Recommendation to declare ordinance approving and adopting the official budget of the City of Long Beach for the Fiscal Year 2018-2019, creating and establishing the funds of the Municipal Government of the City of Long Beach and appropriating money to and authorizing expenditures from said funds for said fiscal year; declaring the urgency thereof, and providing that this ordinance shall take effect at 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2018, read and adopted as read.  (Ordinance No. ORD-18-0023).  (A-17)
It's just a quick vote if there's no objection with the council we have. Can you please read the item? Report from Financial Management Recommendation to declare Appropriations Ordinance for FY 19 as an emergency ordinance read and adopted is read in later in the next regular meeting of City Council for Final Reading. Thank you. This is our final vote on the budget. Can I get a motion in a second? Thank you. And thanks to our finance team and thank you to OPEC and council. Please cast your votes. Motion case. Thank you. Thank you. Budget staff. You guys are awesome. Thank you so much for all your work. Really amazing job again. So let me let me go ahead and go back to our discussion. I think I had just I was just about to call in cuts from your rank. I think that's where we were. Yes. So cut somebody, Ringo. Thank you, Mary. And congratulations to us all for tonight's success in getting this merger through. And it's it's a wonderful feeling. It's always good when you have a balanced budget and a good, strong one like we have this time around. But getting back to the item at hand, I have to agree with my colleagues in terms of where we're at with this this issue. The most important one for me is that we have a measure on the ballot that's coming up. And the last point that Councilmember Gonzalez made, it's one that really concerns me, is that given that we have a ballot measure, I'm already coming before the voters and we're addressing pretty much the same issues here as an ordinance. What would impact would. I'd have a city attorney. Okay. Okay. Okay. Mr. City. Attorney, sorry you had a council question. I'm just following up on that council member Gonzalez's issue regarding that. We already have a ballot measure coming before the voters and Iseman and the city council bringing this before the body as a ordinance for you to draft. And you have gotten you you admittedly have gotten it. Yes. Got it Friday or saw it yesterday. Whenever is there. So is there is there an internal conflict that is is being put before us here in terms of having to deal with a an ordinance or a request for you to do an ordinance when there is something already on the ballot that addresses a lot of these issues. Clearly, you're correct that this ordinance does address an item or a part of an item that is well before the voters on November 6th. I don't know that, and I haven't done any legal research on this, but I don't think that that's a legal conflict or where there is some sort of ethical issue that it raises for the council in considering an ordinance such as this. The the issue here is a panic button applied to all hotels and motels. You have a measure on the ballot that would apply to a certain criteria of hotels, and it has other items included in that initiative that go beyond what this proposed ordinance would cover. So there is a difference and there's a significant difference. If you were trying to pass something identical, I think you could even do something like that if you wanted to. But whatever, as the mayor mentioned, whatever the initiative had in it, if it was stricter, it would control. And even if it wasn't stricter, if the initiative passes, it may control anyway, depending on how that initiative is written. Some citizens initiatives allow councils to take action that are more restrictive than what the voters passed or more in conformance with what the voters passed. In others, you can only amend it or change it by a vote of the people. So I, I don't think that there's that legal issue that you're bringing up, whether it causes confusion or not, obviously, that that's always a concern to. But I don't I don't think that that would be an issue, a legal issue that we would be challenged on or there would be a success. We could always get challenged on everything, but they would be successful on that. Well, as you said, you know, there may not be an ethical issue here, but it certainly doesn't pass the smell test for me because we like to there's been a process the there was a petition that was distributed. Over 40,000 people signed on to the petition. It's going to be on a November ballot. And I think that this measure that we have here today or this proposal that we have here today basically is to a great extent circumvents what's already been out there in terms of the other people that send out a petition expecting to vote on that in a in November. And then we have this ordinance here that if we were to adopt before the vote, would basically make that WW null and void, although there are some considerations there about if one was more restricted and the other the more restrictive one would take over or would take precedence. Is that correct? Or only as to if. I think the assumption here is that Measure W will pass. If it doesn't pass, this ordinance obviously would be in place and protect or would require all hotels to have to provide panic buttons to their employees if measure WW does pass. It's it seems to be more restrictive in certain areas as identified by some of the speakers, and that would apply to those hotels. Yeah, from my understanding, what I saw on the on the draft is that it's basically hotels with 100 rooms or more and it doesn't address the the the smaller hotels or the or those that are that are as as a Councilmember Richards put forward in the nuisance hotels those that are they're smaller than or less than 100. So the question comes back, I mean, how much vetting was done before bringing this item forward today in terms of discussing this or sharing this with the other hotels or those at lesser of 100 rooms? And although there's still some definitions about. Airbnb and these other types of of businesses that that have these these opportunities for people to to get a room at at a at a at a lesser rate or more of a personal experience being in a smaller location. You know, I still have to to have that information as well, that that that type of of vetting and charito. How much are those types of facilities used and what the impacts are and how the how do they get cleaned? I mean, how I mean, there's got to be some contracting that goes out for these facilities, for these other optional lodging experiences that people people have. I'm you know, I'm not. A lot of these are rentals. People buy them and then rent them out and then get people to get in there to clean them. And and and the complaints that I've heard and this is an issue that that I grew up and down the coast where there's a facilities or there is Airbnb opportunities out there that just get abused, especially along the coast. People have parties. They in fact, I think a councilmember asked and brought it up a few a few weeks ago about, you know, the these big houses that that go multi rooms and people, fraternities or or wedding parties or whatever, rent them out, trashed the place, trashed the neighborhood, and provides another opportunity for for somebody to get hurt, especially when they're going in there to clean it up. So, I mean, this just this all this isn't make any sense to me at this at this point, at this juncture of the process of getting the the measure on the ballot and then having the voters vote on it and then confusing that whole issue, whether it's true or not. But it will be that what the city already has something like adopted something in this ordinance where I and voted on it. So I mean, that's a concern I have. And I'd rather that we let the process continue that we receive and file this. I'm not making the motion right now, but I mean, I think we need more discussion take place. Has the other ideas queued up as well? So I'm not going to making a motion at this point. But the bottom line is that there's still more information that we need. And there was we didn't that 60 days or 30 days that we requested for a physical study to come back, we haven't gotten there yet. So we really don't know what the impacts are going to be on this. And especially when we're talking about law enforcement being involved in this, we're talking about getting some city staff also involved in this. And we just haven't had a physical study on it. So I'm very, very reluctant at this point to to support this motion. Councilman Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Okay. So a few questions. I think the response to the first question is going to the timing. Whether I need to ask the question is not so. Councilwoman Pryce making the motion. I mean, the author of the of the motion. So are you open to modifying this so that we can get it passed tonight. Depending on the modifications? Absolutely. I've heard at least three people talk about the most critical thing is doing this at the same time as an open election that we just certified a couple of weeks ago. So my question to you is, are you willing to allow staff to begin doing research? And then we actually, like turn this into a feasibility motion and then we begin the process of the ordinance once we have results from WW. No, I'm not, and I appreciate you asking. And although I'd love for us to reach some sort of consensus on this, and I'm amenable to whatever modifications people want to make, I am submitting this for consideration as an ordinance with the limited purpose of establishing panic button policy to address the public safety concerns that have been raised at multiple council meetings. Okay. Then I'll ask the rest of my questions. So so to be clear, is this a motion? This is not a motion about feasibility. This is a motion to direct staff to create an ordinance. The City Attorney. Yes. Okay. Mr.. ACTUALLY, Mr.. City Manager. When's the last time you saw this recommendation? Was the first time you saw this recommendation? Are you familiar with this? I thought this morning. I know Mr. Modica got it on Friday afternoon. Okay. Now, when I bring an idea to city council, having worked here for quite some time, typically I get a little pushback when a little a little pushback or staff may suggest, hey, would you mind making this and we've had this conversation. I don't know how many times would you mind making this a feasibility? Give us some time to come back and tell you how we approached the issue. Did you have that? Do you have that same concern here? And did you express that the council to Councilman Price upon seeing the item? No. So you don't have any concerns about timing or meeting it? Well, things come up on supplementals and once it's on a supplemental staff is kind of pushed out of the process at that time. So you don't want more time. You want to move. Forward with this one? We serve at the will of the council. Nice. All right. I look forward to a, you know, consistent answer moving forward on items like this. Okay. So speaking of supplemental. Councilwoman Price, why was this brought on supplemental? Well, there's. Really. Gosh, a multitude of reasons. Like I said, this item was drafted by me in November of 2017, but I decided not to bring it at that time. I felt compelled to after the last hearing that we had to bring it. I will. I was told that next week's meeting was going to be canceled potentially, and I'm not going to be here on the 18th. So for me, this was the right timing. And and while I appreciate your recommendations on process and I could learn certainly a lot from my colleagues on process and sometimes some of us, you know, we learn from one another all the time. What I would say is, is highlighting the deficiencies in the process is that's one approach. But I'd ask that we focus on the content. Is the content objectionable in regards to whether the city manager would ask for more time? My understanding is that the police department is already doing the recommendations that are listed here because they reported on that in October of 2017 at the public safety meeting. And I did provide a memorandum for the full Council highlighting their presentation that Deputy Chief Conant provided to the Public Safety Committee meeting in October of 2017, highlighting what they're doing, the panic button item that it would be up to the hotels really well. I asked about why he brought it on Labor Day. I don't want to deviate too much since I have the floor from that that question. Okay. Well, you let me know when my answers are beyond the scope of your question. I will. Think so. In my opinion. In order to have a full, fair. Conversation, I try to try not to utilize supplementals unless there's, you know, a deadline, a time frame that we're looking to meet, particularly when there's a three day weekend, a Labor Day weekend, in order to give a just a fair opportunity to the council to think about it and come prepared for the meeting. No. And so. Yeah. And so, you know, obviously that wasn't presented. So I guess my question is, it doesn't matter on this issue. Does it matter to you to have consensus on the council or is this something that you're very comfortable moving forward on? A split vote? A very divided vote? You know, I would always love to have consensus, but on this particular issue, I think that's been a challenge from the very beginning for us to get to. So although I would love to have consensus, I think we have to be realistic and I think people feel very strongly about this this item. You know, I know that when we had these discussions in September of 2017, I, I talked with the folks that were advocating for it and I said, I really would love to support this. Is there any way we can bifurcate it and just address the panic button issue since there's no nexus and there just wasn't a willingness to do that? So I want to be realistic in the answer to this question is yes. I would love to have consensus. Do I mind a split vote? Sometimes I think you just have to do what you think is best, even if it means you're not voting with everybody else. I get it. So in the way you envision this. Most ordinances like this that reach out to both the smaller business, the larger businesses, they've had a period of outreach. Did you envision some outreach on this? I did, and I believe there was some outreach done with the motels. I don't have too many of them in my own. Diversity or. I believe by some of the council members. But like I said, we can certainly implement a phasing for the motels that gives them the time to I would venture to guess most motels are not going to want to pick up an additional cost for something like this because they're small business. Probably a lot of hotels aren't going to want to do this either, but it's really about public safety. And sometimes when we establish policies like we do to help the environment or whatever the case may be, we will phase in because it's the right thing to do what. The. Policy is, the right thing to do. We can phase in the implementation to address their concerns, but this is the start of the process of drafting an ordinance and again of all of your comments about process are absolutely noted and I don't disagree with them at all. Great. So in terms of the outreach, so with this outreach, be in favor of the ordinance or oppose the ordinance, did you envision any educational materials to go out as a part of this outreach? No, I did not. Okay. I would just mean. Like written material. Anything. Any material for outreach? No. I mean, I don't I don't think so. It's not a very complicated issue. Hotel workers are afraid of being in a room with a customer and a panic button. What I think is a. Little more. Flex than that. Well, yeah. With regards to panic button. Yeah. Okay. Tell me what aspects. Of the panic buttons you'd include on an information. Well, I mean, first I would conduct outreach and like you mentioned on the the health. Reach the homelessness. 50 Gay Outreach. I think that those materials should come back to council so we can review outreach materials just like. Oh, but I. Was saying I wouldn't do any written materials. I'm saying. What is your letter written? I think that's even better. I mean, what I think a fair thing to do is to be honest about the fact that the way this has been presented with, you know, on Labor Day weekend, no outreach or interest to reaching across the aisle to a member of the council who's been engaged in the issue. I mean, that would have gone a long way just to help bring the council together. Then expressing at the very beginning of this that you're not willing to talk timeline. It appears to me that this is more politically motivated than actual policy conversation. And then there is the appearance and you know, city attorney, I'm not sure if city attorney or if PC would have issues with this, but I do have a problem with conducting outreach during a public election, conducting outreach. So I would say that all the outreach and all that should not happen until after the election. I think that's the simplest way that you can clear clean this up. All right. Number one, we just came through a circumstance all measure M when three members of the city council were accused and then, you know, you know, went away with three members of the council, were accused of using public resources during campaign season to campaign for one way or the other on a measure. Now, PC cleared it, but it became an issue. And frankly. We need to learn from those experiences and operate and behave a bit differently during election time. The last thing I would say here is that this is a real opportunity to turn the page on this issue. And the way that we do that is maybe by taking a step back from our egos and honestly saying, is this what's best for the city to engage in this conversation right now? Because it's not. I personally believe that the public has going to begin a conversation citywide. The integrity of that conversation, I think we should be. We're already conducting a feasibility study or a financial impact analysis. I think it's very simple to to ask city staff, while you're going through this process, begin to prepare for should we be in the position to implement WW then or not implement a WW one way or the other? We want to be able to pick up the conversation right then and move it, move it forward. And I think that will do it. I think that with unanimous support, he'll be less political. And then people, people could feel comfortable not thinking this politically motivated or unethical or whatever it is. And so that's my honest heartburn about this. I wish we didn't have to talk about it this late. And I wish that, frankly, I wish you had a lot more sunshine to it. And I wish that we could just leave the council meeting feeling good. But it seems like we always end on this issue. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember, let me go back. Let me I know we're going back to Councilmember Pearce in a minute. Let me maybe ask a couple questions that could fill in some of the questions that have come up. I know there's other questions, but just so that I'm clear, too, and I know that when we go through an ordinance process, regardless of when it's brought up or what have you, there is a process that happens and that that basically is an ordinance gets presented and put onto the agenda. Then it goes to the city attorney. The city attorney spends an unspecified amount of time, depending on whatever amount of time you need for the issue that's in front of us. And then that issue, of course, then comes back to the council, and then there's got to be two separate votes post that. And so I know there's some conversations happening about like the timing or when it's going to when it's something going to happen or not happen. But I also think we have to also all recognize that we don't know the timing because a lot of is dependent on the city attorney's schedule. And when he would bring the initial draft of that back to the body. And then at that point, the body has to begin having conversations on the initial draft of the ordinance. And so I just say that they know that there's been some conversations about the timing. And I mean, I know that the election was brought up a few times, were, you know, 60 days away from that. We're close. And so I'm not sure that anyone here on this body should be convinced one way or another that somehow this is going to happen for sure before or even after that period. And this is my assumption it could be wrong. But just just from a first and just ask the city attorney putting aside the multiple readings that would have to happen at the Council for for an ordinance like this. I mean, how much minimum time would you need just to bring back the first ordinance back and you guys doing your work? I, I don't think we could come back excuse me before 30 days, at the minimum. There's been a lot of I've taken a lot of notes here and some legal research that we have to do in addition to the other work we're currently doing. So, you know, we could try and get back 30 days, but I don't see it coming back before then. So are you saying that at a minimum you would need 30 days? Yes, at a minimum. Okay. And I just say that because so now we're we're into the beginning of October and then there still has to be two conversations of this body that's we're talking about minimum here. So at a minimum, it's early October. That's if everything. Goes that's if everything goes perfectly with your office. And once it's minimum once we're past minimum of October or now we're in mid or late October where this is coming back to the council, depending on on where it is. And then there has still has to be two separate conversations. And if there's and if there's research that's gained or a discussion that that that that is different at one of those conversations and we have to restart the whole process. So I only say that because I think this is just my personal take, that regardless what the Council did tonight, it seems to me. That too. For this process to be completed even by that date would be very difficult. That is just my my reading of this. And if someone disagrees with that, let me know. But I think it'd be very hard. I have never seen an ordinance would go this fast on on a topic like this. And so the agenda item doesn't say it has to be back like next week. It says start the process of the ordinance. So if there's disagreement on that, I'd like to hear that. But that's the way I'm at least interpreting what's in front of us is there is no time limit for this to somehow come back before the election. So I just want to put that out there. I know there's other people that are that are queued up, but I would think that to do an ordinance that is I mean, listen, this is this is an important issue. I think there's not anyone on this body that doesn't recognize this as a huge, important issue that's in front of us. And I agree with with with Councilman Price. I think it is going to pass when when it's in front of voters and in November as well. And so and so, I think that this will take some time regardless of the vote tonight, if that's the direction that council goes in. And I want to just add that to the mix as we're having this conversation. So it. Mr. City Attorney. Right. Is that sound accurate or my off here? No, I think that's accurate. And then if everything went perfect, obviously it doesn't go into effect until 31 days after you sign it. So you're probably into the year somewhere in there. Okay. Okay. So let me keep going through the speakers list. Councilmember Pearce. Okay. I'm not going to continue to harp on the well, I'm going to say one last thing about the process. I think the comments of, yes, I have told you that I would support panic buttons and all motels. When I said that, I fully expected that we would partner on something because this policy, I spent five years of my life writing this policy. And so to be able to to draft up a different type of language around sexual assault in hotels disregards the work and the effort that we've done. So I appreciate the efforts. I in no way do want to hold back from panic buttons reaching the housekeepers in these hotels. So I first want to say, outside of a policy standpoint, we have worked with Rose Park Neighborhood Association, AOC seven and many of our neighborhood groups around getting access to not the ideal panic buttons that I would like to see in hotels, but something similar. And I have no problem with using my divide by nine monies to go out there tomorrow and make sure that we have those in our motels while we draft this policy. So I in no way want the conversation to be that we didn't support getting panic buttons to housekeepers immediately, because that has always been my my effort on the conversation around the around the policy language that's drafted. There was a lot of effort put into thinking about those issues that I brought up earlier, the policy questions. And so, you know, those those were just ones off the top of my head. Again, I think the challenge with the timing was that even if we had even if it was a regular week and not Labor Day week, we would have had a day to do this, whereas we had our budget meeting today and we saw how smooth that went. So that's what happens when we juggle big policy discussions very last minute. So I'm in fear. That there's. More language than these four questions that I have, which is subcontracted workers notification of guest retaliation language and hotel workers ability for legal remedy. Would you be opposed to what I mean? I mean, yeah. Would you be opposed to taking the language from Claudia's law that only pertains to sexual assault safety and asking the staff to act in the city? Attorney to draft an ordinance for hotels of 50 rooms or less using just that language instead of reinventing the well because we have already done that work. I would not be opposed to that, although I don't have that language in front of me. I will tell you that in respect for the work that has been done, again, I've said from day one, if we could separate, I said, I see no nexus between several of the items that were in the provision that was submitted to us. And if we could separate the public safety piece, I would have voted on it over a year ago. But what I did, because I know that the work that was done on this was extensive, was tried to include a lot of that same language. So if there's something that's missing out of here that you'd like to see included, totally open to that. So I guess slightly, yeah. I mean that just I don't have the ordinance in front of me, so I don't know what the components would be, but it. Was all kind of rushed on it. So I think instead of doing it line by line is asking the city attorney to use the language in Claudio's law, not only around. The sexual assault protections. But the issues that I mentioned here, who's covered that there's legal remedy for them, that it's the same thing minus the square footage that's included in WW. Think I I'm hearing just so I'm clear, I think Councilman Price is is is fine with that. I'm seeing her nod to Mr. City attorney. I think the big ask right now of Councilman Pierce is if we were moving forward, could we just take the language that's currently in the in the WW ordinance and just use that for the under 50 motels that are laid out in this item? Is that. Correct? That's my first question, yes. Okay. That's that's number one. Is that possible as you draft the ordinance, you could take that direction. Certainly use that as the starting language. Yes, it would eliminate the entire motion except request city attorney to draft an ordinance for panic buttons. Right. Okay. Great. So the second. Although I would like the provisions that ask Long Beach PD to include information on their website and everything other than item three to be included in there. So establishing regular outreach to hotel and lodging workers to make them aware of their rights and the process and directing them to have more prominent information on their website and that ensure that language access policy is followed in regards to the dissemination of information should be included. Okay. And then the second part that's important to me is the feasibility, the fact that we've spent years working with the largest hotels, but we have not done that work with the small mom and pops that everything from. Yeah, of course they probably won't be supportive, but it's a very different feasibility conversation versus a, you know, company that can spend 60 K in a election should they choose. So I think that there is a different feasibility conversation that we need to have and that that needs to happen well before we see our first draft. So while you say it might take 90 days, what does a 60 day engagement process look like with hotels? I mean, with hotels under 50 rooms? Is that something that staff could. Well, I think I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think they're the motion is to direct the city attorney to prepare the ordinance. And I think the city attorney's office in their preparation of the ordinance, whether or not they conduct outreach. And in this case, I think it'd be difficult in the amount of time. But whether or not they conduct outreach, I think is is up to you and your office. Right. Depending on what information you need to craft the ordinance. I wouldn't be doing outreach. No, this would be staff. I mean, if the council wants me to direct write an ordinance, I'll write the ordinance and bring it back if if you want to do some sort of outreach, I don't have the ability to do that. I recognize that that's a different item. So I guess if there was a substitute motion to do outreach for, he says, yes, okay, I'm trying to interpret this. If there is a substitute motion to spend 60 days doing outreach before the to these entities before city attorney drafted it. That if I may if there is a substitute motion something like that and we've done that on other items, right, that there would be some sort of a study or outreach. Feasibility study. To craft the ordinance. We would wait for that information to come back and then craft the ordinance if and that's we've done it that way too, that's acceptable. So I guess I'm working backwards because yes, I want the language from WW. I think that makes sense. But I also think that that makes sense without us having any knowledge about how these motels and smaller hotels operate. So and I if I could add, I agree with you, I think that the the intention of the outreach would be to we would use that as a starting point. But maybe some of that language doesn't make sense or maybe it needs to be tweaked and then it would come to you as kind of a package. They'd have the outreach and you'd have the draft language, and obviously the council could put all that language back in or change it back or do whatever it is they want to do to it when you get it, when we finally get something in front of you. Thank you for that. And I guess my last point and then I'll hear from my colleagues would be understanding because, you know, we've got, like I said, many small motels or hotels. The cost might be a bigger issue for them versus the Marriott of the world. And so if that is one of the challenges that come up from our engagement with them, just like we did with polystyrene, what does that phase in program look like? Is there some type of city funds that we can use to try to get them panic button sooner? Or like what? What can we do to try to get those in their hands sooner rather than later and that the city plays a role in that. So. I did some I made that substitute motion. That's right. It was 130. Okay. Okay. That that's a that's a substitute motion. Do I have a second? Is that what it says? Ask. Emotion motion over here. My laptop's hiding it. Sorry, guys. Okay, that's a substitute. That's a substitution. Do we want to see it? That's if we can first. If we can maybe fold that into the the agenda item. May it may not be possible in the item itself. I think the request and I could be wrong. I think the request is to have some outreach, to ask to direct or direct this. So we're still directing the city attorney to begin the process of importing the ordinance. But before it comes back to the council that staff do some outreach to those that are being that would be that would be impacted by this and that that that outreach inform the city attorney in his crafting of the ordinance as it comes back and that and that when it came back, we would have that information in front of us. Now, I'm not sure if that's possible or acceptable to obviously the make the motion. I think that's what I heard that's a friendly I know she substituted I was trying to see if that was possible to do as a friendly if not I think that's okay but just want to. Tell you what Charlie's not. So. Mayor. Members of the council. No way. Well, I'm not sure that's possible, but the way I just understand it is that the substitute motion would request staff to conduct outreach, slash study of this issue. 60, 90 days of the study. Then I would start preparing the ordinance 30, 45 days. I was I when it would come back. I mean, that's true, as I understand. That's right. In the spirit of I think what I heard earlier, I was trying to I was trying to see if there's possible to get to a place where we could, you know, build them on the same page. So, you know, maybe it's not possible. I was just I was just putting it out there as something for us to consider as we as we move forward. Councilwoman Price. You know, I'm going to actually I do have a few comments, but I'm going to queue up at the end because Councilwoman Mango was the second year of the original motion, but we went to public comment and didn't go back to her. So I'm going to turn it over to Councilwoman Mongo and then I'll come back up. Thank you. And when I was cute, I was laying on the back rail. And unfortunately, little Samantha has been kicking me like crazy, and it has been just really tough. But so I appreciate you saying that. When Councilman Price approached me about this in September 2015, I was a supporter of it at that time. And I appreciate all the work that many councilmembers have done, and I think that everyone's work is valid and we've all had very different approaches. Many remember my comments related to working with the Defensive Tactics Training Academy that works with L.A. County Sheriff's Department and providing free training for a lot of those hotel workers. Additionally, that came out of a discussion from a leader in the motel chain industry whose wife serves as president of one of the motel chain associations. And so that outreach did start back in 2017. While Councilwoman Price approached my office last Monday about signing on to this item and I was amenable at the time, I'm still amenable , and I know that unfortunately it is a holiday weekend, but with her, not with the potential of the 11th being canceled, her being not available on the 18th, me going into pre labor on Friday and thinking I might be having a baby sooner than later and wanting to be a part of this discussion. We're here and it is what it is. So with that, I was not very supportive of the friendly to strip out the language that Councilman Price had stated she'd be open to from Councilwoman Pearce. So I'm going to make a substitute substitute to the original language submitted and signed on by me and some other colleagues. I feel that the 2017 outreach that was started including but not limited to talking to some of the motel associations. I appreciate that outreach is important and necessary. I appreciate that process could be improved. At the end of the day, whether I agree with it or not, a group of people came before us and asked for a button. And whether it's today or 30 days from now or 60 days from now or through a vote, there's. An opportunity to put it through and give them what they've requested. And for that, I hope that we can have a united vote and. Provide what was requested, and I wish it would have happened in 2017. I wish the vote could have been bifurcated before. I wish that there were times when I was outreaching on my own that I would have been supported by the original community in committee. On several occasions in meeting with different advocacy groups including but not limited to unite here. I asked for support accommodation support of minor changes to watch every single time. Any request, even if supported by hotel workers, was told to me that this is the way it is in other cities and and this is what we're moving forward with and get on board or watch out. And unfortunately that was not great. And I wish that this could have been a better example of what we should do. But with the circumstances and the timelines that we're up against, I'd just like to almost everyone who's on the speakers list has already spoken. I hope we can call for the question shortly and not repeat ourselves, because otherwise I might be having this baby at this dais any time now. So if we could appreciate that everyone has a different perspective and I appreciate the work that everyone else has done and so forth. There has been outreach. I know it's not the same kind of outreach, but not every item that comes to council has had that. And any group that's wanted to weigh on it on this has had at least four council meetings to do so and so for that, I appreciate everyone's input. Mayor, I was going to go to the city attorney really quick. Thank you. I'm not sure that that's a proper substitute. Substitute. You just repeated the main motion. The main motion was stripped. So the. Original. Motion. There's original motion, then a substitute motion? No, the original motion. Then there was a friendly amendment that stripped it completely. There was just there was never a friendly that was accepted. It was a substitute motion to add the study. 90 days or so for a study, then draft an ordinance using the language from W.W. as a substitute motion. So what was the friendly. Decision made by. Because I thought Australia was accepted without the second approval. So. So what I will do is my substitute, substitute motion is that we pass the item as originally submitted with an addition of a one year implementation opportunity for motels. I can right. That that. Is a timely point. Of clarification. Does that include number four and not include number four? Not include number four? Thank you. Thank you. That is a substitute. Substitute. Councilman Gonzalez. Yes. And I'm going to defer to Councilmember Pierce. I withdraw my substitute motion. It's not on the floor. Dang it. I think that there's a subset of you can't. Which are you got to you got to go work back of this now from the. We've got to. You have to work from that. You have to work from the subs on the floor. Okay. So I. Well, she had him. Just listen to let me just say one more thing as we're moving forward. I'm hoping that as we're moving forward, that we're out, we're still focused on getting the getting the best outcome as possible. And I think that there's been some I think from those who have made the motion, they accepted some things and there's been some good conversation. And so I don't want that to get lost in our frustration at that, that we're all tired and everything else. And so let's just keep let's let's please keep going. And we do have the motion on the floor which they subsub, which is essentially the main motion striking number four with a one year implementation. Okay. So that is that is currently the motion that is on the floor. And if obviously you're still able to make fun of this, if you would like, but that is the motion that we will be voting on. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Okay. Think we got to handle a little bit. So I would just like to reiterate the need for the impacts. So whether that's the legal implications, I know you had mentioned we need to do a little bit more legal research, which I think would be important given the circumstances of what this may or may not look like , perception or not, what whatever that might be. When do you think you can get that back? I know you had mentioned. Maybe 60 days or. We would work as hard. You know, we can try and get this back as soon as possible. I'm not sure. I mean, obviously, I understand the timing, but that it's a public safety issue. But generally speaking, a lot of these ordinances have been challenged. And so we'd want to do some research on what it is we're doing. And now that we're back to this language, there may be some questions in this language we're going to have to research also as a substitute. Substitute motion is being considered. So we will try and get something back to you in 30 days, but it may be a little longer than that. Okay. And thank you. And then I think the only other thing that was my main thing, because I know we had address the public safety issues, but I would still like just to report on. But I believe Councilmember Price mentioned that there was a two from four sent over to us based on the Public Safety Committee meeting. Did that include information about public safety resources and what we're currently doing with hotels? I just want to make sure that's clear. Yeah, and it wasn't a two from four per se. It was just I do a summary when the public safety committee meets. I usually do a written summary for all the councilmembers, and that's what it was. And yes, it was Deputy Chief Conant and it's available on audio because we listened to it today just to go through what was discussed. But Deputy Chief Conant talked about the outreach that they do with hotels, the data in regards to calls for service and, you know, some of the collaborative partnerships that they were creating around public safety, not just at the hotels, but in the downtown area, including the hotels. Okay. Thank you. I still you know, I'd love the information to come back first, but I don't know that I can support this today, but I would just like more information. I think that's a big deal. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Aaron. We have a lively discussion here where things that I brought up obviously before is that I think this is going to be confusing to the electorate. They did a petition. They put it on the ballot. It's going to be coming up as WW in November. What we're doing here is basically, like I said earlier, circumventing that vote that the people have already put there. Given that, would it be possible? And and just to to paraphrase what we done before. We talked about a month ago about making a study to determine what would be the. Fiscal impacts of such an ordinance to the city. We haven't gotten that yet. So would the makers of the motion to make such a motion be amenable to holding off on? Processing this audience now until we get that fiscal impact report back to us and then go ahead and request a city attorney to proceed with any kind of a one ordinance. It's a friendly. Basically saying, can we hold off until we get the fiscal information fiscal report? I appreciate the option. But I would just say that in in echoing the comments of the original motion that there's no need for a delay. I mean, we know that there's going to be a fiscal impact. We've said that when when previously it was commented on, it was said not to be of a value at that time . So I'll only repeat that. Thank you anyway. But I, I, I was kind of serious about my call for the question do I get a second on that? But I thought I had heard the but I could have been wrong. Usually the one who says yes. Well, I mean, if there's a second on that, we've got former speakers. Mr. Anthony, was there a second on that? Yes. On a call for the question? Yes. He came back and asked me why it didn't work. That's not debatable. We need a two thirds majority to call for the question. Okay. So so we're going to go take a vote and call for the question. Yes. It's okay to two thirds vote. Yes. Okay. So are we are we voting on it, you people? It is lots of people. Okay. I will send my call for the question. Okay. I hope the speakers list won't be extended. Okay. So we're back to Councilor Richardson a second. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So can you elaborate on the one year implementation? What what is that? So what I am hearing from my council colleagues is that they believe that outreach to the motels needs to be more extensive and that if this came back to council, it would take a while to know whether the requirements. And so I'm just creating a one year implementation so that it gives city staff the option to help ensure compliance. Okay. And but if you felt a shorter period was appropriate, I'm open to it. You do more outreach to that group. But I personally just think there's a there's like a good government model for crafting ordinances. When the American Planning Association wars left and right, I've worked on many of them myself, argue with planning about who should get the trophy just saying. And most of them, frankly, have same format. Either they start with some kind of a pilot or the award winning ones. They start with some kind of pilot. They all have outreach that informs the crafting of the ordinance. I just think that this is there is no reason, there is no valid reason to push this through without conducting that process. And I just think I appreciate your feedback. And I believe that outreach process should just not happen at the same time as the election. I don't think that's an and I'm. And that's why I said a year instead of six months, so that the outreach can start after November. Okay. So you're saying outreach starts after November? Great. That's what you're saying. Yes. All right. So no outreach between now and November. Great. Okay. There's a number of issues here. So we're passing this motion without evaluating the fees, without putting the flexibility of staff to evaluate the feasibility. At 2 a.m., the day after Labor Day. Those are those. Respectfully, sir, we have to discuss this since 2017. And I appreciate. Respect, respectfully, and nobody knew this was coming. But make sure Councilor Richardson has the floor. So let's look. Continue. It is it's I'm just stating the obvious. Here is 2 a.m. is Labor Day weekend. And I still have a I still have not heard a legitimate reason on why we're rushing rushing this through. If the intent is really to if everybody on the council just expressed that they're okay go and panic button the citywide and it's all about process then there's no threat for this being killed or shut down to where after people aren't at council meetings or whatever. And it's a little less politically charged with the election season. And that's why I have a major problem with this. It has nothing to do. I just want to be clear. It has nothing to do with expanding panic buttons. The other thing is I think we do need to actually talk to motels. I'm engaged with talking to a lot of motels was a different conversation is completely different. It's about, you know, cracking down on just outdated uses and all that. And I want to have a, you know, a way to just think through how it all integrates. Right. And I just don't think that this flexibility is being given here tonight with this. So, Councilwoman Margo, I appreciate the steps that you made in that direction. But just fundamentally, I just can't I can't I can't support this, but. I appreciate that and I respect that greatly. Thank you. And. This reaches everyone. And so other hotels who are prepared and have the resources would be implementing them sooner. And if that saves even one potential assault, then that's a win. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you. So I appreciate all the comments tonight. I think it's been a great discussion. I will say, Councilman Richardson, while I understand the awards and I know you've had a lot of experience in politics, but I just want to make sure we're clear. We're not really trying to win any awards here, but we do have a public safety issue that was brought to our attention. And in September of 2017, this council stated very clearly that we were all in favor of panic buttons when those of us who voted against it voted against it because we believe there was no nexus between some of the provisions and panic buttons. Our colleagues allowed the implication to be had that we did not support panic buttons and they allowed person after. As leaders of this Dyas, as colleagues of ours and leaders of this issue, they allowed people to come to the podium and say that we did not support safety for women . I have handled I cannot tell you how many rape cases and sexual assault cases in my career. I will not go on record as being accused of not supporting panic buttons. So tonight I am supporting panic buttons loud and clear. You don't have to vote for it. I understand all your reasons. Put policy process. I mean, I'm sorry. Not policy. Put process aside. Put, put all your. I value your opinion. Honestly, I do. I learn from you all the time. You're absolutely right that the process could have been better. And there's not a day since September 2017 that I haven't thought I should have brought that panic button earlier because I drafted it in November 17. Jack knows he's here. I circulated it to people in November of 17, but people said, Oh, you know what, the issues behind us, let's not bring it back to council. We don't want to have long meetings. And I said, okay, okay. But then when person after person came in here and said, You don't care about the safety of women. That to me, that's unethical to sit back and allow your colleagues to to be accused of not caring about public safety when they've devoted their entire career to it. Just put yourself in the shoes of someone else. It's all I've ever done. It's all I've ever done. And to have people come up to the to the podium and say, I don't care about public safety and have my colleagues who are supposed to be maybe not allies in everything, but at least supporting each other in this fishbowl that we all sit in, not stand up and say, you know what , it's not about public safety. Maybe that she doesn't like this aspect of it or that aspect of it. But tonight, this is about voting in favor of panic buttons. Because if there is. A woman that gets assaulted and the next few months or in the next week or whatever, I don't want to be going on record as someone who voted against panic buttons because I didn't and I'm not going to tonight. I respect and appreciate everyone's vote. You have the right to have your own opinion, but really, let's try to separate the election from this issue. And the issue tonight is who's going to go on record as supporting panic buttons. So thank you. Guys. Were having a discussion at the council. Take us to one place. Councilor Pearce, I think is not here. Vice Mayor Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. And I echoed those sentiments for my councilwoman, you know, Price, because the fact that an individual said to you and I would never go on the record is never, ever, you would never, ever any city. And I would never vote for the safety of females, because here the individual has buy, you know, have three daughters and one mother. So you would never, ever see me city and I would not talk about the safety of females. So you can definitely put me on the record as saying I would definitely be supportive of panic buttons. Thank you. Thank you. There there's a motion and there's a motion and a second on the floor. Members to escort and Castro votes. Did you do public. Places for Suzy Price's mission? Well, that's. Motion carries.