to the city through extensive searches with extensive backgrounds and resumes . These are respectable, educated people who have been tasked with the purpose of trying to decide what resources they're going to need to live in this new reality. This is a cost benefit analysis that's put together by the city managers and department managers assessing the rational and likely result the measure is going to have by requiring more city resources and staff, time and energy and increased demands on our already stretched thin emergency response units. This assessment puts in clear numeric values the severe effect this measure would have on some of our most important city departments. Financial losses are one thing for a city to sustain, but a virtual guarantee that this will create an unmanageable burden on emergency response units that are already hugely understaffed. It is unrealistic to think that the city can shoulder the increased burden. This measure places on numerous departments and staff members without there being significant decrease decreases to responsiveness and quality of service at every level of the city of Long Beach. In terms of what we're able to provide, this is, in my opinion, a very detrimental measure because of the fiscal impact. That is why tonight, however, the measure has every right to be on the ballot. The voters have every right to to make that choice. The initiatives the authors of this initiative have earned that right. And I respect. That. But our voters need to have some options. This is why, from day one, I've been saying I want a competing initiative to give our voters options. I would have liked an initiative that allowed for patient access and didn't have all the other components that go well beyond access. But I did not prevail in that argument with my colleagues, and I appreciate that it's a democratic process. But at this juncture, we have the opportunity to recoup some of the costs associated with this industry. So I am in favor and I will be voting in favor of a tax measure tonight. However, I want to make it abundantly clear with my colleagues, in terms of my intent, our number one priority in any tax revenue generated should be cost recovery. Our police departments, our business licensing, our health department, our fire department. They need our city attorney's office. They need to recoup the money that they are going to be using from their departments to help fund this industry if it passes. Beyond that, I think we need to think about public safety as the number one and business licensing as the two big hits that we're going to be taking as a result of the analysis that was performed by our city staff. So so my position is this isn't this like slush fund? This money needs to be used specifically for cost recovery. And we need to ensure and make a commitment to our residents that that is what the money will be used for. And if if we have that kind of commitment as a council, then I am going to be voting for this tax measure. Thank you. Thank you. With that, we now have a motion and a second on the floor. We're going to take separate votes. We've done public comment for all of them. We're going to take separate votes. Again, let me just reiterate some of what was said. It's incredibly important for the city to have the the necessary revenue to be able to deal with both the public safety and the public health needs, particularly on the cost recovery of general services side for this measure. And so it's important that this moves forward. It's important that voters have a choice to be able to pass the city, at least the city piece of this, which is going to be one of the measures on the ballot on this item. And so I strongly recommend that. And with that, I support the vice mayor's motion. It's on the floor. Members, please cast your vote. First, going to take the first part of it, which is receive and file the medical marijuana initiative analysis. Please cast your vote.