Recommendation to allow City Council to participate in a work furlough program by a voluntary reduction in Councilmember effective pay by ten percent (10%), beginning with the pay period of September 26, 2020 and request all Elected City Officials and other City Officials not covered by a Memorandum of Understanding to also participate in the work furlough program in Fiscal Year 2021 by voluntary reductions in their effective pay by ten percent (10%), beginning with the pay period of September 26, 2020.  (Citywide)
Motion carries and in 24. Communication from city attorney recommendation to allow City Council to participate in a work furlough program by voluntary reduction to Council member effective pay by 10%, beginning with the pay period of September 26, 2020 citywide. Okay. I have a councilwoman by most of my councilman for a second. But, Councilman Ringa, you ought to come in also. Yes. And. Light up the recent budget passing and not knowing exactly how much would would come in and what it would be used towards instead of it going into a bucket at City Hall for discretionary use. I'd like to amend the motion to allow council members to either donate the money back to the city or to partners of Parks or the Library Foundation to support citywide programing at the discretion of each of their boards. You've received notes of support from both organizations, and they've been very helpful to the community. There have been things that each of us had asked for that weren't possible in the budget, and this would give nonprofit organizations the option to fill the gap in areas where the city has not been able to find the funding without having the city rely upon that revenue on an ongoing basis. Thank you. I hope one of my colleagues support. Comes from hearing this. I support that second. I support the amendment by Al Fletcher to be the foundation which supports projects in the West Palm Beach area. Will. Okay. Councilman Mongo, you're fine with that. Yeah. The A7 is part of pop. Yes. Mr. City Attorney. I just need some clarification on Councilmember Younger's amendment to that or addition on which foundation we. It's the I forget the actual name. It escapes me right now, but it's the one headed by the Randall Hernandez group. Oh, I think I think it's the foundation, the. Long Beach Economic Partnership. There you go. The partnership also. Yes. Thank you. Absolutely. Support that. Thank you. Hey, there's a motion. Any second is any public comment? Mayor Kuttab. Is there any public comment? There's no public comment on this item. Okay. Thank you. So I have a bunch of people queued up. Councilwoman Pierce, please. Thank you. Sorry about that. I wanted to get clarity on the discretion to the council office. Is it that it's only the organizations that Councilmember Mongo just laid out? Or could it be any program that the city has going that we could be discretionary and giving those funds to a city program? So I don't think that the city management staff initially said that we'd have any discretion over the money going into the city bucket, which is why I was trying to give two department options, a library option and a parks option and councilmember ordering as supplement to add economic development. But all three of those organizations are three major initiatives that the city supports. And so I thought that those would be wide scoping and city wide to help our program. So that's why I tried to keep it narrow, because there's still got to be some accountability and reporting and pulling together that everyone's met their commitment. And so I didn't want to just potentially have nine separate organizations. I was just looking to have two or three that we made that in the motion. The reason why I asked, and I don't know, is because I think each of our districts have different needs and my district has very different needs than your district. And if I could put our funds to development services, for example, that that would be able to service maybe additional needs that District two has. So I guess not removed the option to still give the city, but money allocated at the city level has to go through the budget process. And so that that adds to that. I wasn't able to get over that hurdle. I just wanted to clarify that. I definitely tried to work through that for us. But you can understand how complicated. It's a lot. And this is if I can add a little bit of clarity. So these are funds that are sort of part of that $11 million total goal in the budget. And so what I think the Councilmember is trying to do is create a way that it could go to a nonprofit who could then support city actions. So that's why the city so that we can still get the savings that way. They're not really discretionary funds to be able to spend on new programs or enhancements since they're part of that $11 million target. Thank you, Mr. Malaga. Thank you, Tom. Councilmember Richardson. Yeah. I'm still confused about this. So how much money is this per council based? And in my understanding was this was going to plug the hole. It goes to plug the hole that makes up the debt. So that's the difference. That's the 5 to 6% in Councilman Austin's motion. This is a separate request. This is the one that we talked about in closed session several weeks ago about us wanting to stand in salary. Our colleagues are our staff. In alignment with the furlough. Yes, sir. Okay. So. So we get furloughs to help make up the city's budget deficit. So is the budget not in a position where it needs our money? That is not the case here. I want to hear from staff. So the intent is that this money does go back to help out. Part of that $11 million goal that is that through part of our $30 million in solutions in the budget you just passed. So it is a small amount because this is, you know, just a couple of of of employees. And so the idea is that it would go back into the general fund to basically help with the solutions. I think we can work as long as we're able to work with those foundations to, you know, offset certain expenses that they can go to a nonprofit who then gives us a commiserate savings. We can still balance that, if that's a small amount. If it's going to grow into a bigger program, then we would have a budget that would be out of balance. Okay. So so that said, I think I'll figure out the details later. But if there's if we're making sure it goes to nonprofits, make sure lobby center for Economic Inclusion part of it. I want to make sure we can support something. Thanks. So I think as long as they are doing a service that we would offset, as, you know, you know, not provide certain city dollars to that, that then they would pick up and said, then we could make that work. Because that is a nonprofit that works with, you know, city, you know, city purposes. Right. Why don't we just put a blanket of nonprofit? Just put the definition so we can figure out what the organizations are. Nonprofits that help conduct city service as a blanket definition. I'll continue to hear from my colleague. This was supposed to be a pretty simple. We all agree that parks and libraries are two things that really help in our work towards equity and all the things in our city that are in major need. We've all talked about wanting to support those two things and Councilmember Granger wanted to add one additional group. I don't want to add nine groups. That's not the point. The point was to give an additional option. All councilmembers are still able to just give the money back to the city. And I recognize that there's a lot of diversity of opinions. And that's why still being able to give the money to the city as an option. Mayor, are there additional council comments? There are. Wonderful. All right. Let me go ahead and keep going. Councilman Richardson, were you done? For now. Gonzales Supernova. Thank you. I guess I'd like some clarification from the city attorney just on the original motion. Can you define the word voluntary? It's a great. Question, Councilmember. I think that this is the the request to put this on the agenda was that the council. Members had. Requested it to prepare this item to come back so that they could take an action to voluntarily reduce by 10% their rate of pay or their compensation, similar to the requests that had been made to all of the city employees. And so this would apply to all electeds, the city council members, the citywide electeds, and other city officers or officials who are not covered by memorandums of understanding to participate. It allows them to participate in the work photo program. So this would be a voluntary reduction by the council members. And and you're also required by. This action requesting the elected officials to do the citywide elected officials and other citywide officials to do the same. And I assume that the motion, and as amended by Councilmember Mongeau, if passed, would apply to all of the folks that are this applies to in this item. Thank you. Okay. I'm just trying to bring us to common ground here. If you didn't like the item, you would not be required to donate the 10%. Yes, that's correct. So this is because you're paid in the charter is, as Charlie said, you you that is put in by the voters. So then each council member and elected official would have the option to participate in this program. Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Councilman Super, for that clarification. I have the same request for clarification, so I'm glad that was answered. I appreciate what this item is attempting to do and I support this item and I will be voting in favor of it. It's a personal choice. I like that. It's the current wording of the item requires a connection to a city service that might have been impacted as a result of our budget shortfall that we'll be able to replenish towards these funds. For me personally, the money that I will be giving back will go my preferences for it to go back to the city to help fill that that shortfall. To the small extent that it is helping, but I think it should be really the city manager who determines where that money should go. And that's just my personal choice. But I do appreciate trying to keep it limited so that the money is directly going back into services that the city would have to otherwise provide that might be getting picked up by foundation. So I very much appreciate the spirit of the motion and I want to thank Councilman Mongo for bringing up. Councilmember Pearce. Thanks. I think the questions that were asked clarify for me I did have questions about that was voluntary and each council member or elected official was able to put those funds towards the organization as laid out in this motion, recognizing that all of our staff is taking this furlough, including our city manager, recognizing the council is stepping up and doing something they don't have to do, but also that the intent was to fill that that gap. So I. I support the item because it's it's flexible enough, but it feels to me like a little bit more of a divide by nine fund where you're able to identify where you want to spend your resources within the city versus filling the gap. So I just want to be clear that it's filling some gap that the city is not able to provide because of the budget cuts. So with that, I think you. Customers and there has. Thank you. And on that note, you know, just echoing with my colleagues have said so far, I think it's important that we as elected officials also do our part and get it back. But I also think that it needs to go directly to, yes, the city to fill in the gaps where this budget is not going to be able to provide some of the services. So I in my mind, it would make more sense to just, you know, allocate those that money. However, the council district decides is a priority in their district, seeing that all of us have very different priorities, but at the same time we overlap on a lot of them. So I'm I'm confident that city staff will be able to navigate that and actually put those funds where it's most needed right now. So thank you. I have Councilman Richardson and then Councilman Austin, and then we're going to go and go to a vote. Thanks a lot. So we'll discuss this in closed session, I think. For me, this is about showing solidarity with the workers that we are contributing to the city's deficit. We're also going to participate in the furlough. For me, it wasn't about cherry picking nonprofits. It wasn't about, you know, you know, being too creative about it. It was showing solidarity. I think the message here, I guess, diluted here and regular city employees don't get an opportunity to pick which charity or which nonprofit they'd like to do. Secondly, I'm just concerned about the message that it sends if services are being cut. Those are that's a difficult hit. And I'd suggest that it's okay for a nonprofit to pick up the service. I just don't like the way they're represented is represented. Personally, I'd like to see where what you know, I'd like to see this go back to the fund. And, you know, if if Councilman Mongo doesn't agree, I'll make a motion here and we'll just vote on it. So I'll make a promise that I have subs through motion, that we all surrender the same amount, we do the same thing, and city manager determines how to utilize that to fill the budget. That's my motion. That was a substitute. There's a second. To that substitute. Our councilman asked him. Yes. And I want to just say that that. I tend to agree with some of the colleagues. My comment to my colleagues regarding the intent of this particular agenda item that I believe was prepared by the city manager, city attorney at the council's recommendation when this issue was discussed, it was. That we want to participate in this. We think it's only right and fair if we are asking employees to participate in furloughs, that we take cuts ourselves. And that is where I'd like to to to to end this or to stay with the intent on this motion. And so I will be voting in support of the motion as written. I hope we can stay there as much as possible and and make sure that we are consistent across the board. All nine council offices, but all elected offices in the city. Thanks. And Councilman, I think that just to be clear, so that that's the that's what the substitute motion is, correct. Councilman Richardson, it's just the original motion, correct? Right. It's just simple, straightforward. And so far. Councilwoman Pierce. I was just seconding the motion. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I want to stand in solidarity with our comrades. That was the point of this. I actually received comments and discussions from safety staff members who had asked for programing that we were not able to restore and restoring, and specifically only giving the money to partners or parks or to the Library Foundation, the two organizations that specifically fill the gaps that we leave. I feel is the best step in that direction. It is not the same as taking a cut that city staff take. I wish it was that easy. The the the challenge that councilmen are. Supermodel pointed out, is that it's still voluntary because the law is that we are paid a certain amount. And so I was trying to bring just an additional option to the table. I'm disappointed that. Quite frankly, I'm just disappointed that Councilmember Richardson has taken it in this direction. Again, it seems as though on the last six weeks, any item that's brought forward and that's not someone that's on his team, he has to come up with reasons why it's not a good idea and why it's not prepared properly for council or any of these other things. And I really just I'm not appreciative of the direction that this has gone. And it's it's quite disappointing. I'm going to ask Councilmember Odinga to stand with me in a substitute substitute motion and just limit the substitute substitute to just what I had originally asked, which was parks and libraries. Any councilmember who does not support either parks or libraries or giving it back to the city fund. Vote no if you don't want to make your contribution. It's a few thousand dollars that we're all choosing to do and that we're making a commitment to stand with our colleagues. And quite frankly, our park staff and our library staff will benefit, and so will the community. And if you choose, I completely respect Councilman Price's decision to still give back the money to the city. I would encourage her to think about the fact that she could donate even more money to a nonprofit, as she wouldn't have the tax burden, the tax differential of paying tax on money she donated. So you could donate even more than the 10%. But I also didn't want to have 15 different groups so that councilmembers theoretically game the system and donate to something they've donated to in the past and not have to make an additional donation. I'm very committed to making the 10% or more contribution, and I'm committed to donating to both parks and libraries. But if if councilmembers don't feel that those are a. A worthy cause and they want to vote no on the substitute substitute motion or not stand with me and give me a second. That's fine. And I hope that our foundations and our parks, the library staff here hear the vote. Thank you. Okay. I don't. I don't have time for. I'm sorry. I think. Customers of Mango made a direct appeal to me. You know. I just. I think you made a substitute for me. I think I need a second. And on that. I will second that. But let me let me make a clarification here. I thought that you got the economic. Partnership was a citywide program as well. That's why I supported that. Although there is a big focus on West Derby. Yes. But that it was a citywide program as well. So if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But that's why I also included that. I would go along with the library. In part, that's what. Okay. So just to be clear, the constant refrain that you are, you are seconding the substitute. Substitute. Correct. Councilmember. You didn't hear it? Yes. Okay. You think we have a substitute? Substitute? And just to clarify what that is, will you repeat the substitute substitute, Mr. City Attorney. Yes, Mayor. Members of the Council, we have three motions to substitute. Substitute? As mentioned as a motion by Councilmember Mungo, a second by Councilmember Urunga. And it is the motion as written with the additional option to donate the savings to either the Library Foundation. Or Partners in Park. No. Those are the only two. Okay. We'll take a roll call vote on that. I don't want to make sure we have any more. Many more queue up comes from Richardson. Is that a queue up or no? No. No, thanks. Okay. Go ahead and cast your vote. Just real quick, please. District one. He. I'm sorry. Can you repeat yourself? Council members in the House. Nay, nay. District to. NEI District three. I. District four. All right. District five. I District six. No. District seven. I. District eight. I'm a bit confused. So I'm in their district nine. How many? Motion fails. And now we're going to we're going to the substitute motion, which essentially is the F recommendation to go back into the Just General Fund. Roll Call, Oakland District one. I. District two. I'm District three. I district for. No District five. No District six. By. District seven. I am. District eight. All right. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Okay. That motion carries now. That was item 24. Now we are going back to the budget items that you have been sent. All the budget documents in front of you and you and has gotten them. So, Madam Court, can you please read the item, please? Item 16 is still outstanding. About an hour we're going.