Recommendation to direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Chapter 8.100 of the Long Beach Municipal Code to require that residential and commercial rent deferred due to COVID-19 impacts be repaid according to a schedule.  (Citywide)
Okay. Thank you. Move carries on item 25. So now we're going to be moving on to item number 26, please. Communication from City Attorney. Recommendation to direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code to require that residential and commercial rent deferred due to COVID 19 impacts be repaid according to a schedule citywide. Okay. Think we're going to have a report from the city attorney. First mayor, members of the council, Rich Anthony. You might be having some technical difficulties. This item was brought back to the council, requested us to come back and present the council with options for the repayment of the rent deferred due to COVID 19 impacts and according to a payment schedule tonight for your consideration. The item presents four options or three options, and obviously the Council can and are various other options that are available. We are here to answer questions and take your comment. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and go to the council of council. I'm sorry. City attorney Rich Anthony on the line now, by any chance. Richard, are you on the line? Yeah. I'm sorry. Can you hear me? This is Rick. Anthony, can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you now. Okay, I apologize. I was having muting trouble, but Charlie summarized it well. I just wanted to remind counsel that you asked me to bring this back on May 26. We originally we're going to bring it back in July. It keeps coming back a little bit earlier because I do think is it important? It is important for both landlords and tenants to see if there's going to be a repayment schedule. I think they need as much time as possible to know that in order to plan for the future. With that, I stand by to answer any questions, which I'm sure there will be a fair amount during discussion. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Anthony. All right. I have Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So in the discussion around moratorium extension, there was a lot of discussion about really the need to help support people, make sure that they don't get have this large balloon payment at the end of the repayment period that city council put forward. I think the council made the right decision to give people up to a year to catch up on their rent. And I think the concern is if people are already struggling. And when they you know, when they begin to pay full rent on August 1st, it's going to be it may be difficult to make some of those back up payments. You know, by proposing a repayment plan that could inadvertently trigger evictions, I don't think that that was the goal of the city council either. I think this is a moment where we just have to think about what the problem is and how best we can help people solve their problem. If we want to help people, I think we should address the fact that. When come August 1st, when people are paying full rent, when the moratorium period is over, those people are really struggling. We should really help them. We should target our resources to help them with the back rate so that they don't have a problem in the future. So the idea here is that the purpose here is we don't want to lose sight of the point is to help people. This program should not be something that inadvertently triggers evictions for anyone. It should be voluntary. It should be incentivized. I'm not interested in putting forth a policy that triggers more evictions. Money should be our resources should be targeted at helping renters get out of the hole during the pandemic. For that said, I think I think the solution here is to take our rental assistance fund and look at ways that we can target that to help people make up their back rent. It's very limited resources. It's only $5 million. There's potential to add more. It was only $5 million here. There's 300,000 people in the city that live in a real household. That money is going to go very, very fast. If you think about the universe of people who are paying the rent in August. Let's say they paid 50% or 70% in the past and they're going to need to be caught up. That funding will go a long way to help support them get out of the hole. And that's the way we should be thinking about it. Targeted resources to help people get out of the hole. So what I have in mind is sort of a matching program that can help match dollar for dollar. Somebody helps make a payment to the back rent and the city can come in and match. Obviously the details of the program would need to be shaped up. But to be clear, what I'm not interested in is a policy that triggers evictions, but rather right now are programs to incentivize people through matching, to pay back whatever they can in the city will help them get out of that hole. So I have a motion I move that we receive and file a report from the city attorney and direct the city attorney to take no further action at this time regarding repayment schedules or benchmarks. In addition, in order to address potential failures to pay that deferred rent and evictions resulting therefrom, we direct the city manager to propose a program for City Council consideration at a future meeting date which could allocate current and future federal and state rental assistance funds to the payment of deferred rent during the moratorium period that the City Council has established. This program should be limited to repayment of rent. That's deferred pursuant to our moratorium. It should provide a dollar for dollar match. It should be available to any tenant who can document the reverse impacts from COVID, the people who are behind on their rent from that period of time and to the extent of the funding sources, allow, not just those who are I mean, this should be open to anybody who sort of has back rent, because I think our dollars go further that way and we can actually help people get out of the hole. That is my motion, and I'm happy to accept any questions or clarity that folks might have. Thank you. Okay. The that's the motion. Is there there a second to have a long list ahead of me up. Councilmember Pierce. 1/2. Okay. Well, let me go down the list, Councilmember, your. I have one person in between. Vice Mayor Andres. Okay. Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, you know, I think it's it's really unfortunate that we are once again debating people's livelihood. Where you are, Kenneth Orlando. It is unfortunate that it takes government involvement to sort out. Just because at the end of the day, we're not going to reach an agreement that makes everyone happy. My district, which is the sixth District, has a large population of people who left. And it's also one of the communities have struggled with their basic needs since COVID. There's not a single tenant I have spoken to when asked for rent rental assistance that is unwilling to pay rent. It is the same premise where they reach out. They want us to help them pay their rent. I believe that if we do not establish a repayment plan, our community is going to fall into a great debt . They will not be able to come out of. I do not think they remember. I do not think that as a member, it is our role to establish a specific a specific repayment plan, because every household is different and every household income and spending needs are different. I received about 90 emails in support of a repayment plan and about 45 against the repayment plan. And I want to see where this conversation goes tonight. And I really want us as a city to use dollars and resources available to help people get their rent paid all across the board. And I'd like to hear some more dialog before speaking some more. And I want to make sure that everyone would qualify for this program regardless of income. I believe this program should apply to anyone who owned that, who owes back do rent because the corporate customers in Washington. Do you see that as your motion? Absolutely. Look, it's limited resources. I think targeted at people who are behind will go a lot further, especially if it's a matching and sort of just putting it out broadly to 300,000 people who live a real household across the city. They will get more bang for our buck and actually help, which is the point, help people out of the hole. Yes, sir. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Councilman Pierce. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for his motion. I think that it is in alignment with what we see the needs to be in our community. I was happy to bring forward the item that this stemmed from, which was a 12 month delay and being able to support people that we told there's a moratorium . We told them there's a moratorium to evict you, pay what you can, because we, the government told them you can't go to work. We the government told them, you need to stay home. Stay home. I cannot support anything that we then turn around and create a mechanism that would affect tenants for doing what we told them that they could do. And so I just want to get on the record. Two questions with Rich Anthony. If there was a repayment section and I know that's not the motion on the floor, but I want to just ask the question if there was a repayment option and a schedule, would tenants be at risk of being evicted if , say, they paid their full rent but they didn't pay the full amount that that payment plan had included? Yes. Let me make sure that you all can hear me. You can, right? Yes. Yes. Good. Yes. So if I understand your question correctly, Council Member Pearce, if you were to adopt a benchmark payment requirement, any one of the three outlined in the letter or something else which required tenants to pay a certain percentage. You know, as we move through the upcoming year, then yes, the if they failed to make that payment, the idea would be that they would then be subject to eviction even if they were current on their regular rental payments. The benchmark system in other cities that have adopted it is meant to to require the tenant to pay. But of course, as you said, that's not the motion that's on the floor right now. Thank you. And my my other question is what we have right now, if we receive and file this today. When the 12 month period ends and there are tenants that cannot pay their full rent, they can then be evicted at that end of that 12 month period. That's right. As of August 1st, 2021. That's right. Right. So I understand that the conversation with some of the landlords has been wanting to understand when they would get paid. There's a relationship that landlords and tenants have. I've been a renter my entire life. I know the relationship. Well, if there's an issue, you call your landlord. Sometimes you don't call your landlord because you're scared. Right now, I'm spent as a renter. I don't know if I'm the only renter on this on this council, but I know I'm a renter, a single mom that rent an apartment in my district. The cheapest thing I can find for a two bedroom with $800. And I know that my landlord, since I have not been paying for rent because I am not consulting, in addition to being a councilwoman, he is here every single day. He is here. Fixing the roof, fixing a window, tapping on my door to ask if everything is okay. He is here more than he's ever been in the three years I've lived here. And while he's not saying anything that's threatening to me, it makes me very anxious. And it has meant that I've put off other bills to make sure that I spend whatever I can on my rent. And so the idea that tenants are going to wait to pay a balloon payment is something that we have fear of. But that has not been demonstrated. And I think that there's some numbers out there. About 80% of tenants are paying their full rent. And so I would hate for us to create a mechanism to evict anybody for any reason that's not already law. And so with that, I just wanted to make sure I had those facts on the on the record. People can't be evicted if they don't pay their rent based on what we have now. But that period is 12 months later. So thank you, Councilmember Richardson, for making the motion. I really hope that we can move on and get to this other program that you've outlined, which I think is a fantastic program that I fully support and look forward to having that discussion when the time is appropriate. Thank you. Count twins. And they have. Mayor for and thank you, Councilmember Richardson, for doing this this motion. I, too, have been conflicted on this repayment plan. I definitely do not want to see our. Renters, you know? Be faced with the possibility of being evicted due to not being able to match the rent repayment plan. But I also don't want to see our property owners lose out on the rent that they that they so rightfully deserve. I know that we're in a special times right now, that we're during COVID. And like Councilmember Pearce said, you know, we did ask all everyone to please stay at home to, you know, restrain from going to work. Everybody closed down. So, you know, it's it is kind of unfair if we kind of like jump and put a repayment plan and ask them to do it here like this when we know that they're facing uncertain times ahead. So I think that by filing this report, receiving, receiving and filing this report is the right direction to go to as we explore a little bit more on how things are going to be in the next couple of months. I think this is the right direction. But I'd also like to see. And I'm hopeful, you know, too, that a lot of the tenants like myself, I'm also a renter. And I also fear of not being able to pay rent, you know, at times. But. You know, i1i myself know that rent to me is a priority and I want to assume that it is for all of those of the renters as well, and that, you know, those renters are not going to try to not pay rent because rent is something that they really want to do as it is for me , because, you know, to have a safe place to live. So I again, I do think that this might be the right thing to do right at this moment. So I encourage my colleagues to support this at this moment. Thank you, Councilmember Ranga. Counseling for your anger. I think you're muted. Council member. Think your muted. You hear me now? Yes. Oh, geez. Okay. For some reason near me, I think that the two council members who are renters set the story straight. They're the ones that had the experience and they lived it. There's a lot of moving parts. And this item here that I can't agree with of the biggest one, of course, being COVID 19 and the direction that it's taking. When we look at whether people are going to be going back to work or not or when they go back to work or not, it's a matter of how many. Hours are going to go back to. Work and what and even if they have a job. Waiting for them. So I think the sad in the way it's being presented today is not an item that I can support. So I'm going to be supporting the of the receiving file with the additional comments that the Councilmember reached to put in in terms of looking into some kind of matching program that we might be able to to assist renters with. So I'll be supportive of the motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I have a couple questions regarding the receiver, not file motion, but I'll also make a few comments. No, I think the spirit of what? We as a council understanding these really unprecedented times and challenges that we have been presented, that have been presented to our constituents, our residents throughout the city, renters, property owners, business owners, small businesses. This is we were we were we were we've been faced with really unprecedented decisions. Right. And the. Much of what we did was all in good faith. It was all to help people or support families to provide economic relief. We passed the package hastily. Right. And we with the intent of getting it right. And I think for the most part, it has worked out. But then there were the unintended. I don't think it was ever intended that the eviction moratorium would what mean, you know, a French rent vacation or free rent because there's no free mortgage . There's there's a system there's an economic system that has been disrupted. And. I do. And I think the intent of what's creating the Long Beach Cares program, the rental assistance program that we passed just a week ago or two weeks ago, was intended to do justice to help people catch up on their rent and allows for up to $1,000 a month for three months. And so I'm not sure exactly if we received a file. Are we looking to create the same program for the same intent or. Or what? So I'm a little confused about that part. I'm okay with putting this item right, because I think it gives us a little time to to work it out and to work the details out. But we are in as smart and efficient with the resources and helping the folks that. Councilman Austin. I think we lost you. And a landlord and I think the city council and I've heard it. Well, now appreciate what you said of council members. And they have. I appreciate and I encourage good faith between those parties. Right. I would say that the vast majority of renters and landlords are going to work it out and should have the ability to work work it out. And so what is proposed here is very prescriptive. I we have four options on this notion that are very prescriptive. That. Could. Essentially, if it doesn't work, we create an unintended consequence. But I also would say that. We look forward. A year from now and someone is three months behind on their rent. Are we still looking at the same? To do what they in terms of potential eviction because they are behind on their rent. I don't know that answer, but I certainly do not want to. Contributed to anyone being evicted or losing their housing as a result of this this economic. Chaos that we're in that. With no fault of anybody. Not. Not the fault of the renter. Not the fault of the. The landlord, a property owner and really not the fault of the city. I think we're all trying to to to work to get to a good place. And so I guess my question to Councilmember Richardson, in terms of the receiver file, what can you. Can you tell us again what the direction. Absolutely. Where we want to go, because this is not written down up, by the way. You know, we're just kind of interested. So so, councilman, thank you for allowing me to clarify. So and thinking about a way to structure what a voluntary program would look like that didn't trigger evictions, but could incentivize people to make payments by matching it. I spoke with Rich Anthony about the appropriate action that we can provide so that he understood it. And so I think so. I think I structured it based on that discussion. I think it would be helpful if we just hear from Rich on how he understands the request. It's it's it is what we have in front of us. The ordinance we have in front of us is specifically related to a repayment plan. And whatever repayment plan we do, if people default, that triggers the eviction. So the appropriate action, whoever the appropriate action is to not do it within ordinance but within, within the program. Charlie Great. Sure. So just to clarify, there's not an ordinance before you right now. What was before you was the direction to give the city attorney direction to adopt an ordinance which would amend 8.1? I'm hearing the motion loud and clear. That's not what is on the table now. But in order to. Councilmember Richardson, I think what you were trying to do is without imposing a strict commitment schedule, you were trying to address what you see as a potential problem, which I think Al just also noted, which is there may in fact, be a year from now. A lot of tenants out there may not, but there may be a lot of tenants that have not been able to repay their deferred rent and come more or less a year from now, a little more than that. They're not going to be able to pay all the deferred rent that they need to. And there may be a bit of an eviction crisis occurring in July of 2021. In an effort to address that, Councilmember Richardson is directing city staff. I'll be working with city staff, but primarily the city manager, to see about establishing a program very similar to the program that this council approved two weeks ago. Rental assistance. But it would be a little different. I think it would be a it would be a stand alone program. The way I see it. People would be eligible for both programs. They could apply for both. And tenants may in fact, qualify for both. It would be limited very specifically to only city dollars would only be given to tenants to pay their deferred rent, rent that they had not paid, and that accrued between March 4th. And assuming no extension of this moratorium July 31st of this year, whatever that dollar amount is, the city would have this program and would pay up to half of that dollar amount, presuming that the tenant pays the other half. So so because this was admittedly this was not agenda on tonight's agenda because we didn't know it would come. And that is why we're discussing the program now. But we'd have to bring this back. We got to give staff a little bit of time to think about how it would work to identify any potential problems. Although I've been we've been thinking about that for a while now, and I don't think there are. And then we would bring this back for formal approval and establishment by the council, you know, as soon as we can, and we will highlight any sort of direction that we need at that time. And this is tell me if I can make a quick question to the maker of the motion. I need to understand is this Instead of the $5 Million program, which we have $5 million for taking a portion of that or some of it, I just need to know if we hit pause on that program because we don't have any other dollars allocated for any type of new tenant program at this time. So some direction on that would be helpful. Sure. And I don't think you should cancel the program. I think you should look at some of the resources that indicated that program and figure out what portion to be targeted for this. And then and then as additional CARES Act funding comes in, we should we should increase it. To be clear. I'm not. What I'm saying is it's a repayment program as opposed to a structure repayment plan or a repayment program. And that program incentivizes matching. That's what I'm saying. So I think you can take some time and then bring it back. Okay. So given that then, because really the portion of the program, we would take a short break before we implement that program to evaluate this should the motion move forward. Thank you, Mr.. Let me let me let me keep going forward. I'm not. I'm not. That was the question. Clarifying question. May I just. I do have the floor. I. I was giving I was giving you a back and forth. Okay. So let me just keep moving forward. So, Councilman Austin. So I guess my my question for the city manager is, I know we've received some more relief from the county. Could there be funds in that to go toward this in addition to the Long Beach care program that we have? And then secondly, I know. Councilmember Richardson We are also working on getting money in the Heroes Act potentially from DC to help with some of the economic relief work that we want to do. I would say earmark or contingency or for that for this type of program, because what we're also looking at is we don't necessarily have to have it today. We sounds like we have some time to to work out a replacement plan for for those who are in arrears. So those are my comments. I'm really interested to hear the discussion from my colleagues on this. This is this is I think it's encouraging. I, I want to. I don't feel so comfortable with an ordinance at this point to to mandate the repayment. I do like the idea of a program. I like the incentive incentivizing repayment. And I think this council should be in a place where we're encouraging folks to continue that good faith relationship between and it's a landlords. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. I have concern from Vice Mayor Andrews. Actually Vice mayor, do they have. I have two people that haven't spoken yet. So let me go to them and they'll come back around just for a second round. Captain for Superman. Thank you. I have a question on clarification on an issue and maybe be making this step. I think I heard two different things, and that is let's let's talk about first things first. Would at the sunset of the eviction moratorium, what is the date that typically renters would pay their first rent? Would that be August one? Yeah. This is rich council member Super nine. Yeah, I think that's the way it would work. The as the ordinance currently written sunsets on July 31st. I mean, I think everyone on the call probably knows 90% or more of residential rent's due on the first of the month and that that will be due on August 1st. Regular rent not the deferred rent, but regular rent. I think it's safe to assume what we do in the vast majority of cases the day after the sunset. Okay. So could you take a guess at then? Well, I think I brought this point up at a previous meeting, but I think it's a very important point. So I'll reiterated. Um, if that rent payment is missed, is the penalty that the back rent is due at that time. Yes. So if that if that rent payment is missed. After a three day notice to pay her quit is is delivered to the tenant. Then what we want to make sure is if if the if an unlawful detainer is moving forward legitimately based on August 1st rent or any rent thereafter, the landlord has the right to include in this lawsuit the repayment of all deferred rent at that time. So I don't think it's right to say if if the rent payment is missed on August 1st, all deferred rent is immediately due. The tenant still has the opportunity to go through the three day notice to pay or quit procedure. Okay. So for the sake of argument on on let's say August 7th that that would kick in and that. Yeah, that's right. If they failed if they failed to come current on their August rent in response to the three day notice to quit, then everything would be due August rent and also the deferred rent. Okay. And also, Mr. Anthony, you couldn't possibly speculate on when an eviction would physically actually take place in that scenario. I could always speculate on something, but given that currently the Judicial Council, the court says, kept at least unlawful detainers closed, youth courts are closed. I don't think that they will be open by August. But whenever they do reopen and this is a bit of speculation, I don't have direct experience, but I do think unlawful detainer actions usually take 5 to 8 weeks to get to completion. I may be off on that and I welcome comments from other members of the Council who may have different opinions. Okay. Thank you. The other question I'd like to ask staff is the number of 80% of renters are paying rent. Do we have any opinion from any data on that, from staff? Linda Tatum will take a shot at that question. I'm. Councilman, I'm not sure where that number comes from. We know that there are many that aren't paying, but we don't have a really good, accurate data source that we could give you that would really be based on actual data. So it's completely anecdotal. Okay. So just to summarize my position here, I'm very concerned about that August one date and I'm equally concerned about the balloon payment, which I think everyone is. So I'll hold any further comments for now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I share I mean, from the very beginning, I have shared very publicly that I am concerned about the concept of the balloon payment. And when we offer things like. Rental assistance, but we don't have mortgage assistance. Then the burdens that we're creating are falling on the shoulders of only one entity in the circle that is involved with housing. And I and I definitely concerned about that. I know that the repayment option is not a popular one. I'm hearing that from folks to me, and I've shared this with with everyone, I think on the council as a as a commercial tenant, I know that for us, the balloon payments is going to be nearly impossible to meet. So we've talked a lot about a partial payment structure that would work. And to Councilman Austin's point, you know, working with your landlord is always the best way to do it and always the best way to ensure that you don't fall into a situation that the city can't really mandate, that we can't really mandate people to meet and confer on a payment plan. If we could, I think that's something that we would have thought about a long time ago. So the repayment plan is really an opportunity or an effort to try to be fair to all of the entities that are involved in the housing cycle, the housing provider, as well as the person who's occupying the home, the tenant. And I think what we I think we've done a lot to help tenants, and I think it's great. Certainly nobody on this council wants to see people get evicted. Nobody no councilmember wants that. But what we are trying to do is to be fair to the folks that aren't getting any mortgage relief. And for anyone out there who thinks banks are offering relief left and right, you're absolutely wrong. That's not happening. It's not happening for commercial properties and it's not happening for residential properties, at least not on a large scale. And certainly that's because the government can't intervene and force that as we can with the eviction moratorium for tenants. So I would like to see a payment plan, but I also agree that we don't want to do anything that subjects people to earlier eviction. Because if they can't if they can meet their balloon payment, that they're not going to be subject to eviction. But if they can't meet their balloon payment and it's unlikely they're even going to be able to make the partial payment, then that's going to subject them to earlier eviction. And nobody wants to see that. My concern I like the idea of the incentivizing and the matching. I really do like that idea. I think that is a great way to look at it and it's a great way to offer incentives for people to pay. And they wouldn't get evicted, but the landlord would still get a partial payment. The concerns I have with that is one I will say that I don't like the fact that we're leaving it open. Councilman Richardson, I think you and I've been on the council long enough that we know when we are receiving five with they bring it back at some future date. We're basically kicking it out with no expectation that it ever come back. I would like to offer as a friendly that we set a time for it to come back, whether it's 30 days or 60 days, to have staff report back on what funding is available and what the limitations on that funding might be. The state and federal dollars and county dollars that we're getting to help with rental assistance do come with some restrictions. And some of those restrictions, for example, there's income based qualification. So I'd like to get a better understanding of if we're going to do a repayment incentive program or partial payment incentive program. Are there moneys that we can utilize that have less restrictions attached to them so that tenants throughout the city can benefit from it because they may have a higher income in other parts of the city, but they're still tenants and they're still facing the same problems as tenants throughout all of the city. So if their rent is, let's say, you know, if they're if their income is is similar to someone living in a cheaper apartment, but they're paying more of their income to rent. But their incomes about the same, then they're really not going to be able to qualify. And that puts them in a very difficult situation. They've chosen to pay more of their income to live in a more expensive housing unit, but yet they're not qualified. They're not getting qualified for any sort of rental assistance because they don't make enough money. And so I worry about that category of people. And so I'd like to see what options are available. I certainly do not want to cut the current tenant assistance programs that we have, the $5 million that we have, a place that has worked so hard to get that program up and running. I'd like to see that program up and running as soon as possible. So I don't want that program to pause. But I would like us to come back in 30 days or 60 days and evaluate what additional funding is available, whether there is any funding or any revenue source that we can tap into that's nontraditional, that might help for this sort of program, you know, a back to work type program, maybe it's not even. Earmarked for housing specifically, but to help people get back on their feet on some sort of a stimulus program that might amount that we can utilize to help residents get back on their feet. So my friendly would be I'd like to have it come back, not necessarily with a date certain, but, you know, a month certain. And I would hope that you would be amenable to that. Absolutely. So when so Rich Anthony mentioned that, I think you mentioned the date of July 14th. And my conversation with him earlier just simply just comes down to how some staff can. And, you know, look at the program. Get the details on the color of the money, what restrictions? All of those are important for us to understand. We can do and we want to leverage additional funds as well. I think there are some opportunities. But like you, I want to be urgent about this. I think people need help and we should help them as quickly as we can. So I think I think 30 days should be plenty of time. But sooner if we can get this back, the date that that rich man, I think that I would prefer. But I think 30 days is 20. Oh. I'm sorry to interrupt. I would just. This is rich. I'm a little worried that I was being aggressive on that date, given that I'm not the one that's going to be doing most of the work. It's going to be city staffer. And I think council. Council member Austin made a good point. I don't think that it's that time critical. I don't mean to dismiss Councilmember Price. And your point, Councilman Richardson. Let's make sure it comes back. I get it. But since tenants are going to have until July 31st, 2021 to pay. There's a lot of time during which we could establish a program and during which they can take advantage of that program. So. Is there a is there a council meeting on July 21st and maybe we bring it back in early August? I definitely want to make sure Tom and city staff have input into when they feel comfortable bringing it back. So this is done. So yeah, we do agree we should come back in about 30 days rather than 60. While the city attorney is right about there's not time from the ordinance perspective. A time crunch there is on the money that we would be able to access for this. The Federal Cares Act money needs to be out the door spent reimbursed everything done by the end of December. That's incredibly fast. So to be able to use any of that money, we need to make some decisions on it fairly soon. So we would commit to coming back within 30 days, giving you the options for the $5 million or what we could do with that, how we would move that program forward and any additional federal cares act or other revenues that you may want to dedicate. I think that's fine. I accept that. And just be clear, we're talking about the program. I know that. We're not talking about the ordinance. I know you mentioned ordinance. Sorry, I'm talking about the program. Yes, sir. I just want to be clear. We're talking about the program. But, Councilwoman, I fully accept that. Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And Tom or Mr. Modica. You know, as you and your team are evaluating funding sources, really, I know you guys are really good at being creative, but this repayment program is different. It's creative, and maybe there's some category it falls into that's not specifically housing, but allows us to be a little bit creative with, you know, incentivizing people, getting back on their feet or something like that, and also trying to see, I hope that I was able to articulate the concerns I have about it being income based because there are people who do 40 or 50% or even higher percent of their salary to rent so that they can live in a different neighborhood, so that they can be in a different school district or whatever the case may be. So I want to make sure that we're trying to help as many tenants as possible. And of course, there are landlords, too, who aren't getting any mortgage relief. Okay. Thank you. Next up is. Council member Mungo. No. Q can you hear me? Wonderful. Thank you. I think a lot of the concerns mentioned tonight, in no way was the council looking to set up runners to have a big balloon payment at the end. And we always talked about finding a way to help them get there. And the reason that balloon payments are not. Really allowed anymore in the credit industry is because people don't typically have the ability to get to a point where they have that much cash on hand to make those balloon payments. So we want to have a win for everyone tonight. We want to make sure to focus on the back rent owed. I guess I just have two things. It's easy to say that we want to. Forgive rent. And the challenge comes with the finding who's going to eventually pay for that? I was talking to one of my colleagues today about a woman in my district who literally hasn't had any income, zero income, but her Social Security, which is very, very low because it was her husband's who passed away. She's been getting food from a local church and she doesn't have any income coming in except for the food from the local church. And her husband's passed away. Has the Social Security to pay for her caretakers and to pay for her living expenses. And. And as you get older, if you have caretakers and those things, they're very expensive. And those caretakers will not allow her to pay late. And so the home that she grew up in, that she now uses as a rental and has not been paying their their rent. So we're not talking always about some big corporation. We're literally talking about our neighbors who also need to eat. And so any way to put forward a program. So I'm going to just kind of delineate a couple of things. So the $5.3 million that we talked about last week, I first want to think two weeks ago, Councilmember Austin, for starting us down that path. And one of the things that I talked about was stretching that money and instead of up to 100% of rent, that it would be 50% of rent. And I love the idea of using it as matching, and I think that that is a huge component and that really was kind of thrown around. But I know that we are all working so hard to. Fine solutions so quickly. We haven't been able to work through all the details I agree with. The idea that there isn't as much urgency now, because we do know that they have longer to pay, but there's still neighbors at home who need some certainty on when they can pay things back. So this neighbor that I mentioned is in her late seventies and she took out a credit card cash advance to make her payments. She needs to kind of figure out when she's going to be able to pay those things back. So I'm a big thank you to the city staff who are willing to make a commitment to getting that back to us in 30 days. I'd also like to say that we need real data on what is outstanding, and so I'd like to see the city staff pull together with our I.T. team, some kind of portal where a landlord can enter limited information about what is outstanding from them. You can go on and say, I have two units and I have one tenant who's three months behind on rent to the tune of 1800 a month. And I have another tenant who's behind on rent, but they've been paying 70%. I think we as a city need to know what that looks like because we need to kind of track that as we go, because we as a city need to prevent a mass eviction status across our city. In August, what is it, July 31st of 2021. We need to look at where those numbers are lining up so that we can prepare ourselves and put in additional programs as necessary. So I'd love to see some kind of portal if Councilmember Richardson's amenable to adding that to his motion or the city staff to explore what options they might have to collect that data for us. Absolutely. We should we should explore it. I think I think more broadly, we need to be thinking as we approach July of 2021 about a strategy that. Well, this could be one of the larger things I think you're thinking correctly in that we don't want mass evictions at that point. So there should be a whole host of evaluate absolutely them. And then I think asking the question, too, there are a lot of people who haven't gone back to work yet and they do have rent due just around the corner. And so I think for landlords to also give that information on where they've made exceptions, what they've done to accommodate renters and whether they did have a COVID reason or not, just for us to have that is important and then for us as a city to really think it out. The program was supposed to start on June 29th. That's six days from now. And we don't have another council member between now and meeting between now and then. Mr. Modica, what is your plan with if the motion on the floor passes? What are your initial thoughts on when we could regroup in terms of what kind of information you've already sent out regarding the program as it was or. What that would now look like. Ask Linda Tatum to respond to that. Councilwoman Mango We have been very aggressive in terms of starting to publicize and put the information and the information documents. We've gotten a really robust response to this from the public who are saying we're ready to go and we have committed that we would have the application forms and other information about the program up on the website on the 29th for the the rental assistance program that the council approved a couple of weeks ago. So if you direct us to continue that effort tonight, we would certainly just get that information up and just restructure the program based upon the direction. And as I understand it, I think the clarification is that we would need to understand that you want us to continue with the prior rental assistance program, but just use a portion of that fund funds, the 5.3 million to dedicate to this program that we're talking about tonight. So that's the direction that we would need, whether we put the one on hold or continue with the one and funded at a certain level and dedicated a portion of the funds that have already been committed to that program and divert those to this new program. So I don't think it's a diversion. I really think it is a prioritization. So I think you open the portal and again, I can hear from my colleagues, you open the portal and people apply and we can use the data of all the applicants and how far behind they are. All the different components for us to determine from a policy perspective where the most need is and where the city can forgive or not forgive. Brant Pay on behalf of the tenants. That makes the best impact on our economy as a whole to be able to lift up neighbors and make sure that they get to stay in their homes. So that would be my recommendation. I think that even if it's still opened on the 29th without clear direction on how much any one person is going to get, I think you kind of talk about the possibilities of up to $3,000 of rent matching or or prepayment for you. And then you'll have the data in in there for us to determine. And I kind of said that at the last meeting, too. And I think this is really just an enhancement of a great program really authored by Councilmember Alston and for us to and have now sat on it for a week and said two weeks and said, okay, let's leverage that money as the matching, let's do up to the 50% of rent owed a couple of those sides of it. So we can see how far that money can stretch and how much of an impact it can make. But other than that great work of Councilmember Richardson, Councilmember Austin and Mr. Anthony, I know you've worked on this tirelessly, and I know my council colleagues who really discussed this program over the last few weeks. I know that we wish we could forgive rent, but forgiveness is really not making it disappear. It's really taking from one and giving to another. And in some of those cases, some of our most vulnerable senior citizens are kind of living on that income, and you can't really differentiate how you pull those people apart. We want to make sure not to have our senior citizens without care, food or or housing. So I'd thank you all to your work on this. I'm really excited to see an opportunity for renters to be incentivized to both pay back a little bit of that back rent and for the city to step in with these funds to kind of pay off part of it for them. Vice Mayor Landrieu's. No, I'm fine. Thank you very much, man. Consumer superpower. Thank you. I just want to back what Councilmember Mungo said, and it looks to me and maybe staff can respond that if this comes back on the 14th, can we be up and running by August one? So if we if we leave the end of June. Program in place. Our program in place. Um. Tenants can access that money. And then if this program gets going, um, is August one too early a date to get that moving? I let me respond to that. I think it would be helpful to just clarify that the the the prior rental assistance program, the criteria for that were very specific in terms of the income qualification and the other criteria in the documents that you would need to be eligible for that program. The program you're talking about tonight for the rent deferral, that program, in my opinion, and we're still we'll still spend some time to look at it over the next 30 days would potentially have a different set of criteria because it would come from a different funding source. And that's why I was asking you to consider maybe having these as two separate programs rather than melding them, because they come from different sources and they have different criteria for qualification. And that makes it really challenging to meld them together and try to really efficiently and fairly implement them when they're melded together under the scenario that was just described. So I would and the program that you previously approved was scheduled to be rolled out on the 29th. And given that if we don't come back with the the details of the program you just talked about for another 30 days, that truly would delay the implementation of the rental assistance program. So I'm some clarification about the goals would help and I would encourage you to consider them as two separate programs because of the different funding sources. Okay. Well, I was I was playing off of Stacey Mungo's comment. So if I like to respond to what I just said, but again, I want to reiterate that August 8th one is a great concern to me. And what I failed to mention is August one is just the first milestone that rent will be have tenants want to pay their rent on time every month after that? That is correct, Mr. Anthony. I believe that I might have overemphasized August one, but that's just the start date. Any month after that, rent. Rent is late. The same consequences will kick in. Thank you, Mr. Zubrin. I do agree that there is some confusion because, Ms.. Tatum, we cannot continue to create separate programs to a taxpayer, to a renter, to a landlord. It is one program. It needs to be a11 door. They don't know the differences of what type of funding it is. They the applicant would not, but the the city staff would. And we would certainly put all of the details of each one of the programs. And I what I'm hearing is that a any one household could be eligible potentially for two programs unless you direct us to qualify them for one or the other of the programs. And there is clearly some overlap because the rental assistance program that you approved last week, a person who has deferred rent would likewise be eligible for that program, even under assuming that they met the income guidelines. Everything you talked about tonight, they could potentially be eligible for the rental assistance program you already provided. But I'm hearing that you're really concerned and you want to focus additional funds on those who exclusively have deferred rent. So there there's there's a difference in both of those those qualifications for the program, which is why a more distinction, a greater distinction between the programs would be helpful in terms of administration. But I hear you loud and clear. You're saying we could probably just get the application and see which one of those programs they would would qualify for. And if you're okay with that, we can certainly study that and roll out the rental assistance program on the schedule we had already provided because the funding wouldn't all go away immediately. I think we could work something out where we move forward on the one and yet still maintain some of those funds for for the new program and continue to look for additional program program funds. And this is Tom. I jump in here a little bit, so I think we just need some clear direction. There's definitely two different ways we can go. So we've got $5 million set aside for a program. We're ready to go. You're asking us to do something different, which is to kind of either either modify that money to extend to this kind of new a program or to create two separate programs. We can certainly go out and look for more money we only have right now. We know we have the $5 million in hand. So that's kind of what I'm looking for direction from from the either the maker of the motion or others and we, you know, just should we try to do both or should we create one new program? That's what we're looking for. Okay. Okay. So this is this is the Mary. Nobody's had a chance to speak. I want to I want to just clarify, and I think I'm hearing everyone's comments. And, Councilman Margaret, you have additional comments also. Well, I really appreciate Mr. Modica comment, but I think that what we're talking about is an enhancement with some of the suggestions made last week, because when Mr. Richardson states up to 50% matching, there are certain tenants that would then be what I think we would use the word prioritized because they were marching down that path, but because they wouldn't have that same kind of requirement. So I think that they should consider my recommendation to the maker of the motion is that they would continue to take in applications, but that we don't necessarily tell anyone who's been awarded an application until at least we get a report back from the Development Services Department on the 14th. So we as a city can make sure that it's headed in the right direction. That would be my only comment and thank you for all that. The considerations to both Mr. Medications. Tatum Great. I'm going to make a brief, brief clarifications and then we'll move on. I think actually. Then I've got Councilman Austin and we're going to move up. Just to clarify, I think I know a lot of people, including Councilman Austin and others, worked on the original program. I think we want to keep the original program in place, is what I'm hearing. So the original program stays in place. We have funding already set aside for that program that moves forward and we have a timeline set up for that. In addition to that, we are expanding this kind of this program that we have to also do this kind of rental repayment assistance program. That's a matching program of which we're going to look for additional dollars to supplement that program if and over the course of the next few weeks, you know, staff, you come forward and say , hey, we think, you know, we found some new dollars here or we think that there's some some dollars maybe, you know, some limited dollars from the original program that can move into the other one. I think we'll wait to hear from you. But I think what I'm hearing is we want to move forward with the original program and keep that going. Then we now we have a new program as proposed tonight that we're going to look for additional funds. That program is going to come back to the council for approval. And it will essentially be one rental assistance bucket of which there's different kind of programmatic ways of of of people getting assistance. So that's the way I'm hearing things. And hopefully we can get to a vote. Councilman Austin. I think I was cued up. Thank. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am pleased with the direction this is going in. I appreciate your clarification. I did want to just express my my desire and hope that the council will support moving forward with the right care Long Beach Cares program, the rental assistance program that we already have in place. I'm supportive of this. We've seen and we can commit to doing that and also look at how we can enhance options for for helping people pay their rent and helping landlords get their rent as well. I think everybody wins with the proposal on the table. And if we can take just a little bit more time to work that out and also hopefully identify new resources from other sources, this could make the program even more robust and beneficial to the more so. Those are my comments. I hope we can stay the course here. Okay. Think I'm going to go to public comment unless, Councilman Richardson, do you have do you have additional comments before we do have a comment and vote? As a Richardson. Here. I am sorry. I was a supporter of that in this direction. I think I think a lot of the last. A lot of discussion, just confused a lot of folks. I think we wanted to be very, very clear here. We already have a program in the works. I think that program, people are expecting to get assistance. We don't want to take anything off the table that we've already put on the table to them. What we're saying is we need to develop a program to help with back rent. Where the color of money comes from. Steph's going to need some time to evaluate that. What the funding levels are, staff's going to have to evaluate, and there's going to have to be additional funding as well. So Steph has some flexibility come back with a few options for the city council to consider. But this motion is about saying let's not do rental assistance. It says we can maybe look at, you know, figuring out how our dollars can stretch this massive matching concept and truly incentivize people to make those, you know, to make payments as best as they can. So so those are my comments. Thank you. Yeah. View it as an expansion of what we were already doing. So we're not going back on what the program was and expanding it in a different way. So let's go to public comment. Madam Clerk. We have 13 public comments. Our first comments from Tanya Jimenez, your colleague. Your time starts now. Hi. This is Tania menendez, District seven. This item is important. Landlords do not provide a valuable service to society. They are parasites that hoard housing, stock and profit off the backs of others. Requiring tenants to pay back rent without taking into account the continuing pandemic and inability of many times to pay is not logical. It does not serve the people it serves to evict tenants and free up housing stock to put for sale back on the market. I heard about this. It only serves landlords and property owners. It serves to increase the city's overall homelessness rate, something you are going to want to reduce. If you need it to live, it should be free. This includes housing, water, food and health care. And this goes specifically. To the councilman. That says she hopes renters are not trying to get out of paying their rent to the councilman who said there should be no free rent because there's no free mortgage. And so the councilwoman who called landlords housing providers point blank, period, housing is a human right. Housing should be free. Keep your landlord assistance and repayment plan. Black women and black families in particular are the most rent burden in Long Beach and are at the most risk of eviction, followed by families headed by indigenous peoples and people of color. I urge you all to cancel the repayment plan and forgive him. People over profit should be the bottom line. Always. My time. Thank you for your comment. Next we have. And you said De la Cruz a better. Starts now. Hi, I'm from District one. So today, me and other residents, I want to ask for all of you to vote no on the repayment plan. First of all, I think it's ridiculous and there's a special plan to move forward with the renters, which are the ones who need protection from the landlords. This is the price. So how dare you support a measure that would help you as a landlord? This is not about personal gain. It's about the people involved and the 59.8% of renters. And then protection. There would be that 59.8%. Our economy is still not functioning and reopen and with little openings have taken place. COBRA 19 infection rates have skyrocketed and landlords want to sit there like royalty until long time resident that you should have a plan or a safety net or that x amount months is plenty of time to pay back to rent. People do not have the money right now to pay what's already ridiculously high rent. Working class people both a lot of these are nationwide have been bearing the brunt of government response to COVID 19, from the city dragging its feet to provide widespread testing to offering the least possible help to thousands of workers who were thrown out of their job and don't have the wait a month. Rents are growing overhead. The proposed rate rise with the payment plan will leave thousands of citizens of our village at risk for eviction or failure to pay rent. The fact that sentences of this city are being subjected to pressure to this pressure is criminal, especially when members of our city council are a landlord themselves, indirectly profiting from the very plan they are proposing to pass. The real issue here is that rent should have been forgiven in the first place. You guys have filed 5.3 million, I believe I heard. Dollars. Thank you for your comment. Next, we have Seagram. Your time starts now. Y'all are going to be hearing from me and my fellow community members now and in the future, because we are listening. We are tuning in and listening. We are taking note. We are mobilizing. And we are angry. You need to hear our words. I'm looking at you because I know that you are a landlord, a landlord in our community, and you will benefit directly from this measure. It is in your personal interest to pass this measure. But as a member of your district, I say I demand that you vote no on this measure. We need to cancel rent completely. Cancel it, cancel repayment, cancel it all. We are in a new time. Corporate capitalism has failed the people and only benefited property owners. Well. Thank you for your comment. Next, we have Daniel Kelson. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor and city council members. I'm a longstanding homeowner and I do not rent, nor do I own properties for rent. I therefore speak with no conflict of interest on this measure. But as a concerned citizen, the push by rental property owners for an ordinance scheduling this rapid to pay back of rent is mathematically challenged, economically irresponsible and civically reprehensible. For those renters lucky enough to have been out of work and that missed payments for only three months, this proposal amounts to an inhumane 25% rent increase to pay back dismissed once in a 12 month period. Many more people are still suffering in this economic and public health crisis. With the unemployment rate in Long Beach hovering around 20% and more months of rent still paying that back in a 12 month schedule is an even more dramatic increase in their housing burden. So just because the proposed table sounds simple doesn't make it humane or even feasible. A large number of Long Beach residents who are housing stressed, a population skewed toward people of color and the working poor would be devastated by such an ordinance whose sole aim must be seen really as a roundabout way to produce more evictions when rent payback schedules cannot be met. Now is not the time for landlords to be talking about clawing back funds that may never make it into the hands of the tenants. I just defended the property owners. Consider that this is the sort of measure appropriate at this time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comment. Next, we have Elsa tongue. Your time starts now. Hi, this is Ailsa Chang from Long Beach Forward. I'm going to read some excerpts from the letter that our executive director, Dr. Christine Pettit, submitted today. We at Long Beach Forward stand in strong solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement here in Long Beach and around the world. We strongly oppose item 26 to mandate and ill conceived one size fits all deferred rent repayment schedule for all tenants. This proposal, especially during a global pandemic with mass unemployment, is patently anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-poor and anti small business, and, if passed, will lead to mass evictions, growing homelessness and shuttered small businesses. 63% of black women and 60% of all women of color in Long Beach are rent burdened. These women and their families, meaning children, will be the first to be evicted from their homes and onto the streets. Under this proposal, black residents are already grossly, disproportionately represented in L.A. County's unhoused population. Long Beach must reject any and all policies that would add one more black body to the violence of homelessness. Vote no on the repayment schedule and instead cancel rent and cancel mortgages to provide real relief in our renter majority city. I yield back. Thank you. Next, we have Fred Sutton. Your time starts now. Honorable Mayor City Council Fred Sutton on behalf of the California Department of Association. Appreciate your time and your deliberation on this very important issue. Housing providers continue to act with compassion towards those who face related hardships to the coronavirus as the economy reopens and an increasing number of employees return to work. We asked council to insert a payment standard to help residents pay rent that has been deferred. It is in no one's interests to have large payments outstanding in a year from now. This policy should be simple, regular, and give everyone time to understand their financial obligations. It makes sense and helps avoid mass evictions. It is not mutually exclusive what Councilmember Richardson is talking about in his motion. You can insert a payment plan and have renter assistance. Fulfill those that are unable to meet some of those installments that are continuing to struggle. The you can vote for an installment plan and assistance to come back and figure out how to pay some of those installment payments at a later date. This should move forward in some capacity today. We understand what everyone is facing, but housing providers need some relief as well as there has been no assistance through the CARES Act . Coming to housing providers and utility costs are going up, maintenance is going up and income is not coming in from these units. It's fair and equitable to find a payment plan solution going forward and using assistance loans to fill those gaps. Appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Jen, Victor and Ensign. Honorable Counsel. My name is Jan Victor Anderson. I am an immigrant from the Philippines and grew up in Long Beach, and I'm currently an organizer with Eastside Communities, located on two four, four eight Santa Fe Avenue. 90810. Before I speak to item 26, the city needs to ensure that the public comment feature on the city website follows the Language Access Policy Protocol as it currently is only accessible in English. This means needed Tagalog speakers like me, monolingual Spanish speakers will not be able to participate in our city meetings as it. Relates to the repayment plan. Thank you for your leadership. Councilmember Richardson and the other Council members in support of Receive. And filed a repayment plan and no to. Any ordinance because any repayment plan will. Only lead. To eviction in organizing. With working. Class black brown residents during the COVID 19 pandemic. This repayment plan is going to be an added stressor creep on abilities for many in our community to be evicted. This is not speak to the moment of the pandemic where residents are facing lack of work hours and lacking financial resources. Many residents are relying on city services and community groups to cover their food and other mutual aid. But this repayment plan contradicts the spirit of the eviction moratorium past weeks ago to protect those most vulnerable so that we don't create a bigger homelessness issue. Usually, Lufkin did research. Estimating 120,000 households in Ohtani will be at risk of homelessness because of this pandemic. Thank you for this motion file and receive it. Let's not revisit the repayment plan. Cancel the rent council mortgage and find ways to protect and support the most vulnerable in Alberta and keep our home. Thank you. Next, you have Jordan when you've time starts now. Hi there. My name's Jordan Win. I'm a second district resident. I stand firmly against the original item, and I thank Councilmember Richardson for introducing the substitute and I am in support of that, as well as the council members that are standing behind Richardson's motion in Long Beach. We need to stop pitting families against each other. There have been mom and pop examples that have been given out time and time again. What about this one situation? What about this one situation? It's disrespectful to suggest that one family's income is a deserved or God given right of another. This is not about transferring rents between residents. We need to make sure that people have the ability to pay for their housing, and that means camping rent and canceling mortgages for everybody. We have to stop pretending that COVID 19 is disappearing. It's not just still here. It is increasing. The economy isn't going to snap back on July 31st. All of a sudden, people aren't going to suddenly be reemployed. Once again, people are going to be on the hunt for jobs. Truth to suggest that we need to have some sort of uniform repayment plan is ludicrous, and it is truly out of touch and out of sight. People who have who have a consistent roof over their heads, who even if they weren't able to pay for their mortgage, they could sell their house. Do they have wealth? Renters don't have that luxury. They end up on the street. Two thirds of our homeless population this year are experiencing it for the first time. That point directly to housing and affordability in a severely rent burdened community. I ask you to receive and file the original item and don't bring it for your comment. Next, we have Joshua Christian. Leaving the remaining members of the council to the Joshua Christian eviction defense attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation in Long Beach. I want to thank all of you for speaking really clearly about what was a pretty misguided item on the agenda tonight. Councilwoman Pierce, you cannot it clearly out of the gate. Thank you very much and thanks for supporting the motion on the floor. I hope we can go home just with this arbitrary repayment plan policy put to bed entirely. I think that the motion that we're discussing is actually a perfect example of why setting up arbitrary levers to eviction is ineffective and inappropriate at the time. 12 months form a grand kids breathing room to households to get back on their feet, the different economic sectors to recover at different rates, and to local legislatures to be creative and come up with plans like the one that we'll hear about in a few weeks. Jim mentioned there are 120,000 people expected to be homeless during the next year because of this crisis, and that's with a 12 month rent deferment plan. So I think what was originally on the agenda tonight was going to make that a lot worse at a much faster rate. And I hope that the repayment program that we come back to consider is something that will be much more constructive and supportive for the Long Beach renters. So thank you very much. Thanks to city staff as well. Thank you. Next, we have Keith Kennedy. Your time starts now. Yes. My name is Keith Kennedy and president of the Smart Property Owners Alliance, also known as BOA. We support a pay back option that establishes that deferred rent obligations be paid back in one vehicle installments over a one year period of time starting August 1st of 2020. Having said that, I'd like to ask the mayor and city council members if they would be using the 5.3 million C, D, b g funds approved three weeks ago for this new program. We would support a matching payment plan. However, it should not be tied to income. Since the reason for the deferment was not based on income, I'd like to request that this come back to City Council for July 14th. Also, it's important to remember that housing providers are not in the business of evictions. It's expensive and disruptive. With that in mind, banks are not so kind and generous of many of our housing providers, of which some are elderly and may be suffering from ownership and security as concerns for meeting their contractual obligations without a structured payback period are mounting. With the likely extension of the federal unemployment benefits, along with employers opening up, it may become less of an issue. Thank you. Next, we have Mike Parkinson. Your time starts now. Mike Mitchinson. I'm sorry. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Mike Murchison and I supported Councilmember Orphan's push for a rental assistance program. But there was one caveat to that had to do with an 80% income level for area median incomes. And we all know that doesn't apply to all tenants in Miami. So certainly all landlords are not going to benefit. I want you to keep that in mind with this rental assistance program. If you have the same type of program and you're using that 5.3, you're not going to be benefiting all tenants and all landlords of that 5.3 million. I do encourage you to follow up quickly with what I told you about using those monies prior to December. So 30 day response time seems appropriate. Finally, clarify on evictions. The Judicial Council for the State of California has already gone on record as saying there's going to be no unlawful detainers until the start of that process or 90 days, 90 days after the governor declares the eviction moratorium over. We're not talking about evictions right now. We're talking way, way down the road. I hope that you guys can find programs that don't have these restrictions that contends and landlords can benefit at the same time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have Norberto Lopez. Your time starts now. Hello, council and mayor, you know that people are tired of their showing up in the streets and they're against the street because they have no other option. They fight for their home now while they're in there or they're going to have to fight for it on the outside. With instability of the nature of the police are out and that people are tired of being told that they are going to have to pay back the rent and you try to dictate how they should pay back the rent. That's not the way to go. Right. And then the landlord rents talking about that. They're compassionate that we have you know, we have tended to be threatened with gun violence and that they're going to go get shot by their landlord. That's not compassion. And I get the apartment association emails and, you know, my parties are saying that Judicial Council this and that. But, you know, the apartment association fighting to also repeal that. What? If there are units back to get rid of all the lower income folks out of Long Beach. We already saw the first wave of gentrification hit the first district and folks are moving over to a nice district. That's why I appreciate the ones that are standing up for the people, putting people over profit, not profit over people. And, you know, all these private meetings that are happening like we. Need, right? I am not like, you know, people are standing up and they're going to continue to show up and they've got to take off the street. They will take off the street. And we've seen it. And, you know, you know, the police aren't going to help because the people are tired and they're going to continue fighting. Are you on my side? Thank you. Next, we have Tiffany Davey. Your time starts now. Hi. Good evening. Council Mayor and all citizens listening. I strongly oppose the original item. Support definitely was even fail as well as hoped to see an extension statewide. Given the fact that we are still in a global pandemic with no real I mean, even these July 31st dates seem quite arbitrary as we're about to segway into the next item when we're talking about systemic racism being a public health crisis. Considering the all of the numbers going back, I mean, before this crisis existed and now what it's really brought to light. I also support it in that same note towards the possible aggression. Of this moment. Similar to the ads that we saw during the No on Rent Control campaign that depicted 1937 almost word for word KKK ads that were endorsed by many small property owners and such. So not to revisit that as we're also seeing different types of other potential tools of future hate crimes. Again, we're in a. Pandemic, and. If we move forward, the next item would be acknowledging that we're also in a public health crisis long overdue to acknowledge. So with that, especially hearing the audio from the gun violence video past anti-harassment or. Thank you for your comment that concludes public comment for this item. Okay. Thank you for public comment and roll call. Vote, please. District one, district two. I District three. I used it for. I. District five. I District six. Five. District seven. II. District eight. Hi. District nine. Hi. Ocean carries. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go ahead and go through the next. So six or seven items should go rather quick. Kelly I know there's got to be some discussion on, I think on item 27 from from a couple of council members. So let me let me go ahead and go through the next few. I'd have to go rather quickly and we'll get to oh 27 item 17.