Recommendation to adopt resolution Version A or Version B regarding a proposed ballot measure to be placed on the April 8, 2014 ballot for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the City of Long Beach an ordinance amending Chapter 3.80 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, relating to Marijuana Business License General tax; and request the Office of the Mayor to designate persons, or associations of persons, to write arguments either for or against or both for and against the adoption of the measure placed on the ballot.  (Citywide)
Okay. Now we go to item 15 luxury. And 15 is a report from the city attorney with a recommendation to adopt resolution version A or version B regarding the proposed ballot measure to be placed on the April eight, 2014 ballot for the purpose of submitting to the vote. It's voters of the City of Long Beach, an ordinance amending Chapter 3.80 of the municipal code relating to marijuana, business license, general tax parking. And they are members of the City Council. Before you tonight, you have a recommendation as requested by the Council with two options for submission to the voters in April. The first option would place a tax on the sale of marijuana at 6%, and option B would be a variable tax, which would be a maximum tax of 10% . But the Council would have the discretion to set that initial rate at 6% and thereafter vary the tax not to exceed 10%. There's also a square footage tax for the cultivation sites, and we would stand ready to answer any questions that you have. Mr. STEELE. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. PARK. In regard to the second alternative that you mentioned and regarding the taxing, so explain that a little bit more. So we would set the tax initially at 6%. And then based on revenues and things of that nature, we would have the ability to adjust that. Yes. Under this proposal or under version B, the the approval of the voters under Prop 218 would authorize the council to establish or set the rate as high as a 10%, the initial rate as requested by the Council. We came back with the initiated 6% and then subsequent to that, the council could move up or down at the desire of the council, but it could never exceed 10% without going back to the voters. Okay. And are there automatic triggers in that moving up or down or that the council just deliberates? And what was. That similar to the version? A There is. Is an automatic adjustment for CPI. But other than that, there is no automatic. Thank you. Councilmember Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask Mr. Parkin the proposed square footage fee. Is is that something that you observed in other cities? Councilmember Lowenthal State law prohibits cities from charging certain types of nonprofit organizations a business tax or fee based on gross receipts or income. And although some some businesses, all businesses are currently required by the CAA and the MPAA to be not for profit, these businesses are not necessarily non-profits as designed as defined by the state constitution, the municipal code in the IRS. Therefore, a tax rate per square foot for those religious and charitable, charitable nonprofits has been developed. So it was a way to actually. It's a way to make to create a tax that would apply to all businesses operating in the city of Long Beach. And it's consistent with the taxing structure that the business license division uses currently for other other kinds of religious and charitable nonprofits. So you're not proposing an either or. You're proposing, in addition to the 6%, the $30 or under version A or $50 under version B. It would be one or the other, not both. I'm sorry, not version A and B together, but if it's 6%, it's $30 per square foot. If down the road it was raised to 10%, it's $50 per square foot. Under version eight, it would be the $30 per square foot adjusted annual CPI. Under Version B, it would start at the $50 per square foot increase for CPI. So in terms of the actual dollar amount for the square footage, I know and I appreciate you sharing that with me. I understand where the need comes from or the requirement anyway. So I'd be interested in a lower amount, I think. You know, in speaking with members in the in the community that are looking to operate and give back by way of tax receipts or by way of tax revenue, I get the sense that $30 is is a lot, especially per square foot, for an operation where 100% of what's cultivated in that square footage doesn't necessarily produce something that they can sell. So I'm I don't see the calculation here on how you came up with $30. I'm not necessarily looking to question that. I'm suggesting that it appears to be high from what I'm hearing from the community. The information we were given by the business license division is that that's consistent with what they do for other kinds of for other kinds of businesses. There aren't a lot of others to compare. However, the example that they used was manufacturing. If, for example, you have it's two different kinds of operations, one is retail and one is cultivation or storage. So is this. So the the fee itself, the determination of the fee itself is something that was proposed by the business license division. And is this per year the square footage fee? It's per square foot. How often? Every day. Every month. Every year? Well, annually. Annually. Okay. I appreciate that. Okay. I will wait to hear from my colleagues. I need to rethink this. Thank you. Jimmy. Miss Parker, just. Mr. Parker, just so I understand, is there's a $30 per square foot fee annually. That correct? Yes. In the cultivation area. That's correct. So 4000 square feet would be. No, 4000 square feet. $30 would be 30,000. Should be less. I don't know that that. That strikes me as a little steep, Mr. Moon. Yeah. If. And just to reiterate, I want to be sure I heard correctly. It's not either or. It's both. Correct. It's the under version. Either case. Really? I'm sorry. It's either 6% or. No. It's no parking. Amy said both. No, it's either or. It's. If you're a cultivation site, there's a square footage, there's a fair square footage fee tax. If you are a retail operation, there's a gross receipts tax. So but but an entity can operate as both. But the intent is not to is not to tax. If there isn't if there is a business that operates both a cultivation site and a retail operation, the intent is not to tax twice. Okay. Which would you tax the retail side or the cultivation side? I think consistent with what business license does with other operations that are similar, they would tax the retail site. Okay. If I operated both if I had both you you would tax the retail site. So if I if I were one of the operators, I had a retail site and I also cultivated on site or off site , what would my tax be? Would it be the 6% or would it be the $30 per square foot? I think that your tax would be the gross receipts tax, the 6%, although that's something we can clarify with financial management. Okay. That's it for me right now. Thank. You know, I think there's some confusion here. Can you walk us through the differences between these two ordinances? Once again. Version version A is an ordinance that fixes the tax rate at 6%, so that there's so that there's a clear expectation of what the gross the gross receipts, taxes version B proposes to set a maximum of 10% with an initial rate of 6%. The purpose of that is to give Council some flexibility, as was requested, so that if it if it appears that there are additional additional factors that need to be taken into consideration, the tax rate could be raised by ordinance of the Council up to a maximum of 10%. Prop 218 requires a vote of the people that establishes the tax. So in order to in order to be able to do that and get it on the upcoming ballot, the maximum tax was set at 10% grade. And then on the the per square foot charges, they 30 and 50. 30 or 50. I'm surgeon age 30. Yeah. Correct. We're talking about the square footage v 34, version 1854, version B. 30, 30, 30 is four. It reflects the 6%. So it's supposed to be parallel to the 6% gross annual receipts seats tax. Okay. 10% would be the maximum under the under version BS, maximum 10%. So if we started out with an initial rate of 6%, even under version B, we would want to make the per square footage tax consistent with the rate on with with the 6% gross annual receipts rate. So that would be a maximum rate. Does that make sense? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Mr. DeLong. Thank you. So if you had two locations, so you had one that was the retail operation. And three blocks away you had a couple cultivation sites, or would you pay a gross sales at the retail location and then you would pay a square foot at the gross facility that was several blocks away? That's right. I think if you had a if you had a cultivation site and maybe I didn't understand the question when it was asked previously, if you have a cultivation site and the cultivation and that is your operation, then you'd pay the square footage fee. If you have, in addition to the cultivation site, a retail site that's separate that that's retail and a cultivation site. You're performing two different operations. That's the parallel to the manufacturing example that I talked about earlier. That business license occasionally has to deal with. So that's the parallel there. So you would pay both. You would pay both. So now let's say that year you move your operation, you find a larger facility, you've got the kind of the storefront in the front, right, and then in the back you're going to have the grow facility. Would you not pay both? If you're if you're co-located on one site where you would pay the the percentage of your gross sales and then you'd pay a square foot for their growth facility. Yeah, I think in that example, you would pay both because you're still performing both operations, you're still cultivating and selling, but. Hopefully. You'd only pay the square footage on the growth facility area and the retail store. You would not have to pay the $50 square foot because you're paying a gross sales. That's correct. Okay. I thought that's what you meant. Thank you. Thank you. I swear to you. Okay. Thank you. Just one clarification and then a question. And just to be clear, so, for example, let's say we went with a version B that square, because just because you're listing the square foot in version B is 50, that could be 30 as an example as well. Right. Okay. Correct. Then secondly, back to the $30 a square foot cost. You say that's being compared to other businesses. What other businesses are are we comparing to? Because that's actually. That seems. That there's actually a fairly small range of cities that have taxes in place. The lowest seems to be 2.5%. And the highest is in in the range of ten, 10 to 15%. City of Los Angeles, for example, is 6%. That was how the 6% figure was originally arrived at. And the $30, the $30 square foot fee was used in a previous ordinance. It was the recreational marijuana ordinance that was passed by a vote of the people in 2010 as Proposition B. It's on the books in the Long Beach Municipal Code, but it was never activated because state law never state law was not passed that allowed that to become a law. So that but that that parallel between the 6% and that and the square footage fee is in that ordinance. So that's that's really the model that we had to look at that and the model of other cities. Councilmember Longo. I'm okay. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. Well, this is certainly a dynamic policy area. And so version B, my understanding of it is it basically gives the council the most flexibility, right? So so it sets a maximum tax rate, but we could have it anything up to or anything less than in any given Tuesday, we could basically vote to lower the tax that we felt was appropriate. Is that correct? That's correct. And version A, we're adopt that. And we decided that there were some unforeseen challenges or law enforcement needs or what have you. And we decided we wanted to increase attacks. We would not be able to do that without going back to the people at a regularly scheduled election, which might be a year or two in the future. Is that accurate? That is accurate. Right. Well, my thought is, I think we do need to have the most flexibility and certainly I'm not sure what the right tax rate is tonight. 6% seems to be like a good starting point, but I wouldn't want to bind future councils. Tonight it was very shifty here. Mr. Mayor, I see that there must be some way to combine this with fireworks. Figure that out. Yeah. I wanted to ask the city attorney a couple of things. Who. Who are we taxing in this scenario? Since nobody legally can operate Long Beach right now. I know that that the ordinance would not become affected unless and until there is an ordinance adopted by the city council pursuant to the process that you discussed at your last council meeting. And is there language to that effect any place? Yes, there is. In both versions. There is. Yes. What you've got attached here is. An on page on page eight, which is in version B, the it's section K titled Operative Date. And I think the version A. Sometimes we do it also in Virgina. It's also on page eight. Okay. Obviously, it has to be very clear in any ballot measure that there are no existing businesses that are in existence currently. Okay. And we don't apply a gross receipts tax. I think I remember we had this discussion. Mr. Johnson had brought this up as well. Los Angeles, I think, does and has caused considerable problems with their businesses because it's considered a a terrible burden. So do we. We don't do gross receipts tax on any other business. I know we there is in the ordinance that I mentioned earlier, Proposition B, that was the recreational marijuana tax. No, I'm talking about current businesses in Long Beach. No other type of business currently is taxed on gross receipts tax. Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Then I am going to ask the question at some point, could this tax be challenged discriminatory? Because no other class of business in Long Beach, when you apply for a business, you pay a business license and it's based upon the number of employees. We don't do gross receipts tax on anyone. Well, there are a number of other cities that have done it on this. I know this. I understand. But we also got Sudan. What some other cities did, too, as well. So I'm just you know, we're setting out proposing a tax rate that we don't apply to any other business. And obviously, this wouldn't keep us from applying gross receipts tax on any business in Long Beach. Correct. But that's why I don't want us to go there. Okay. Because I am concerned this opens the door for other businesses to be taxed in this scenario. My other thing, it's not very clearly stated in any place. The county tax rate is 9.5%. Correct. The sales tax rate? Yes. Sales tax rate that they would have to pay. I've done a lot of reading with the Board of Equalization and they've indicated that they would have to pay, that they do have to pay a whatever the prevailing tax rate is for your county, which is 9.5%. So you're adding a 6% to 10%, which would mean they're going to be taxed 15.5 to 29.5%. Right. That would be. Correct. All right. Okay. We'll keep going, because in the ordinance, it also says the administrative fee to be added. Do we have any concept what the administrative fee would be for each of these? The administrators is going to be developed along with the ordinance, the regulatory ordinance. And I think that that at that point, there would be a better idea of what those costs would be. But the intent, I believe, from the council last week was to include enforcement costs in addition to other kinds of costs. So we don't have any idea what it is, but it could be quite substantial, especially if this council moves in a direction to limit the number of these facilities. That's because it does say that we'd be able to recoup enforcement costs. All right. And that this is more rhetorical than anything. But there's no other medicine in California that's taxed. There's no other medicine in California. This tax just simply isn't enough. This is medical marijuana. I've contended all along that we need to treat it like that. One of the things that I think needs to be clarified for voters, too, is that because this is very similar to oil revenue, it's unpredictable because we don't know how much the sales will be and how much will get than this. The revenue could not go into the general fund necessarily would have to be used as one time revenue. Or you can have a baseline, you know. Well, that has, I would think, needs to be spelled out, Mr. Mayor, because if you're going to ask the voters to approve something, we certainly don't want to be disingenuous and make them think it's going to go to for police, fire recreation, when in fact, if we then look at it as one time revenue, it can't be used for ongoing police and fire and recreation costs because we can't do certain portions of our oil revenue for that reason. And I understand Mr. GROSS isn't here, but I don't know Mr. West if if he's weighed in on this. But part of the argument is going to be, obviously, to the voters, how are you going to use this revenue? So I don't know that we can really promise it can go for police services, fire services, recreation services, because that has not been the Council policy on unpredictable income for revenue. That's rhetorical, but I do want to address that. I think that that's not quite correct. We pig oil at $70, everything below $70. I know that. No, no. Let's be fair. Is for ongoing. So you could do the same thing here. You're going to have some. It may be material. It may not. You'll find out after some experience. You could always set some level of revenue that would you almost assured you're going to receive and that would be used for ongoing. So I understand your point, but it's not all or nothing. No, I didn't say it was all or nothing, but I do think that the voters deserve clarification as to how they run to the ballot to go vote this on people, by the way, who from every testimony we've been given can the least that can afford this because they have medical problems, then I don't want us to be promising this is going to pay for fire and police and whatever. Once you say that, then this becomes a specified tax and not a general tax. So and that requires a different threshold. So yeah, two thirds. So I'm that that's why I ask if we get some clarification, where's this money going to go or not. And so that the taxpayers can know that and especially the people going to be taxed there last night and I don't know, the city attorney can opine on this, but one of the arguments I've heard repeatedly from against the taxation of medical marijuana is that what it can do is, especially if we are limiting the number of outlets for this, it can force the people who need this medication to go seek illegal sources because they don't have to pay the taxes and all the extra money isn't added on their stuff. So I just say that I understand that, you know, I mean, I don't understand why the rush is to put this tax right now , since we haven't grappled with how to get people back into business. But that would be a concern, too, that, you know, we're penalizing a group of people that we are saying publicly we're concerned about. But at the same hand, my understanding that this what's the enforcement mechanism about taxing an entity, it's up to us to go do the audits. But if people are out there selling other in other venues, they don't have to pay a tax on it, correct? No, they don't. If they're not allowed to illegally operate in Long Beach, how is it that we are we have access to their books to tax them. And this has happened in other occasions. I just asked this has been an issue about taxing medical marijuana. We're not talking about recreational marijuana. We're not talking about full legalization. We're talking about specifying going after a group of people whose use is dependent is going to be dependent on these facilities that, you know, if we're adding all these extra costs and tax onto it, the incentive for someone to get it and another source is much higher. Than we tax aspirin. So that's an over-the-counter prescription. Medicine is not taxed in California. An aspirin is not a prescribed medication. You can get it over the counter truck got hold of equalization tax. Exempt from sales? Yeah. Yes, exempt from sales tax. Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I was listening, you know, as some individuals have come to me and it seemed like to me that some of the dispensary, you know, lobbyists talk to me about what they said they wanted to be taxed. But what I'm listening to, it seems like they're really trying to as they try to tax them out of even going into business. So I think it would be nice to kind of hear from them and see where they're standing because I don't know, this is new to all of us, you know, trying to get some dispensaries here. But I think we should be fair to, you know, each parties once we find out what we're which way we're going, especially if we're going to put this on the ballot, they want to be taxed. And I think they should be because fact that they're going to make money. But I think the city should make something from it also. But I don't think they should be, you know, out so much from that because the fact that, you know, this is this is new to us. And I think we have to really find a way to do it and do it right. So that's all I'm saying. Mr.. AUSTIN So isn't there a tax on aspirin? I think I was actually queued up here. I favor the the the approach, and I do appreciate the comments of all my colleagues. Councilman Reshevsky Lipski, you bring up some very good points, but I favor an approach that gives the city the the the best amount of flexibility should this go to a ballot initiative. I'm really interested still to hear from the public on this as well. But, you know, I think version B provides that for us and we can get into, you know, what it's going to look like later on and how much it'll be and how much the the the, the, the other fees will be. I don't know that that that's going to going to going to going to resolve the issue that's really before us. I mean, we, we sent staff back to give us options. They've given us the option. We have version here before us. We have version B before us. In my opinion, version B gives the city the best flexibility and the opportunity for future councils to to deal with this issue. I think effectively should we come back and I once we have an ordinance in place. To sort out. Well, I just want to echo what Councilmember Austin says. My preference would be that the city have maximum flexibility. And let's remember why we're doing this. We're doing it. We're doing this to recoup some of the costs associated with this venture. There's going to be cost on police activity for sure. The police are going to have to monitor some of these, just like a bar, just like when a bar opens. We have a copy. There's fees associated with that. This is essentially the same venture and alcohol is taxed, right? So but probably probably at a higher level when you would add up all the fees, I would imagine, Jerry I don't know. But that's not so important as we're we're trying to recoup some costs here. We're trying to be reasonable. We're trying to give the community what we believe they want, and we're trying to think it through. But let's not just chase our tail here and say we can never do anything. Back to you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Austin, I believe you wanted to make a motion. Yes, I'm sorry. I'll move to to approve version B because the city council. I'll second that and I'd like to hear from the public to take. Councilmember long don't I just. I would like to. We have a motion and a second. We'll take public comment. Please identify yourself when the light comes on. You've got 30 seconds left. Larry. Good. You clerk has the address. Having listened to the dialog over the last 10 minutes or 20 minutes on this one thing, it's clear. Everybody said this is a new frontier. So I'm going to make a suggestion following the suggestions and the council in the way it dealt with the last item as it read now reads A ballot is to be placed on it, to be placed ready for the ballot in 2004, April eight, 2014. I'm going to make a suggestion that what you do is amend this to allow you to follow and learn from a very highly successful paradigm that was used to address major problems years ago. If Mike Latin is correct, formerly known as the conciliation trade, intended to try strike that continuum a.k.a the Council of Trent and I would suggest you set the date for April 8th, 2044, that will give you ample time to sort through all of the issues. And some of the points I think you should consider is number. And I don't think enough time has been allowed for this. There's a reason. There's a reason marijuana is often referred to as dope. We've got a lot of dope, had a lot of dopes. I. It'll give you time to reflect on the very sage advice from your chief of police relative to how ill advised the path is that you're now taking. Some of those already doped up would point to Colorado. And watch state of Washington. But you've got to understand, those are entirely different paradigms. Long Beach is a city cheek to jowl in terms of neighborhoods surrounded by some of the worst criminal and gang activity on the face. Of this country. Period. Consider also that marijuana is generally recognized as a gateway drug. The next thing that will be you'll be dealing with will be cocaine. Meth labs like are now inundating the high desert area. I think there could be a case made for medical marijuana under strict conditions. You know, I've always said if we're going to sell it, will sell it from the top floor of the parking garage or the police department's parking garage. But make no mistake about it, 99% of the activity will come from marijuana for recreational use, which will be out of control. So I would suggest you adopt it. Change it. Come back with a date of April eight, 2044. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Council Vice Mayor and Staff Jina Nam. I represent the Long Beach Collective Association. As Councilmember Andrews succinctly put it, we have yes, as a as a organization, supported taxation, but we are concerned about the level of taxation that may be voted on through this, these two versions, particularly with respect to the square footage. What we anticipated or we hoped was that the city would focus on a growth sales tax. We were supportive of that of something, whether 6% or 8% or higher, 10%. We always stated that that we can live with pretty much because the the state already taxes the sales. It considers these transactions as sales even though it does involve non-profits and it does involve a prescribed medication. But nonetheless, the body does go by gross sales and there's a way of tracking that and taxing that. So we were okay with the city implementing something that parallels that. However, certain things that come to mind, for example, in terms of of how gross receipts are defined within this measure. We have collectives and we have members of the collectives. They can come in and they present. Really what it is, is a donation for the medication. There's a suggested donation, but if they don't have the money for it, they're given the medication for free. Alternatively, some will come in and they'll want to barter, barter their their services. They may want to come in and help clean up the collective or help cultivate or do some other services at the at the particular location. Well, the definitions of this version, either version, that would be then within gross receipts. So then how do we how do how do we track that and then pay a tax on that when that wouldn't be considered as a sale under the Bowie rules? But then now under the Long Beach rules, it would be a gross receipt and therefore taxed. So there's that. Then also with respect to the square footage. Again, we have definitions of square footage that includes areas of the dispensary that may not be used for anything, including garages, carports, porches, similar structures, parking structures. So then if we have if we're providing parking to get the people, the patients offered the streets and now they're parking at the location, are we going to be paying square footage tax on that as well? According to this definition, it does look like that it will be. So there are these number of concerns within this, these the way that the definitions have been drafted that really give us pause. And the next speakers will address the actual fiscal impact. Thank you. Thanks so much. Good evening, counsel. How you doing? Hope you had a good holiday. I didn't prepare anything. Really. Make sure. Just identify yourself real quick. Adam Hijazi. I'm a registered voter in the city of Long Beach and part of LBC. So I didn't get a chance to really specifically, you know, get into what the impacts would be with that, but just off the face. So you have Virgin and Virgin B, which is going to be 6% plus $30 a square foot on the cultivation sites, plus $6 a square foot on the collective side on the retail. So the retail would be getting taxed at a 6% rate and would also be getting taxed at the square footage from a collective perspective from what what the ballot was saying. Now, Virgin B, which gives the flexibility, as you're saying, council member Austin from 6 to 10%, then it's at $50 a square foot for the co-op. I'm sorry up to. A m I didn't get a chance to really read it and see it 100%. But from what I saw, he did say $50 per square foot. If it is up to then. So under version B, as I understand it, if it starts at $6 that it would be $30 a square foot as it is in version eight. But if we moved it up to $10 or 10%, it would be up to $50 a square foot. Correct. That that's. Not correct. The way the version V currently states is that it is $50, as the Speaker said, and up to 10%. But Mr. parking it could if the council wanted to modify that too with a range like like the the percentage of the gross receipts it could be as well. There could be an amendment by then. Well, let's continue with public comment and then we'll come back to the please. Correct. So sorry, you've got version B, it's got 6 to 10%. That's where the flexibility is going to come in, 6 to 10%, which is fine. We understand there needs to be flexibility now on the square footage, $50 per square foot and then on top on the retail is going to be $10 per square foot. Now, you know, you have an average collective to say just from the experience is going to be from 3000 to 10000 square feet. And that's kind of what happened during the process that was put into place. So, you know, taking an average of 5000 square feet, if you go with plan B with $50 a square foot, you're talking about $150,000 a. I'm sorry. $250,000. Now, that is just a 50,000. That's just a $50 square foot plus, whatever, $10, you know, it is going to be for, you know, the collective side. And also, that's not including the 9.25 or 9.5% of the bill we tax. Also not including whatever payroll taxes that will come into place, you know. So you've got to be really, you know, critical with, you know, how this gains the tax. Now, the 6% to 10%, there's a range. It's completely, you know, understood. But I mean, 6% was L.A. did a lot of research into it, and they came up with 6%. And I believe between the city attorney's office and whoever they were working with that came to that that could work. Now, you know, the square footage, you know, I mean, we would hope that, you know, I think something that possible you can realistically where the city will optimal get the amount of optimal tax without taxing businesses. I mean without overtaxing businesses and pretty much pulling out of business would be anywhere from maybe 10 to $15 a square foot on the cultivation side, plus all those other taxes. I mean, so we really haven't had the chance to go through it all, but it would be pretty much heavily taxed. And, you know, it can eventually be an increase in the mayor's and, you know, California state law. You want affordable, quality and affordable meds. And I just kind of think that would be highly taxed with a $50 per square foot, even 30. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. I'm probably probably just as turd as me as I am of you tonight. Disability rights. I do want to thank you, Jerry. Jerry Gypsy has pretty much expressed as much as pretty much everything I would like to say. I think she's absolutely correct. My God, people want to suck these patients dry. I mean, I have. Maybe you don't have the experience. I do. I have people calling me, begging me, help me. My mother has cancer. I have somebody who's sick. I've got someone who's got M.S. I've got I get these phone calls. And these are people who are in my. Sorry, I'm. Excuse me. I get I mean it. I cry when I hear these people. I mean, they're in tears begging me, help, help me. And, you know, where do I go? Where do I get some some sort of medicine to help, you know, help my mother or my my child? My child that's got seizures that I mean, it just breaks my heart when I hear you guys talk. You're mercenary, for God's sakes. It's like you want to suck these patients dry. And, you know, I mean, you can charge these guys all you want, but my you know, they've got it here. There there are patients that come in that can't afford it, so they give it to them. You want to charge them for that, too? I mean, I want you to really think about what you're doing. Are you helping the people that are really sick, the ones that are needing it, the ones that have disabilities in there? Out there, you know, someone just said it's 99%. No, that's not true. There are some people who do abuse the system and who do recreational use. I'm not going to say that's not true. But there are people, legitimate people that are sick out there. Please don't bleed them dry. Please don't bleed. These people are here to try to to to put forward a legitimate situation that they can give these patients access. Please help them. Okay? Please. Thank you. Next speaker, please. John Bianco, member of LBC, a members of the council and vice mayor. I've heard a lot of good things up here tonight from certain speakers on other subjects just other than ours. But we're trying to create something here, fellows and ladies. And if you if we get taxed to the max with everything somebody has to absorb, like she was saying, he's going to have to absorb that cost. Next thing you know, people that really need the thing, need the help for it, they're there. It's just, how can I say this without getting everybody mad at me? It's ridiculous. You know, I understand the fees to this, to that, to this, to that. But this $30, $50 a square foot. I mean, you can ask any, let's say farmer, he's not going to get 100% back to every tomato plant plant either. Are we in the cultivation business with the marijuana? So, I mean, it's like, I don't know, I wish you people, guys, ladies would reconsider what you're doing here tonight. As far as this taxation thing goes, we really assumption as a group that if we got things in place, we would be able to do things for the city with the city donating, being involved, helping out charities, helping out whatever needed help with it. Looks like that's getting taken out of our hands. That's fine and dandy. Please don't make it. We're. We're in a position to where it's like it's cheaper for these people to go buy in an alley than come to a safe access place because of all the exorbitant fees we got to absorb to be able to to to give them their medical their medical cannabis. And like I said, nobody's going to to say 30 and 50. So I don't know. Like I said, you're never going to get 100% back. So where do these how does this how do you figure this out? How are you going to apply all this? You know, that's that's my major. My concern is I'd rather give it away, make it as cheap as possible. But I don't want to be forced to look people in the eye and say, hey, I got to do this because I got to pay that. And they're going to look at me and say, Why are you paying it? And they have to tell because that's what everybody wants us to do. Alls we want to do is be a service for these people, and you're going to make it really tough if you keep adding on all these fees, this that this year, all we want to do, get this thing open, get it rolling, provide a service to the people that we want that we want to do it with. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and take it behind back to them. We're going to go back to the maker of the motion who has some additional comments and thoughts. Councilor Brosnan. Yes, and I do appreciate the public comment. Appreciate the comments coming from my colleagues on this and the staff work on this. I mean, I appreciate understanding what other cities are doing in terms of putting taxes on on these businesses. I mean, Oakland, San Jose, Berkeley, we have the figures in front of us. I'd like to if my who's Councilmember Lowenthal is amenable to reconsidering the motion on version B, the cultivation growth facility piece instead of $50 per square foot, can we say up to $50 per square foot to give the Council the flexibility and discretion to work within that range? If that's something that is? First of all, I would ask the city attorney. The city attorney first. Yes. The the motion would be then to not to exceed 50 similar to the 6 to 10%. You're going to do a maximum of $50 per square foot. Correct. And in doing so, at what point does the council determine what that is? Well, the way I understand the amendment to the motion you were, you're just setting the what the maximum established fee could be. And the council needs to decide whether you would want to be at least starting it. Initially, your tax rate is 6% if it's not amended. And so so at this point. You're free to Austin in addition to that. So setting the upper limit at $50 for the maximum of 10% when we look at version A for the 6%, can we start that at 15 instead of the 30? I'm okay with that. I'm fine with that. So up to 30. But we can start that at six at $15. I think it's up to 50 now. So there are two different versions. So under the 6% rate version. The motion was under version B. So under version B, currently it's going to be $50 and starting at 6%. So I believe. Up to $50. That's correct. And I think. Think got comfortable I can't remember what I was saying is that under version B could have been 15 to. Start. 50. Yes. So there's a range. So you're looking at 6 to 10, 15 to 50. That's I think the rate that correct. Okay. Is when. We don't come back and have that $30 as a starting point, that. Works for me. Okay. So as a maker, the motion and then the flat and then the the second accounting move, although I think we're in agreement there. Councilmember Andrews. Yes, you know, you know, listen to this. You know, like I said, this is new for the city of Long Beach, but I think we got to get it right. You guys in really certainly listen to these, the percentage of what they're trying to do, you know, after it just seems like it's just out of proportion. And I think that we're going in and what we're doing here, I think, is what we're going to make even the dispensary's you could even cause them to go crooked, look like they're working for us. But the percentage you will put it on them, I just think, are we going to do it? We got to do it right. Because you say we have sick people. We're talking about a dispensary. We're talking about individuals who need you guys. I just don't know. I'm just saying what I feel and I just think it would be the right thing. We do it. We got to do it right. We don't need to sit around and keep it. We put too much on this and then what's going to happen. They need to get their money, too, and it's going to cause a whole you talk about crime, it's going to you know, like I say, it will take care of itself because they're going to make their money just like they said, we want to tax them. Well, let's be fair in all of this, because what I'm listening to just doesn't seem fair. So if we're going to do it, let's do it right, you guys. Let's get it right the first time. That's the difference between. These two income. Do you have any suggestions? I mean, you may have. Sorry. May I follow up with Councilmember Andrews? Sure, I have. I have one speaker right before you and then I'll go to. Would you mind? But just for him to elaborate in terms of getting it right, I wanted to know what the alternative is, because I think lowering it is. It's. More akin to what the speaker's requested. Having zero does not seem like an option that the city attorney has provided us, because it would not, according to them, not be legal to tax a profit. And so that's where the per square footage fee comes from. So did you have a suggestion for what it could be? I think what they're saying, you know, like I say, you know, we started six, which seemed like a go to ten and all of a sudden we're talking about 250 some thousand. If in this situation it goes to that because we can be flexible with this. If they make more, we get more. But first, let's see where they start making it. I mean, sounds like you guys said that they're going to start making all this money. We're going to get this tax. I don't know where it's going to start, but I think we should be really. But you guys, we've been going with this one. I'm in two years. I think, you know, you five and it's going to happen whether we like it or not. But I think at least we should give them a chance to do what we know is right and get these sick people some help. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So. Oh, wait. Okay. So we have we do, however, have some other speakers. We do have a motion on the floor. Just as a reminder, we're doing the motion on the floor is a version B, that's from 6 to 10%, from 15 to 50. And I go over to council worship scheme. By senior members of the council clarify clarifying the motion. Is there a starting square footage as it started? Is the initial will be 15 or the initial was 30? I didn't hear the initial 15. As we're speaking. My question is on Prop 218 requirements about specificity. When you do a a rolling amount that you know do. I know. I know. But it has to be very clearly stated that it gives the counsel the discretion and that there has to be some criteria. Otherwise, it's just, you know, you're putting a figure out there that asking them to vote on that. It's not very specified as to when that can be used. In other words, if you're going up to $50 a square foot. Under what conditions does that have? I mean, when does that happen? What what triggers? You can go up to 50. Currently the it would be up to the discretion of the Council to verify and determine that an increase would be warranted and that at that time you would have whatever evidence or documentation you want to justify the increase. What we're asking for under Prop 218 is the authority to tax at that upper upper level. And so the assurances to the people that are voting for this is that that tax or that rate would never exceed that unless a vote it goes back to a vote of the people. And that will be specified in whatever ballot measure. That's correct. It would be a maximum amount, yes. Thank you. Councilmember Lowenthal and then Councilman Johnson. So I think you I wanted to just clarify that having heard council member Andrew's remarks, I appreciate that and agree with that. And I think we're accomplishing that with the range that we've come up with. So thank you. Thank you for raising that. And that's it for me. Got to Bird Johnson. Well. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I need some clarification on the motion. So what the city attorney had before us was not a range of caps. In other words, no higher than 10%. It could be 9%, could be 1% if we want to later on. So this conversation arranged itself is actually putting a floor saying that tax would be no lower than 6%. Is that is that your intent or. You're asking the maker of the motion? Yeah. I mean, what they really proposed was that no higher than 10%, but we would have full discretion to lower it to whatever we wanted below 10%. 6 to 10. Okay. So I guess the city attorney. So would you had originally proposed it would never go below 6%. The council would not have that discretion. We initially proposed an initial rate at 6% to a maximum of 10%. Correct. The question under Prop 218, if it was asked, is, could you lower attacks? And I think the answer to that is yes. You can always lower a tax without going back to a vote of the people if it was the will of the council. Okay. So the motion is basically version B, except the cultivation grow facility square footage. Fee would be $15. Is that accurate? Yes. It started 15. It could be no higher than 55. Thank you. Councilmember Neal. Q Mr. Vice Mayor, Mr. City Clerk, can you clarify what has to happen tonight to make sure that this even qualifies for the ballot? I can I can do that. Vice mayor and members of the council, essentially tonight, what you need to do is you need to adopt a resolution calling for the election on April 8th. And with that, you need to adopt the text of the measure that will be presented to the voters. And with that, we would then have a call for argument writers that would be date, that would be made right after you take item 16. And those are basically the three parts that need to be taken care of. So if we can't come to an agreement tonight, then there's no chance of having this on the April ballot, correct? Unless you had a special meeting between now and Friday to do that. Thank you. Got to remember the long. Call for the question. Good questions being called. There's no objection. We have a motion on the floor which has been just been repeated recently with public comment. Members, go ahead and please cast your votes. 15. I'm sorry. I know the question was called, but the issue of the $10 per square foot. Mr. City Attorney on the collective side, what is that for? Is that in addition to the cultivation grove? So if is that on the retail side? That is on the retail side and that is on in the books to address in the event that there is a501 C3 charitable or religious organization that is goes into the business of distributing medical marijuana, that would be the only alternative for the city to tax that entity on a square foot basis. They could not do a gross sales tax on a501 C3. It's my understanding there are no see three currently operating. But this is a what if. Just in case. So that's correct. Like fireworks of a community organization got involved there. Okay. So it's not in addition to the 10% of gross receipts, correct? Just for 523. That's correct. The $10. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. One motion on the floor numbers. Please go out and cast your votes. I mean. Yes. Motion carries eight votes, one vote no. Okay. Thank you very much. And Mr. Clarke, we're going to move on to the next item. I do have one sec before we do that. The mayor did have an announcement after this item, which I want to read. A little bit after. You want to after 16 to 16, the.