Recommendation to adopt the Budget Oversight Committee’s proposed funding recommendations, as amended, to the Proposed FY 20 Budget.  (A-2)
And to get a motion in a second. Members, please go ahead and cast their votes. Motion carries, motion carries. The next item is the Bloc Oversight Committee proposed spending recommendations. And I know that there were those will be the read into the record. And then we're going to have some also some discussion, I know, from the council on some of the items. And so I'm going to go ahead and turn this over to Councilman Mongo, who will read read them into the record. So I want to thank the mayor. I just want to say how proud I am of the city staff and all the hard work that they did. This has been a truly collaborative process. I want to thank Councilmember Price for making the suggestion that Bossie members attend as many budget oversight committee meetings as possible. We had a Budget Oversight Committee member at nearly every single budget community meeting in the city. I think there was one or two that had attendance at less than ten community members that maybe we didn't get to all of them, but nearly every one. And that's a first for for this committee. But I think that it was great in the efforts we made to hear directly from the communities without them having to make separate appointments. We did also take separate appointments from community groups that reached out and asked for the opportunity to meet with us and share their priorities. And we all know that we are going into a tight financial time as our pension obligations increase, our available funds decrease. And so we won't have as much money available. And so as the belt tightens and we recognize that some of the things we've spent one time funding on in the past, and we're going to need to really learn what our priorities are or become even more efficient. So thank you to everyone that's made recommendations on those items. I'd like to further state that some of the items that I've received comments on since the Budget Oversight Committee about whether or not they were funded, were already funded in the budget or departments, have stepped up and said they can find that in their budget. And so just because it was not mentioned does not mean that it was not a priority or that we didn't find funding. So I welcome any of those questions from my colleagues if they'd like to make such comments, I think from here. Miss Yuan, would you like to read the first item? Sure I can read. The budget oversight committees voted on recommendations into the record. Right. Please do so. Thank you. Okay, great. So motion to support Mayor Garcia's proposed budget recommendations. Motion to modify the proposed FY 20 multi-year measure plan as follows. Modify the measure. I plan to use $9,561,510 one time funds set aside for public safety or other enhancements. The outyear measure I plan as follows. 4,700,000 to temporarily fund a two year restoration of Engine 17 for FY 20 in FY 21, with a two week delay in implementation in FY 22 mid-October. $4,761,510 available over four years to help fund the cost of providing a temporary and long term solution for fire station. 900,000 for disease, magnolia tree program and removal. Consistent with the measure I plan as modified appropriate the following for FY 20 based on the projected available cash flow for FY 22.3 million for engine 17. 1,000,514 $645 for Fire Station nine, 100,000 for the Disease. Magnolia Tree Program and Removal. Appropriate in FY 20, up to 3 million in additional measure funds for Fire Station nine contingent on the availability of Fy19 measure a year end surplus above what is currently projected in the proposed FY 20 measure plan. The total plan funding for Station nine with this contingent funding is $7,761,510. If there are any additional future surplus funds that are realized or improved revenue projections for Measure A prioritize the additional funds available for one time infrastructure investments in the following areas using the following priority allocation of any additional funds. The following dollars would be allocated over FY 20 through FY 22 if overall revenue projections increased by 3 million, with half being available for one time purposes. Ali's at 60% at 2.7 million park bathrooms, 20% at 900,000 playgrounds at 10%. 450,000 irrigation pumps at 10%. 450,000. Motion to appropriate $148,133 from the General Fund, Group and Uplands Fund Group projected at Fy19 and FY 20 ending funds available and recognized one time savings of 179,000 from proposed departmental activities for one time investments as follows. As well as provide. Additional direction to study staff proposals in the General Fund group as follows 115,000 for a three month pilot to provide weekend homeless outreach and response that would begin October 1st, 2019 and continue for three months. $88,133 for expanded library hours, which can include some form of Sunday hours, Monday afterschool hours and or summer morning hours at select locations to be determined by input from the current utilization and the recent Library Patrons survey. Direct the city manager to work with the Library Services Department to report back to the City Council on the plan. 24,000 to augment the 80,000 structural to be matched by 25,000 from partners of Parks. So Parks, Recreation and Marine Department will be able to run the program at Drake, Seaside, Silverado Sheer and MacArthur for the Be Safe program. Additionally, modify the name of the program to make it more marketable and easier for the community to understand the purpose of the program. 15,000 for senior programing at the Expo and direct staff to reappropriate any remaining fy19 19 funds that had been allocated for this purpose. This to fund this funding, along with Fy19 carryover funding, is expected to support senior programing for FY 20 10,000 for trashcan lids in the non tidelands area. Reduce appropriations for the short term rental program on a one time basis by 79,000, and direct the Development Services Department to explore and report back on program, volume and less costly program enforcement models in the proposed short term program prior to the adoption of the FY 21 budget. Recognize 100,001 time vacancy savings resulting from the time delay for hiring and onboarding of the nine positions added to the police department to support addressing state mandates in the body worn camera program from the city manager's proposed 600,001 time investment set aside for census and redistricting. Allocate 350,000 for census and 250,000 for redistricting. Direct the city manager to report back to City Council on the estimated uses of the funds. Appropriate 60,000. In the Parks and Recreation and Marine Department and freeze utilization of the 19th strategic one time funds and appropriate the remaining funding from the Health Department to the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department via a budget adjustment to lead the remaining implementation of the plan and expand it to include follow up on last year's request for workforce programing at the McBride Teen Center. Appropriate 15,000 for training estimated at a half a day, but up to the discretion of the city administration for nonpublic safety employees who currently receive bilingual bonuses and others as appropriate to help further a culture of multilingual openness in the city. Motion to appropriate 408,000 of the special advertising and promotions fund group funds available for one time investments as follows as well as provide additional direction to city staff on SFP related items as follows 35,000 to support the annual Martin Luther King Jr Day celebration in FY 20, conducted by the Special Events Office and the City Manager's Department. 135,004 Council District priority funds to be divided equally between the City Council districts to only be used toward special events or contributions for special events managed by the Special Events Office. 108,000 for the city's match needed to utilize Metro Grant funds for the following two beach streets events in Fy20 Beach Streets University, covering 4.1 miles of eastern Long Beach along Atherton Street, adjacent to California State University. Long Beach. Bellflower Bellflower Boulevard. Los Coyotes. Diagonal and Spring Street Beach Street downtown covering four miles of roadway along Broadway, Pyne Avenue, Cherry Avenue and Fourth Street. 100,000 as a grant to the new Economic Development Corporation for Direct Activities for outreach and promotion of the city. 20,000 for a youth poet laureate program subject to later confirmation on program structure and eligibility for SRP funds. 10,000 is a contribution to support the Women's Suffrage Centennial Celebrations mural, as presented to the Budget Oversight Committee. Motion to modify the city manager's proposed FY 20 tidelands capital projects to free up 200,000 that can be appropriated for other priorities by decreasing Colorado Lagoon Playground by 50,000. Decreasing painting at various public facilities by 150,000. Decreasing wayfinding signs by 50,000. And increasing the appropriation for Tidelands critical facilities by 50,000. The net result of these changes frees up 200,000 to be appropriated for new priorities, as follows Under 50,000 for homeless rapid response along the beachfront. 50,000 for trashcan replacements in the Tidelands area. Motion to appropriate the next 150,000 of the 75% project area share of sale proceeds from the sale of the former RTA properties anywhere in the city for establishing a two year lease for North Long Beach Higher Education Center. And that. Concludes the BRC. Recommendations. Perfect. Thank you very much for that report. I I'm to make some just some general comments. I have some questions and a couple of clarification points that I know the council will will be engaging as well. I want to just first begin by thanking the BRC for all the work I do. I do want to also thank them. They put an enormous amount of time. I'm not just at the public meetings, but of course attending many of the community budget hearings. And so this kind of work is important. It's very thoughtful, and I want to thank them for all the time. I also want to particularly do some things that are in this and these recommendations that I wanted to uplift that I think are really important. I want to thank the BRC, but also those members have been advocating for the expansion of homeless outreach services on the weekends. That's something that is a part of these recommendations. It's something that we have not done before, and I think it's very important and to have been able to get to a point now where we're going to be piloting and looking at doing all these outreach programs over the weekends, I think is really important. We know there's a huge need. And so I just wanted to mention that I mean, there's a lot of recommendations in here, but that's one that to me speaks directly to a critical need. And I can tell you that when I am visiting and going through parks, I know vice mayor knows this because he and I talk about it often. There's such a need on the weekends, not just in the center part of the city, but across the entire city to do this work. I also wanted to just also mention that I really want to thank particularly the council members that have worked on our our fire station challenge. I think that obviously losing fire station nine has been a real difficult challenge for the community, particularly want to thank Councilmember Al Austin for his work here. I also know that Councilmember Roberta Ranga and Councilmember Rex Richardson have been involved and very supportive of this work. And I think to have come together so quickly with with the chair of the Budget Oversight Committee, Councilwoman Mongo, and kind of put together a plan that addresses the need for this fire station to be rebuilt. Is is impressive. It's important and and is necessary. And I know that our city staff have been putting their their heads together as to how we ensure that the community that this community has access to a reliable and quick response times. And and I'm really glad to see that you guys have worked this out through these recent recommendations. And there's a clear plan of how to get there, especially with this very detailed timeline that was produced, I think, by Councilmember Austin as well as kind of reviewing some of the history. So I want to I want to appreciate that as well. And I think that's really great. I think there's a lot of other great items that are funded here. And so certainly looking forward to a conversation on those. I did want to ask two questions. The first is because I've heard some folks come here to talk about language access. And I think everyone on this on this body is supportive to ensure that people have access. All of our community has access to to all of our services. It's been important for the city, and I think members of this body have have voted that way in the past. I want to point out something I haven't heard. To me, the biggest additions to the budget, which I don't think we discussed enough, is that we actually took a position and made it permanent and full time, but is actually working on language access within the city. So that is that is actually a new addition. And so I know that there's been some discussion about how much we're funding language access, but I haven't heard that position having been lifted up too much in the discussion. And can we can can staff talk about this? Because to me, this is the most significant thing we're doing within the language access work in this budget. Yes, Mayor, we certainly agree. So we as staff hear you loud and clear and the whole council about language access that has now been with us for several years and it's becoming into institutionalized into our city. But the way we've been running that program is having a part time person who is the main coordinator. So while every department has a responsibility for following language access, there is one person that helps with training, helps with document translation, helps provide resources, but it's been a part time position. Last year the council asked us to study this issue and say, what are our top priorities on how to move language access forward? And the recommendation from the Health Department was to fund a fully funded one time or a position that is dedicated to this, that is there full time. So we that was included in the city manager's proposed budget and we think that will take us a big step forward in continuing the work on language access. Right. And so I think we're going from a from a part time position that was not structural to moving forward. A full time position that is structural, is that correct? Yes, it's a structural position going forward. Thank you. I just want to make sure that the community also is aware of that. I think that's really important. Step forward. And so that's in the budget that will be adopted tonight. I also want to just add on language access. I know that there was a reference to what the amount was last year. And and I know that this year there's there's an additional 80,000 for to help implement the program. But I, I was under the impression and I think I think I'm correct that one of the shifts that we've tried to do is to ensure that every department actually is working on language access programs within their budget. And so I think one of the what I heard from this council for the last couple of years is to instead of just putting language access money into one bucket, that it should be a part of every single department's work. And so that we wouldn't necessarily be coming in for, for one pot of funds, but that each department would be setting aside funds within their department to do that work. Can you can you explain that to me a little bit more? Because that's what I thought was was happening. Yeah. So there's actually two things. So often when we create a new policy, we just say, all right, this is now our policy. And departments have to try to absorb that within their budget. With language access, we try to go above and beyond that to get additional compliance faster and provide a dedicated bucket of money that's that $80,000 that departments can draw from. And to have a centralized approach to how we do that. We are now at the point where departments are using their internal funds to do language access. I'll give you an example. When we do special events and we have certain special events, especially in the coastal area, we've done language access and outreach and in different languages and those are all funded, not out of the 80,000, but out of the actual program itself. Same thing with a lot of our planning outreach. Those are in multiple languages. So the 80,000 is really on top of what departments are spending. And last year it was actually there was a one time bump up that the mayor put in to help us get caught up on some of the documents we needed to try to translate. So that's why it went up last year, is to help us move forward that plan. The 80,000 is what we have historically budgeted for and that's included in the budget. And the 80 and remaining because I the 80,000 is is beyond what the departments are already doing. I mean, the departments are each expected to provide these important services to the community. Is that correct? That's correct. So another example is census. When you're funding census, they're going to be having money within their budget to do language access I think, into the 80,000 now. And I and I think I think Councilman Mangold mentioned a bit earlier as well, even within the budget of the census, I think there's $40,000 or so just for language access that is on top of the $80,000 that are also there. Is that correct? Correct. And when we're putting together programs now and we're bringing to you here are what our programs look like for these new programs. Those are including language access, not as a part of the 80,000, but as part of the base program, because that's how we operate. Thinking that is that's helpful. I think that it's just I want to make sure that all of the the resources that the cities invest in which are really important are happening. And it seems like they are. And so I know that we're that work will continue. So thank you for answering those those questions. I also want to just to mention, I think that one thing that was proposed by our fire chief and the fire department was there and they really did a great job is kind of their study and their look at wanting to do diversity, recruitment and diversity training within the department . I know that I personally have had some conversations with the chief. I know Chief Espino is here. I want to commend the Chief for his work in this area. And I know that that I know that he and the department were looking to be able to have funds to do some of that work. And so I in talking to Councilwoman. I know that we want to make sure that it's called out in the budget and that it's there as a part of the budget. And so I just as we have this conversation, I just want to ask also that Councilman Mongo that we look at calling out the fire diversity work within the budget. I know that there are IAC funds. There may or may not be enough there to cover that work within the department. But if there isn't, I think we should look at other contingency funds within the fire department. And if those aren't there, we should look we should look at the rest of the budget, whether it's measure or any other funds. But I think that that work needs to happen. I appreciate the work the fire department's done. I appreciate. I mean, Councilmember Richardson, I know that this is something that you've advocated for as well. But I've heard I've also heard this from many members of the council. And I've heard when we had this first issue brought up, I know that many members of the council have talked about this being important. And and it is. And so I'm hopeful that as discussion moves forward and we've had some good conversations about it, I think we know that we have work to do and we want to provide our fire department with that support as well. And so I know there are other items that will be discussed. I don't want to take up all the time. I will recue at the end for some additional comments. But I do want to think again the the full council on the BSE for for the work. And so with that, let me let me turn this over and to the discussion, and I'll start as a council item. I'm assuming that you've you want to you want to go first, assess the motion, and we'll go through. Sure. I'd love to add something. I go to Councilman Mongo, Councilman Price and then Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I really appreciate you lifting up diversity. As many of you know, I supported the Arise conference at the county level for a diversity of all fire departments of the whole region where all departments were invited. I'm a big supporter. Staff came back and said they thought that there would be easy funds available in the amount. I want to say of 94,000. I don't remember if that came through staff or whether it was in one of my discussions with Mr. Richardson or with. I don't remember. But. I would love for that to support what the mayor said and actually calling it out would be helpful. If not, then I would be comfortable with modifying the motion to state that it could come from year end savings in the fire department. So if you remember about a month ago when we came and presented that report, that was one of the recommendations. We fully support the idea of looking at a position that does that in the fire department. We at that point, we're not recommending taking from another department to fund that, but looking either within the fire department or that that revenue source, as I say, training funds. So we that is our plan right now, if that would if you'd like to include that, is giving us direction to do that and we would come back to you if we needed additional funds. We're hoping to contain that within special revenues dedicated to the fire department or fire department savings. I'm very comfortable with that. Thank you. Councilman, would you be amenable to adding that to the B or C recommendations? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Price. I can come back to you if you'd like to. So I just wanted to comment on two big projects that I think we're going to be embarking on as pilots. And the mayor already touched upon them. But the two pilot programs that we have come up with for homelessness, they're similar but different in a sense. I want to thank Councilmember Pierce for being a great partner in trying to figure out how we can work on some of our beach challenges and offering services and trying to get people into services on the weekends, which is a time where our beaches are fully engaged. And unfortunately, we see a lot more transient populations out there that have no outsource mechanism. So I want to thank police and fire and our health department for working together on some of the ideas that we had. We made it very clear that this is a pilot program. There's not a lot of money there. And I want to reach out for a mayor or I want to stress the creativity of Deputy Chief Rex Winkle, who's here, who suggested that we could expand some of the work that we've done with the heart teams and train some of our Marine safety officers the skills that our heart team officers have since they're on the beach and they have the apparatus to be able to maneuver the sand and be able to do some outreach on the beach on a more consistent basis. So I'm very excited about both of these homeless pilots that we're going to be trying. I know that council member Pierce and I are both going to be using some of our divide by nine moneys to help augment the the pilot that we're trying on the beach, which is a huge thing for the two of us, because that's money that we can't use for other services. But we realize that the amount of money that we're giving the departments to assist with this pilot is limited. And so we're we're putting some skin in the game to make sure that it's successful. My concern with both of the pilots is and I just want to make the the legislative intent very clear. We need to be able to track the data for these pilot programs. I've already reached out to Assistant City Manager Modica and I've talked with Councilmember Pierce, at least for the Tidelands pilot, where Councilmember Pearson are going to come up with some performance measures or objective, some data that we can track. Because if this is if we start to see something that's working where we're able to put people into services, where we're able to track individuals, the combination, the Tidelands project that we're envisioning involves police and fire working together and health, helping with transportation and ultimately getting folks into the system through the Multi-Service Center on that Monday. If this is a system that works and we're able to see some results, I'd like to be able to model it throughout the city. And so we will I envision that will have a follow up item that comes back where we ask for performance measures, how data is going to be collected so that we can track the progress, talk to other cities that may have tried similar programs and build upon it. And that's my hope. What I don't want to do is see us fund money for pilots that do basically the same things we have been doing, which are amazing and great. But this is trying something different and it really does need to be different for the tidelands portion of it. I've shared this with Assistant City Manager Modica as well, that I think it's very, very important that police and fire have access to the money so that they know when they need to deploy their resources. They can use their discretion to make that determination and the response is swift and directed by them because they're the ones that are going to be out there doing the work. And so that's very, very important to me. I would hate for us to have to have, you know, collaborative group discussions about every single deployment because nothing will happen. So I'm really hoping that we allow our police and fire departments to make the best determination as to what's needed on the weekend and deploy accordingly and work with health to do that. With that, I think we are funding a lot of different priorities every single year. I wish that we could fund every single priority. I cannot think of any project or proposal that's come forth to council that doesn't have merit. A lot of projects and programs do, but we have limited resources. And I want to thank our Budget Oversight Committee chair, Councilwoman Mungo, for being so thoughtful and inclusive in her efforts to try to meet everybody's needs. I will say. That the one project that the one program that I've always really been advocating for is Sunday library hours. It looks like the amount of money will be able to allocate to that program is a lot less than we did in the past. So I'd like to put it out there that when we have our first quarter budget numbers and evaluation of, you know, what our savings from the 19 looks like, if any, what our actuaries are in 20, that any budget reallocation that we do that sun library hours be given some priority in that discussion. Thank you. I will take that under consideration. I appreciate the recommendation. Thank you. Councilman Mango Councilman Price. Thank you, Councilmember Pierce. Thank you. I want to start off just by thanking everybody that's been a part of this process. I know the timeline moves kind of quickly and we're all on the last day kind of scrounging to figure out how we do continue to fund all of those priorities. And I am very proud of this budget and the fact that we have funding allocated for our shelter, funding allocated and greater extent for our biggest priority homelessness for our heart team that we continue to set the priorities of our constituents. First, I'd like to go ahead and piggyback on Councilmember Price's comments around our pilot program that we're doing in the Tidelands Fund and just also say what a great process it's been to sit down and bring in the other departments and sit in a room and try to strategize around how do we really make sure we're not spending the largest amount of money for the littlest return? And so I want to thank the staff that's here today that sat down with us and said, let's figure something else out. Maybe the heart team can train our Marine bureau. Maybe we can try something that hasn't been done before. So I'm really looking forward to that. Happy to spend my divide by nine money to see if we can make a bigger dent on the weekends and in the areas that tend to be our most problematic areas. I echo the conversation around we need to track. I mean, if we don't know when we're coming in contact with the most people, when we're able to get them off the streets, when we're able to get them resources, then it's even harder for us to figure out how to staff. And while we're not the ones staffing, I think if we can look at those numbers come next budget or next cycle, then we can say, okay, now we know how we spend our money more wisely. And whenever we're tackling a problem that's city wide like this, that is going to be ever more important. So I look forward to having that conversation. I want to thank the mayor for the clarifying questions. There were some of the same clarifying questions I was going to ask about language access, and I think that everybody's trying to put forth the best effort to make sure that we don't drop the ball on something that we've said consistently for years is a priority. And sometimes maybe we don't know where those dollars are directly spent. Sometimes maybe community members don't. But what they see is that. The vision hasn't been carried out. And I know that already talked about this last time. I want to give that opportunity one more time to our team to kind of talk about what your vision is for really making sure that it's strategic and that it's implemented into every single department. I know that we already asked that, but if you could follow up a little bit more just on the conversations that have happened since last budget cycle or last budget meeting to today to demonstrate what a priority this has been. So every Wednesday, right after the budget or after the council meeting, we sit together as a department team. We talk about what happened, the last meeting and what we need to prepare for. I had a conversation with every single one of our departments about language access, about a priority, and this has been with us for now several years. And what we really want and expect is that it gets put into our daily operations so that it not be an add on than it be something that we think of when we plan, when we're doing our internal deadlines. We need to be thinking of when does the Spanish translation need to happen? When does the commission need to happen? When does the Tagalog need to happen and that those all be rolled out and considered as part of our overall budget? If you've noticed around City Hall, we took the comments very seriously about, you know, that we did have some language up access signs, but some of the you know, for example, the computers hadn't been done yet and, you know, the staff were working on those. But if we don't tell anybody that that's happening, the assumption is that it's not happening. So if you walk around city hall, you'll notice that there's a lot more signage. In the last two weeks, all of those digital displays have signs saying it's coming. And in the meantime, if, you know, while you're waiting for that, go see a staff member. And so we do have the ability for all staff to call language line to get someone who's who's a translator either on the phone or in person. So, you know, that is happening and will continue over this next year to make sure that, you know, our department director and or their number two when they're approving work products, they're saying, hey, have we have we included language access so that it becomes part of our culture even quicker. Thank you for that answer. I know that while we're funding Francesca's position or that position full time and that is a great step, I think that's an additional $30,000. That's something that I know four of us council members said last year we were willing to fund ourselves of the h.r. Would just make it full time. So that's something that we felt like we could have had last year. And it's great that it's full time position. We know that it's going to take coordination, the amount of money that keeps going back and forth, as is the 80,000 and the fact that it was to bring it back up to make sure that we implement the program fully. What it's my understanding that this year this department is over on this line item, that there are already over $160,000, is that correct? I've heard the number of 100 670. I don't. We can ask Kelly to do that. But when you give us money, we try to spend it all. So there was a plan. You know, if there was 80, we would have spent 80. If there's 160, we spend 160. So last year there was this push to get more documents done and then do the study, which we filed back a couple of months ago to say what are our major priorities? And the biggest priority of moving language access forward was the full time position. And so the you're saying that some of these funds were spent on that study. I believe a little bit. Okay. Here. Just making sure it's really done for everyone. It would be incorrect and we didn't use any of that funding for the study. We think that was part of the budget motion was to use part of it. We actually were able to use internal staff time and not have to charge against that money on vote. So this year, if we say we put 80,000 instead of 160,000, but the need is 170,000, what opportunity do we have to make sure that that doesn't go unfunded? So I think is the mayor mentioned we spend more than just $80,000 on this program. So I understand. I understand it's included in the department budgets. Honestly, if that money's available, the departments will use it. If it's not available, they need to do language access anyway and they're going to absorb it within the budget and then there'll be some other kind of service reduction. That's just how it works. So language access will get taken care of as we do our programs. Right. And that was what I was trying to get at, is that we're not going to reduce our language access ability if we don't give that additional fund today that we are committed to language access regardless of it's 80,000 or 160,000. My next question. You know, I'd like to also ask I know that in the BSE meeting that happened right before the council meeting, there was 15 K earmarked from BSE chair to be used for training. It was my understanding that there was already a training plan proposed by the team. Is this on top of what will be happening or is this to support that? As I understand, this would be on top of it. So in discussing this a little bit with the BSE chair, we have over 700 people who are all getting language access or they're all getting a bilingual scope and they use it on a daily basis. We think it's a good idea to bring people together, to use it, to have a training opportunity for all those people that are currently getting that pay to be able to be on the same page about how and where do we use language access and that standardization and really get them in front of Francesca. So anytime you're doing 700 people, there's going to be over time that we're going to have to use to schedule them, to bring them in. There's going to be training materials. So this would be in excess of that to provide additional training. Thank you for that. I don't know that we've had the conversation yet. I want to bring it up now and see where my council colleagues are when the first quarter comes up in November. I would like to to hear my council colleagues thoughts on making this a first priority for evaluation for another 100 K if that is needed. So I look forward to hearing my counsel colleagues conversation on that. I think it's demonstrated it's a priority. We want to make sure that people are getting those services, that other services aren't being cut, but making sure that we're not. Taking less whenever. Now Francesca is full time, and I'm imagining that more requests are going to come in. More trainings are going to be required. The fact that city manager's office is really taking this to heart and I really feel like for the first time you guys are going to institute this in every single department. I feel like that workload is probably going to be there. And so I want to make sure that we have a backup plan for that. My my I have two other three other areas that I'd like to talk about. I know that there's a proposal in here around moving the Youth Fund to Parks and Rec. Also want to hear my council colleagues conversations around this. The Youth Fund was advocated for by community groups. The mayor put this in his budget last year. We debated this last year behind the dais in which department it goes in. I know that each of us have our departments that we love, each of us have, our departments we struggle with. It is my firm belief that whenever we're talking about areas where there's an equity, areas where there's overlap, where we're talking about impacts on people's health, like as the case with our youth and our aging seniors, that it's best positioned in a health department or in a structure that allows the health department economic development in parks and recs to work together. I know as assistant city manager we've had the conversation around how do we have collaborative works within different departments? This is one of those areas where I would hate to have a program that was intended to address health inequities, poverty disparity, go into being an after school youth program, which is very important, and I love that we're funding them again and that we're keeping them. But it can't just be that it has to be so much more and be in a position where we're able to get more grants and more collaboration with other departments outside of the city and the county to really address those economic disparities that the community groups came and advocated for. So I want to make sure that we keep this fund with the original intent that it was voted on. My last two. I think everyone here knows the Office of Aging has been an issue that vice mayor several years ago Deandra has brought forward. It was two year funding. We know that nearly 40% of the population in the city is made up of older adults aging 50 or more. The population is expected to increase by 22% by 2025. This is a population that, if we ignore now, will suffer later and the city will be paying the bill for that. And I'm didn't think that I would be the one that's championing this, but I want to make sure we have that plan in place. We have also an item that I worked really hard on, which was a short term rental policy, and it was my firm belief whenever we decided to regulate this was that there had to be an intersection with housing. And when I think about our older population and their housing vulnerabilities that they have, it's real. We don't have a plan in place, but when we funded this two year position, one of the things was a strategic plan. And that strategic plan said that housing was a priority for our aging adults. I think it makes a lot of sense to earmark some of the funds from the START position that is there to fund this position at half of the cost. And so the motion that I would like to propose is to reduce appropriations for the short term rental program on a one time basis in FY 20 by 73,000 and delay implementation of the SDR program according to spend with the remaining 4020 SDR funding, and to reallocate one time funding to continue the current Office of Aging position through 2020, supplemented by another 73,000 from the Homeless Program 2.0 funding. I know we worked a staff on this. I know I just proposed it. Charlie's giving me the look like. Was that a motion? I can read it later. I'm proposing it now. I want to hear my colleague said, since I'm one of the first council members to talk, it's something that I think if we care about homelessness, we care about housing, we care about our seniors, there's a path there to delay that SDR program from starting so that we can make sure we have a full time position funded. My last comments are on the Civic Center video program, which I just picked up. I would like to. I would like to understand more about that fund and if that's something that we feel like is a critical source, I know maybe we could take those funds and use them. A divide by nine for the entire council spending $400,000 to program our big screen in the first year is something that I'm not sure I'm fully comfortable with. At a minimum, I know that we've had the Women's Suffrage Centennial Fund. They came to us and asked us for a fund to help program community events, not just fund a mural and not just fund a video. But what's in this is funding a mural. So I would like to try to find $10,000 to fund the program citywide that we unanimously voted on in June. It seems like, if anything, we could get ten K out of this to make sure that that was funded as we all voted on unanimously back in June. Those are my comments. I look forward to hearing my council colleagues. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, first of all, thank you to everybody who worked on preparing this budget. We had our budget committee, our ninth District Budget Committee meeting. I think it went pretty well. I want to thank Chair Mungo for spending some time and coming up and bringing, you know, bringing the baby out and giving some remarks . We had a good time. Just a few things. It's a lot here. So I'll try to narrow it down to either the things that I want to raise up or the things I think might need some adjustment. So first, Mayor, I like your comments. I appreciate your comments on the fire diversity. And I know that we've all sort of talked about it's important to many, many people that we figure out how to get it done. And I like that approach. We're going to look internally within the department. But if you know, I want to I want to say I want to echo the mayor's comments. If we the intent here, there's a good plan. You know, my first conversation with the chief and I'm sure this went the same way with many of us, you know, it was a priority to focus on diversity. His presentation, I think, was amazing. He said the words economic inclusion. He said the words racial equity, and he wasn't forced to do so. And I think that should be recognized and rewarded when you have a visionary department head who steps forward with an idea. And I want and I want to lift that up. And I also want to say the intent here is to get it going in the first year. If we can get that going internally, let's do it. But like the mayor said, if for some reason, you know, those funds, the special funds and those year end dollars don't materialize. We want to know about it because we want this program to roll out. So we need to look we need to look at an allocated rea or whatever it is when it comes back. So I definitely lift that up. So thank you all for for doing that. That's that's incredibly important. Secondly, I just want to give some recognition to Councilman Alston on moving very quickly since the community meeting. And I know what we're probably going to hear more about the the plan for Station nine, but it seems like it's off, it's on his way and it has my support. Again, you know, all of this, it impacts our whole community and we you know, we're one in uptown on this issue. So there's no space between us on this issue. Secondly, on the be safe. So so two things on the Be Safe program and it was hard to tell because it didn't say the words be safe in the recommendation. I see that there's five sites listed. How were those sites selected? Staff or among the staff. How was that? How were those five, five sites selected in this recommendation? So the chair of the Budget Oversight Committee worked with the Parks and Recreation director, who can also discuss this. But they looked at data of the utilizations of the Be Safe program and looking at the locations as well. And so if you'd like further discussions on that, we can ask. Were these the top five based on that list? That this was. May I? So originally, we were only gonna be able to fund three programs. And so the three programs recommended by parks, and unfortunately, two of them were in the same district, but they had significantly higher utilization than others. It was brought to my attention about an hour ago that the data provided is actually from last fiscal year and that perhaps two years of fiscal data could have been helpful because the top three might have been different. Further, the other two sites were kind of discussed in partnership with partners of Parks, who was open to funding a site. Sure. And so they were open to funding a new area that hadn't been tested yet. And so we came up with a. Originally it was gonna be a 5050 split. We were going to find a new one. They were going to fund a new one. Then they came today and said they were willing to give us a little bit more flexibility in light of the discussion related to the data. And they'll put $5,000 towards up to five sites. Great. So here's what I here's what I would say. The list that was provided. So every year since the program is started out in parks been top three, the third, second or first, and it showed probably one of the lowest in attendance. And the reason why is because it didn't take place this year at Highland Park. Highland Park is closed. And so it was redirected into other programs, other safe programs. But Highland Park is where they started, you know, the new iteration of Be Safe. It's one of the it's consistently been one of those top three. So in terms of selecting sites, are you open to just removing the list, the sites, giving it to staff and say, go back, look at your numbers. Take out this past year. It's not realistic. Well, the average of the top three sites that have been and I understand the also the issues with Drake and the other park and neighborhoods completely understand that. I think that that happens in a number of neighborhoods. But to simply base this based on that data, which we know is not reflective since the park was closed, I think I think it makes sense to give it to Parks to come back with, you know, you've got this funding program, these 3 to 5 sites based on utilization. So I think that we'd be open to them bringing back using an average of multi-year data. I think that there's going to be a challenge with two of those parks. Two of those parks are new. And part of the appeal to the donation from Partners of Parks was that there are some synergies at those parks. I'm not specific on the exact programing that's already there. So I'd be open to them also considering that synergy component and perhaps asking a member of Poppy to be at the table for that. But yes, because I don't want to lose the 25. I get it. Absolutely. And these programs are important to many of us and we all raise money to keep them there. And so I would say so. Just so we're clear, what I hear is we're going to kick this over the parks. They're going to consider usage data from the past. This past year wasn't reflective, at least particularly for for North Long Beach. Was it reflective? And then secondly, to make sure that partners are partners on the table if there's some leveraging funds to match. And I think what I also hear specifically is two of them are in downtown right now. And if there's a way to consolidate that into one and make sure that. We still have the opportunity to explore parks that haven't had opportunities. I think that that's important, too. I mean, I know there's sensitivity there. I don't want to say one over the other. Let's not forget that. Why don't we get into. I just know that Parks understands the dynamics with neighborhoods, and Parks also understands the history of these sites. That's why I think the decision on where we probably we know there's problems with our methodology and how we selected it. So I say we just give it to them and make sure that they understand the partners, the parks consideration. And I just want to also just lift up. There's need for 11 sites. Absolutely. And no doubt you need to be able to figure out upstream what grant opportunities we have. So I would also ask that every single park that's had to be safe program in the past and the council member for that park work on bringing together park advocates for that park. Partners of Parks has a fundraising page available for all of them. They could even be a part of the Long Beach Gives Day. There's just so many opportunities and none of those other parks I've really activated behind it yet. And Poppy is here to match some of that funding. So. Understood. Understood. Okay. So moving on. So, yes. I'll do a firm friendly at the end to modify, if that's okay. Okay. But I consider this is accepted. Yes. Okay. Great. So moving on. I appreciate the the consideration given to the poet laureate. And I understand fully the initial intent didn't reconcile with some of the funding sources. So I think that's good. I think the intent here, the poet laureate program, even though the two from four came back, said it was a training, is not a training program. We're lifting up our local youth poets was not a training program or if anything, is promoting our city, advocating for our youth and things like that, which is an appropriate use of the SAP funds. So I want to just. Right. Recognize that and lift that up. Also recognize the funding for expanded library hours. And I say expand it not just Sunday because I think we've we all know the benefit that that libraries avenue is we find that you know Sundays or what what works but most bang for the buck great if we find that you know what I see if the library opens let's say a noon, I'll have a, you know, a whole line of kids getting ready to get in during the summer right at 10:00. And so if we find that, you know, getting the kids off the street and getting them in 2 hours earlier, a few days out, the week, I'm supportive of that as well. Mondays, Monday after school and things like Monday, Monday after school, I think those are good. So I think we just need to continue to expand library hours in general. Some supportive of this. We'd love to see it go further down, supportive of it. Next, I want to lift up and you know, this has been work this north Long Beach Higher Education Center was a motion about a year ago to explore partnership with Long Beach City College. I'm glad to see us get to the point where it's ready for prime time. So I'm really. Councilman, just really quick, just before we keep going, because it's just been a request from our city attorney just for their own bookkeeping as we go. And he's asking. Why there's only one friendly. Everything else has been. Exactly. Let me let me. Let me just just I just to clarify, per per our city attorney, that if there are things that get added, they're going to be added as we go, if they're accepted or they'll be put into a discussed later list. And so I just want to make sure to clarify on the park issue that something that we are moving forward with. That was exact. Correct. So my comment is at the end, I just meant at the end of all of Mr. Richardson's requests, if that's okay. And if so, I can evaluate and these are made. I think it would be helpful to me, too, if we're tracking this and the staff that you're identifying here, I believe that you want to remove Drake, Seaside, Silverado, Sheer and MacArthur and say locations as determined by the director of Parks and. Rec. Yeah. With consideration given to the partners of Parks piece as well as prior utilization. Just not this past. Year because I just think it's going to be too hard to go back and ask for trying to change in the language as we go. It'd be helpful for us. So I understand. I'm fine with City Manager. Much appreciated. However, sometimes Mr. Richardson has a very long list of requests. I'm sure. I'll like one later more than. Current. And you know, to be fair, I didn't get to sit through the bills I got. Yes, I. Heard of today. And I'm just going to make sure I hear all of your requests before I make any decisions in case there's funding implications that one has no funding implications. So I'm happy to accept it on the spot. I'm going to make friendlies as well. Let me let me let me stop there. So I'm Mr. City attorney. So that one has been accepted. And so the park the park request has been accepted. And now back to Mr. Richardson, who has a four. Thank you. And yes, I like to be thorough. I would love to have more time. I get it. 2 hours since. We'll see what I'm going to take my time and sort of go through these and and I understand what you're saying. It's okay. So, again, poet laureate, I think. Good program. I think it should be appropriate through SAP because it's a it's promoting it's promoting the youth, one of our cities now a training program. And I think that was what the clarity was. I want to clarify the intent. You know, that's what it's been since the beginning. Expanded Sun Library. I was very happy to support that. The North Long Beach Higher Ed Center. I think we're teeing up for a good win. I just want to recognize John Keiser Keisler. The conversation initially was about synergy. Community college knew that they have they need to do more recruiting and outreach their strategic plans at North Long Beaches where they need help, real estate opportunities. They want to be a part of the uptown renaissance. John, you and your team have come together, figured out something that really makes sense. And I'm glad I'm glad that it's been vetted through city staff and that we're going to support this today. So that's incredibly important. So thank you, everybody who had a hand in that. I'm happy to support this budget and this makes it even better. And then next, I want to talk about I want to touch on language access. It's already been touched on in a lot of ways. I do say the term bake it in, not sprinkling on top. I think making the position full time is just that beginning in not sprinkling on top. But I do have a question about the concept of interpretation. I we use in the ninth district, we use interpreters, we submit a request and we try to use interpretation as often as we can. And I know that interpretation was sort of a stand alone fund that gets drawn down. And I'd like to understand, if we don't have that fund, how is actual interpretation being baked in? And I sprinkled on top because what I see here and what I don't want to happen is, you know, we get into second, second half of the year, we put in a request for interpreters and there's just no money. Halfway through the year. Right. So how do we handle interpreters today and what's our plan for it in the future? So as I understand the interpreters, they are part of the 80,000 and that fund is there. So that is available for people to request it. We actually have data on who's requested it and the number of City Council members have used that. And then and we haven't reached a point where we've denied any request and I don't expect that to happen. But I'll have Kelly answer the rest of that question. So there's not a specific line for interpretation versus translation or something like that. That thousand covers all of those services. What has happened in the past is we've hit we've hit the 80,000. And as you've heard, other departments are also including them as part of their budget. So when those at this year, when you've taken that, the training and the other pieces of the council we've had, we have topped out at 160,000. There have not been denials of requests, but we are now seeking that for the rest of the time that departments will be paying for their own. So moving forward, the departments will pay for their own interpreters. That would be the expectation, yes. Mr. MODICA Is that is that the case here? So they would draw down on the 80 grand and then if we run out, if we need to do interpretation, then we need to find a way to fund that. Yes. And if we're going to be way over on this program, that's something we'll come back to at the end of the year. And to say we're over budget and here's the solution. We need to fund it and this is what we're not going to do instead. So and I know there's been discussion I don't want to open a can of worms about salaries and keeping positions open, but that is how we manage our budget sometimes is sometimes we say , you know, our job is to manage it and we say, this is important, it needs to get done. And then we find it, whether it's extra savings from, you know, pencils or pens or sometimes positions to fund those things. Understood. Absolutely. And so I just want to make sure we're clear on it. When I think of like language access, I agree it shouldn't be something we have to load up and fight for every year. Right. We should embrace it. I think making the position full time is one step, but making sure that we can make a commitment and say interpreters are available on request and that we're meeting that commitment, I think I think that's what I'm most interested in, making sure that we can meet that commitment, whether it's a separate line item of $80,000 to make sure it's there or it's rolled in and baked into individual department budgets. I think it's just honestly so. Mr. GROSS Staying on, what's the most responsible way to go about it? But that is a commitment that I'd like to monitor and make sure that we can continue to make to the public. And so my understanding is there's a fund already is 80. There will be a transition this year to sort of drawing. You know, providing this based on the department. And we're going to watch it to see if if there's any funding needs based on. Is that inaccurate? Yeah. And if you remember when we started, you actually had us come to a plan on all the documents that we thought needed to be translated, that we hadn't translated yet. And we used a lot of the 84 80,000 was to do that. Well, those are all translated now, so that actually frees up space to do more, you know, interpretation. So we are seeing more interpretation and less of the document producing. All right. That makes sense. Thank you. Next. So I see on the bill see recommendations the motion before and it talks about additional future surplus funds measure a and breaking it down 60% or ALIS and 20% or bathrooms and 10% or playgrounds and 10% toward irrigation. First is a question. I know that last year we went out and said on allocated measure A, we found some dollars and now we can anticipate some new infrastructure that we can commit to it as early as FY 20. And I paid attention to that because our first playground in District nine is a part of that. It was it wasn't full. It was replacement. I think it was ten or 15,000 for Ramona Park. My question is, does this affect any other projects that are already been announced? Is this just new money or is it a fact we've already committed to publicly? So this does not affect any of the projects that are currently in the out your plan or any of the infrastructure projects that were described in the FY 20 proposed budget. The section that you are referring to is really if there is any surplus funds above and beyond what is currently projected, whether it's one time or structural , this is the list of priority of how those funds could be allocated. But again, those funds have not materialize or have not been currently projected. And so that would be a discussion council could have if and when those funds do come in. Sure. And so, Madam Chair, so I appreciate sort of breaking it out. I would say the 60, 20, ten, ten, we probably should look at balancing that out a little bit. 60% of and I get it. There's not never going to be enough money to put into, you know, alleys and things like that. And I completely get it. But if we can balance this out a little bit and one area I think is low is playgrounds. If playgrounds were to get closer to $1,000,000. If we're talking about like for 50 essentially one playground, if we were to get to looking at these and balancing out like 50%, 20%, 20%, 10%, I think it smooths it out a little bit. And we know we're going to have to identify more money for allies is clearly is not the solution to allies in the city, but it could build a couple of playgrounds or replace a couple, 250 K playgrounds, maybe four of them, if we bump that number up to a million bucks. What do you think? Madam Chair. That's all that's offered as a form of friendly, formal, friendly. So in reading the budget book and the capital improvement book, one of the things that I think is. Very difficult for individuals to swallow and I heard it at multiple budget meetings is we have $98 million in ally needs. That's a huge number. We have no current current projection on our playground needs. Also, if I give Craig Beck $10 million tomorrow, he'll be ready to go October one to pay for those rallies. If we give him $1 million for playgrounds, there's still a planning process. All these different things. And so one day right now, Craig Beck will spend that money. He will. But residents want to see results now. And Mr. Beck said his most shovel ready project is the 30 and below. And so at 2.7 million, which, by the way, is only if the full amount of the measure materializes, that's still less than 3% of the city's need. And I feel like 3% is a minimum where we should be at in alleys. I think we should be at a minimum of 10% in streets. I think that people should know that there's a ten year plan to getting their street done. I really thought I'd be able to make a stab at sidewalks this year. But Mr. Beck. Gave me one of the most depressing days of my council career when he told me, We have $600 million in sidewalk need. And so you'll notice I didn't even try to figure out where to start on sidewalks this year. Every year I've been excited about sidewalks and then the number hit and like my heart dropped $600 million in sidewalk needs. Look at his droopy face because he is about that number. It's it's just a depressing number. He's like this. So I feel like there's a plan for Alice. I appreciate you bringing forward the idea of doing an inventory of the parks. There is an inventory that was done I'm sorry, park playgrounds. There was an inventory done by the Parks Department when we asked for county funding for some of our park playgrounds and park refurbishments. I think we really need to work more closely with the county to draw down those funds. We don't have any other potential sources for alleys at all. Irrigation pumps, it's only 100,000 and that's a maybe. That's maybe going to get you one or two pumps that could, in the long term, save us money and park bathrooms. I would say the number one thing I get to complain about is park bathrooms, number one. Hands down. Consistently, every member of the community needs to go to the bathroom. And when they're in public, these park bathrooms are redoing. Also, really support your other program that you lifted up, which was the baby changing stations in the male bathrooms which speaking of gender just to also give a shout out to fire diversity is not just race, it's also gender. And so I really support the diversity comments of earlier, but I didn't have an opportunity to chime in. Don't forget gender. Understood. So. Haven't given that. We just saw this breakdown. Are you open to any adjustments to the breakdown or is it firm? If there was a rationale for why we would move it, I could understand. But at this time we don't have a plan of which playgrounds to even tackle. And you have $1,000,000,000 playground. Do we have a plan on each of these line items right now? We do. Park bathrooms has a waitlist. Okay, so let's see it. Mr. Beck. I'd like to see it. Do you have a list of park bathrooms in need? Mm. Council Member We are going through a facility. Condition. Assessment and that includes park restrooms. So the short answer is some of those. The assessment has been completed on some of those. But not all of them. So there is a need for park restrooms. I couldn't list those to you right now. We would have to go through the FCA. That report should be concluded at year's end. So in January I'll have more accurate information to show. You. Do currently have more than 20 bathrooms that are in need of more than $100,000 of repair. I wouldn't debate that number. Yes. All right. So let me just ask a couple of questions here. So if the assessment isn't done on the facilities, is it complete on park that you're saying it's not complete on park bathrooms now? We're not complete on all the park restrooms as yet. What about irrigation pumps? Is a complete there? I'm I'm not 100% sure what irrigation pumps are. If it's part of our citywide irrigation system and the need to upgrade all of our controllers, then we know we have a need. You know what we need. But there's no assessment to say what's the priority or where that money would be spent. To my knowledge, I would defer to parks. Okay. I would agree with that. Let me add to irrigation, because I will say I was asking staff where we got the irrigation line from from the budget, because there's a specific four piece in the budget that I was looking for that a community member brought forward at a community budget meeting. I have not been able to find that yet. If you wanted to move the irrigation pumps up to playgrounds, that would be something, since I am unable to find it at this time. But. So. Just. Just. Just to continue. Just to continue. What I heard a moment ago is there needs to be a rationale. What I just heard was three out of the four of these, there is no necessary rationale. So how do we get to 60, 20, 21? How do we value them? How did we pick that priority? I guess I would disagree. I was trying to get to 3% of Alice, which is where. The Alice drove it, and we broke up the rest. And then the rest was from a playground standpoint. Mr. Mayor had commented that he was interested in funding some of our playgrounds. I know that the play community group came to multiple budget meetings and indicated that they had fundraised about $60,000 for playgrounds, and they had also advocated that the last playground that they implemented was originally estimated to be $220,000, but it came in at 180. And so when I was trying to get to these numbers, I thought, well, that's a good number to start off with. And then I had a rounding error left over and a community member came forward with pump irrigation. I know Mr. Muet did a walk through with some of our community groups about irrigation. I don't know if he's even able to speak on that or what pumps it was. Okay, I think want to land the plane here. I think the I think the point I'm making is there's certainly funding here, the methodology. It's a long explanation. It's a community member did this. I'm looking for that. My point here is that I just think I want to give a higher priority to playgrounds in this mix. That's pretty much it. And so noted in some some more of this. Is there a particular playground you're interested in funding? I'd like I'd love every kid in the city to have me too. But but without sort of undermining this with a selfish sort of goal, I think we need to acknowledge the misery playground was a good program, measure a playground program. It didn't get everywhere. Right. And I've been clear, we don't have any measuring programs in my district. We had a tough choice. We had to advocate to build this failing building or new playgrounds. Playgrounds are still although we've done a lot of project playgrounds, we still have a big need on playgrounds, 250 K, 384 and 50 K makes a big difference there. 2050, 300 400 K isn't going to put a dent in $100 million deficit into Alice. So it's not it's impossible to debate the need for Alice versus Neath playground. So I don't really want to do that. I understand there's certainly need. I just think we can close the gap a little bit by doubling this 20%. And let me just add that I think that counts on Mango said that she would be amenable to the suggestion to move the 10% from irrigation to playground. So I think that was said earlier. And so was there this irrigation pump where it came from? I mean. That's I think that's what Councilman Munga said, is that she and I. Just I just received a note that it's pump stations. And I may have misquoted that, but but I actually would like to go back. Mr. Richardson, with all due respect, you started by saying that you didn't think I had a rationale, and I did have a rationale, and every community members input is very important. Louis Magnolia Trees came from a community member in the seventh District and another community member in the third District. And then I work with the city staff to validate that information. I don't just pull numbers out of the air. And so there's the mind. You just I just want to be clear. And for for you to say that $250,000 isn't nothing in Alice. There are several alleys and I you want. To have. Counseling. Mr.. Mr.. RICHARDSON, I'd like to comment back on your comment. Let me tell you and this one excuse me. I'd love to hear. Mr. Mayor, who has the floor. So let's go back. So Councilman Richardson is wrapping up. He has the floor. Who here is finishing his comments? Excellent. And so we'll let him finish his comments and we'll continue on the speaker's list. Okay. I think I think were why Councilman Mangos were responding because I think you had possibly made a friendly. And so if you have, I wish you could respond as we go. But while you continue with the comments. So here's what I'll say. The irrigation pump issues is so irrigation pump. This is the irrigation pumps that water our parks. Just ahead. Not dear Mr. Rawat, is that what this irrigation pumps are? Okay. I imagine you certainly have a need for that. Grass is important. Is there a specific project that we're cutting by making this a judgment adjustment? Yeah. The proposal here. So I'm saying that we need to sort of adjust work on this adjustment. The recommendation here was maybe shifting 10%, this 10% from irrigation plants into playgrounds. Is this are these specific projects we're cutting or is this something that we need to do for. So the I was just talking to Hurley, our maintenance operation bureau, and there is definitely parks where we can identify the investment of all these moneys in new irrigation pumps to improve the irrigation system. So it it doesn't solve all of the irrigation systems. It was not allocated to a specific project. Not a. Specific project. Yeah. I'm not aware that this is like this, just a dollar amount that was mentioned for irrigation pumps. And I just heard that it's not. It's pump stations. Okay. I understand. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Millet. So. So that's it. Mr. Mayor. Stacy, I think, Councilwoman, I think it makes sense if we said. I didn't hear that it was a specific project. We're moving. So if we shifted it 60, 2020, that that sounds like it helps balance it out the way that we described. So is that something you're open to? I think you recommended it. So that are you open to making that a friendly. When you've completed all? I'll make my comments. Thank you. So my options while I have the floors, offer a friendly or make a substitute motion. We're trying to work together here. Those are my two options, per Robert's rules. So if I don't have an indication or option one, that forces me to option two, it sounded like there was some agreement. At least please feel free to make your your motion then, sir. I'd rather work together. And I would like to work together as well. But you continue to. Reserve the ability to come back. At one. Point. So I think it's only Robert I'm going to suggest is counseling, which I think that there's obviously you have an interest in making a change there. I think that's been. Yeah. And so why don't we go through the rest and then you can make a motion if you'd like as well. Thank you. So, okay, so that's the the adjustment I'd like to see. So I submit that as a friendly we'll see the response there. The last thing is just some questions I'm unclear on. I see that there's some conversation here in the budget about you. Strategic plan looks like see nine. So was this staff recommendation or recommendation from the committee? What it said is appropriate. 60 K Free's utilization of F y 19 youth strategic one time funds and appropriate the remaining funds from the Health Department to the Parks and Rec Department via budget adjustment to leave the leave the remaining implementation of the plan and and expand to it to include last year's request for workforce programing at Bright Teen Center. So was this a staff recommendation? Was this a committee recommended? Where did this come from? Mr.. Mr.. MODICA This is Africa and this is a committee recommendation. Okay. CHAIR Mangoes. Do we have any background on this? It seems like a very complex motion and I have much to say about it. So I think there's a concern among, I think, the council workers and what is once information about the. The request on the on the motion. See. Not me to respond, but I won't be. I won't be interrupted during my response. Go for it. Okay. So guys, let's an import during an important budget hearing. So we're going to go ahead and we have a question. So I know the Council on manga, if you can please respond. So there's been a lot of things said with relation to the youth strategic plan. I think that during the initial presentation from Parks and Rec, I made comments about how successful the senior implementation was and I heard from the colleagues how successful they felt the senior implementation was as well. I think that the great part about the way that the senior implementation funding, one of the greatest parts was that 100% of the money went back to the seniors. And I know that through this it's been a year and we have not made a lot of progress on the health and the youth strategic plan. And community members have asked for updates and and other things. Members of the consulting team have reached out to council members and stated that they were unable to recruit youth to the plan. In last year's budget, we had lifted up the McBryde Teen Center and Workforce Investment, and those two had not really been rolled into the process of the youth strategic plan. And so I thought this a great opportunity to. Roll with the momentum of the work that the Parks Department had done on the plan. Also, a majority of participants that are youth in our city participate really through parks and through libraries. It does not mean that the information Ms.. Pearson recommended, which was that there are other components of health that really need to be discussed with the youth in their strategic plan. But the first and most important component of that is access to an input from the youth. And so when the consultants are reaching out to councilmembers, saying that they don't have any volunteerism, and as council members are saying, actually, we had multiple volunteers, I'm willing to move forward. That's difficult and frustrating. And furthermore, the updates that were given along the way from parks were exemplary. And we thought that just to run with the momentum to date would be a great opportunity. And so we weren't quite sure how much had been spent from the original 200,000. So we thought it appropriate to augment it slightly to ensure that Health Parks Library, everyone could still be at the table and we could still discuss not just the health implications but also the potential funding cuts for the future around to be safe. After school, library hours, Sunday library hours and other components. And so we just thought it was a great place to land. Oh, a bit of consternation about this recommendation. And and it seems like the answer to the question was that there was some level of community input. Some consultants reached out to council. Typically if there is a performance issue in a department and we want to address it, I don't know that it would show up on the BBC agenda right before voting without engaging with stakeholders. What I'd like to hear, I'd like to hear from staff. I'd like to hear from staff on where we are with this process. What I just heard was, was essentially that the process hasn't started and there hasn't. What I heard is that it hasn't officially started yet and that Parks did a great job with seniors. Therefore, they might be better off doing the youth strategic plan. What I'd like to know is where are we specifically with the strategic planning process and who is the consultant that's reached out to the council with these concerns? I haven't heard that. So if you could just answer those two questions. Where are we? The process in which consultant reached out to the council about not getting youth engagement? We started with a plan, so we're moving forward. We brought on more than one consultant. So there's 2 to 3 consultants. There's one master consultant working with the health department. As we move forward, they're working very, very closely with Parks Rec and Marine. And so the program is moving forward. We're looking to council offices to provide to youth a piece to put on the committee. And each of the youth will be funded to participate in this program. But we stand ready to listen to what recommendations the City Council gives to us on moving forward with the strategic plan. So it's not the plan hasn't been delayed. It certainly could have started perhaps earlier, but it has started right now to get to do the fees, to get the consultants to move it along. So we're happy with where we're at right now, but certainly some people may feel we you know, it could have gone on a little bit earlier, but right now, we're happy that things are moving. We have several consultants. Yeah. From the budget discussion I remember last year, I don't think we didn't say, hey, gun to the head, get this going and finish by the end the first year we talked about strategic plan could take up to two years and that was actually staff. When we made this question, it was staff that said this could take up to two years. Here we are, you know. Three quarters of the way through the well approaching the end of the first year. So at the 50% point. And so has there has been a committee been assembled. Is it where are we in the process? That's what I'm unclear on. We're moving forward with the consultants. We're right now in the process of selecting the youth. Each. Each council district is to provide us to youth and to participate in this program. This is a very large commitment for the youth. So we want to make sure that the youth are trained, they're ready to participate. They're going to get paid. They're going to get a stipend that you've built. Some part of this. And is the idea that's moving forward this next year's all engagement. Is, well, the engagement has already started with the youth that we're getting. It's true that not we haven't received recommendations from every council office for the two youth similar that we have for the piece is exactly. But we're moving and everything is going ahead and we're certainly open to any recommendations out from the City Council on where we operate this. So I just heard from the city manager that there wasn't a concern about. This not being on time or that there's some lack of confidence in the process publicly. And I'm just asking questions here. So it seems to me that shifting from one department to another within a budget action doesn't it doesn't seem appropriate. Now, technically, yes, under Brown Act, you can put something broad like budget recommendations, but we should sort of given the fact that we are changing city council procedures. That's a little bit more responsibility on our part, to be clear about what we're doing. And I don't see a nexus between a balanced budget here if it's the same funding or one departments taking lead versus the other. I didn't hear anything from city staff just now. I mean, Mr. West spoke of I'm sure Ms.. Collopy would speak up, too, but I haven't heard. I haven't heard that. So I don't see how this is appropriate. And I honestly think that we're opening a bigger can of worms right now by tackling this issue through a budget action. So you want to say say. I would like to respond. Let me just see if I had another point here. Quigley. Okay. All right. So the organizations I know have been engaged here. We're the ones who brought this concept. The council, initially. E.J. my girls in action. C.J., we had a conversation at council last time about, hey, we know, we understand these are sort of community organizing groups . We want to make sure that other youth serving groups, your, you know, soccer clubs or whoever engages in youth has a platform and a place to sit there. And I don't want to undermine the process halfway through, given we had this debate already. So I'll pause at that point, and I think it will be a good time to hear the response. Thank you. Comes among. You're going to respond. Yes, thank you. I think it terrible that you would implicate that there's any performance issues, because I think that Miss Copley is an excellent department head. I've worked closely with her on many matters. This is a funding reallocation, and I'd like to ask my second year of the motion for any additional input. Sure happy to respond. So I support this recommendation. I'm also happy to hear alternatives that counsel want to put forth. Let me just be clear that when we allocate dollars for citywide efforts, every council district needs to be engaged, every single one. And I completely, wholeheartedly disagree with Council Member Pierce's comments a few moments ago on this topic. Respectfully disagree that when we adopted the Youth Strategic Plan, it was not for a specific category of youth or youth in a certain area. It was for the use in the entire city. And the use and the entire city needs support and need guidance and need for resources, all of them. It doesn't matter if we're not sitting here judging what stresses one set of use might be dealing with and what stresses another set of youth might be dealing with. We need to engage with when we're using dollars that are designed for city wide programs, we need to engage the entire city. I received an email from one of the consultants who we are paying, which said that their efforts to outreach in the third district have been unsuccessful. It was the first that I had heard of any outreach efforts in the third district, in fact. And I understand why our city manager perhaps provided a broader and brief response, but I have had numerous conversations with him via email regarding my concerns about how we're allocating citywide dollars and. How we're using programing dollars in ways that maybe are not. Mindful of the entire city's needs. So whatever strategic plan we come up with for the youth, whatever strategic plans they come up with is going to involve programing. It's going to have to involve programing. It's going to have to involve programing for every single one of our nine districts, every single one. And that programing is going to be directed and led by our Parks Rec and Marine Department. The issue with this particular budget recommendation, it's not just moving one program from one department to the other. It's also combining this program with a program that we gave priority and attention to last year at McBride. Mm hmm. And so. And those are youth. And so while I understand that there is a very directed effort and desire to route money to particular departments, for whatever reason, I want to make sure that the money that we are allocating for city wide purposes take into consideration the city wide needs and the intent of the legislative body. That's that's allocating that money. I do not personally believe that it is ever appropriate for our department heads to not know what the consultants are doing and for the consultants to reach out and tell us that they're conducting outreach in our city, in our district, without involving us in the process. And let me be clear, whether it's the poet laureate program or whether it's the youth strategic plan, I support these programs. But every council district needs to be involved. These are taxpayer dollars that we're using. They need to help our entire city, regardless of judgment about what city or what what what part of the city needs the help. Every single member of the public in this community is paying into the taxes that support these programs. And every single member of this community that's paying those taxes is going to reap the benefits, period. So for me, I believe that the money should go to the department that's going to be in charge of the programmatic aspects of the strategic plan because they will be involved. My experiences with Parks Rec and Marine has been very different in past experiences that I've had with them. Very inclusive, very engaged. I feel that the needs of my community have been considered, and I think that many of my colleagues feel that way as well. So it's not a slight on performance or lack of performance. It's what's our ultimate goal? Our ultimate goal here is to come up with a plan that's going to allow for the youth to have programmatic opportunities to allow them to succeed and thrive regardless of what the stresses in their life might be. It's to help reduce overdoses among youth who might be stressed for various reasons in one part of town that they're not stressed about in another part of town. That is what we should be talking about. And frankly, when you look at who's been selected as consultants on this committee, there's now, from what I could see in the list that I looked at, no substance abuse experts on there, no mental health experts on there. We did not. I just I understand what the intent is. But what Councilmember Pearce said was the stated intent for the youth strategic plan was not my stated intent for the youth strategic plan. It wasn't to target a specific group of youth in a specific part of town. It was to help all youth in the entire city. So I would like to have a department lead this effort who is mindful of what their consultants are doing and is mindful of the entire needs of the city. And so that's where my intent comes from. But I'm open to suggestions, whatever we decide to do. It's going to look very different moving forward. It just is. Otherwise, you know, we're going to start getting into this this argument, which is not good and it's divisive in terms of are the taxpayers getting the benefit of the taxes they're paying? Oh, I understand. I understand. So. So, Councilman Pierce Price, the I think we had this conversation a year ago, and that's that's my challenge. Like, nothing's new here. And and my issue here is really, truly just process. It's, you know, this came up today. No heads up. And if if these were real issues, I think I'd like you know, I would like to hear from here a status update or two from for, you know, a study session if people feel truly, strongly about it. Because I'll tell you. This process is already underway under leadership of the health department. Our understanding was not that this was just simply about part programing. Part programing is going to be covered under under the Parks and Recreation and Marine Strategic Plan. We talked about here was sort of a comprehensive strategic plan for youth development, which isn't just parks. It's libraries. It's health, as you mentioned, drugs, drug abuse, education. All these things. How we have workforce, how we all work together to have a comprehensive plan for youth development was a youth development strategic plan, not a Parks and Rec strategic plan, not a health department strategic plan. And it was the community. Just to be clear, this were not a an agenda from city council when the community brought this forward. Community advocated for this approach. It was it was initially it was a request to establish a youth fund. The mayor took that, placed it in his mayor's budget recommendations and said, we're going to work directly with the youth to figure this out. The mayor's office worked with the youth who propose this and said, Yeah, we want this to be comprehensive. We want and you may very you know, a number of councilmembers made it very clear that they want representation from youth all over the city. I haven't heard that that's not happening. I'm also I also know that we have to at some point take ourselves out of the process that trusted a little bit. If they're halfway through their process, they've already put out public notices. I know that they've put out progress notices with the committee. I know a number of folks have served on other task forces from everyone home and others are engaged in this. That's what I know, what I don't know and I'm not an expert on it. Some of the issues are here and I know that I'm hearing now and I don't want to diminish those, but from a stack from a process standpoint, to hear this come out today, a budget oversight committee and then be provided to us at the council to make a yes or no choice, I think that's unfair. Given a full year of work, not just with city staff, with community groups, we're getting ready to get to the main part and main point. And I don't fully understand the impacts of shifting the leadership from one group, one person to the next, and to ask the council to make that decision. I just think it's a bit unreasonable, unfair, particularly given the the emphasis that we're placing on people signing up for speaker cards and not coming up to speaking on their own changing council protocols. I think we also have a responsibility to hold ourselves more accountable to adding that actually or some sense of sunshine. I would love to have a full conversation on this, and I know that tonight is not the time for it. I would love to do it. I would be completely open minded to work together. I agree that all the youth in the city should have a place here, but I also think that it makes sense. And there's reasonable people at this council who make who understand that this without giving the appropriate time to kind of talk this through with staff and talk through what happens, this will seem like a power grab or like a political decision. And and it aligns with some of the conversation we've had about we want you know, I personally want to see the Budget Oversight Committee during budget time focus on presenting a balanced budget. Any other point? If the Bills wants to talk about policy issues or anything, you got the rest of the year for that. But for this, this is really about presenting a balanced budget and helping achieve some of these needs. I don't see how this helps balance or unbalance our budget or if it's if it's in support of some strategic goal that was that was prioritized at the beginning. So all that said, what I want to do is divide the question, I don't want this. If this isn't a budget thing that we have to do tonight, I want to divide the question and handle that separately. If I can interrupt, I want to make it very clear that I have had conversations with Councilmember Mongeau, with Councilmember Pearce about the situation. We talked about this price I'm sorry, city and I've had conversations with both the Parks and Rec director and also the health director. And whatever charges that the city council gives us right now will not impact this program. They'll continue to go. It's not going to stutter or anything. These departments are working closely regardless of what's happening. The Parks and Rec Department is going to be supporting health. Health will support the Parks and Rec department. So I just want to make it clear that whatever decision the council makes is not going to impact this strategy program as it goes forward, no matter what the leadership. Sure. Closely. We won't skip a beat. I just want to make everyone clear with that. I will hope that that's the case. And if it wants to be beat, I don't understand why we're switching departments in the budget. And it also sounds like. We had conversations with two council members, but not all. I will say one of the one of the communications we had was the health department is normally engaged in the CDBG areas of the city and hasn't normally worked in areas that are not. This is general fund money. It's not restricted on where it goes. So we just wanted to make sure and the conversations that I've had with the council members is that perhaps I think in speaking for them, that perhaps a department that's more that has worked all over the city as opposed to just the CDBG areas, might have more success working throughout all , 52 square miles of the city might have better success dealing with some of the issues throughout the city as they're all so diverse. So that said, that's what I've heard. I can understand that. And I'm open to wherever the city council wants to place this and won't skip a beat. I've talked to the department heads and we'll continue to move on and I totally understand the concerns that have been expressed to me that in the health department it certainly is not you know, it's not totally always in the 52 square miles. Most of their work is in the city, not just CBD areas, but those are the cities. And I understand the concerns expressed by those elected officials and I'm wide open to that. So thank you, Mr. West. Since when is the Health Department expertize and CDBG? CDBG is handled has been handled by councilmember. I'm not I'm not I'm alluding to the areas of the city where most the health department is is a. Saying they participate in lower income neighborhoods and their communities. Are where the grants go. And the grants go primarily to diverse, lower income neighborhoods, which many times are. Sinon really didn't want this to go head this direction. So you're saying because what you're saying is you have you. You have you. Had a conversation with two councilmembers and said that this department this makes so much more sense. Now I understand where this is coming from. So you had a conversation? No, Mr.. I'm on. Hold on. I'm just said. One. I'm listening to the counsel and I'm just telling you what I understand. So there was no conversation between you and these council members about this issue of CDBG areas? No, that's that's my terminology. I apologize for that. But it's so there's been no conversation between now, this just came up randomly about oversight committee. This conversation has happened over the past month. So what has happened? Yes. In which council members have engaged? I mentioned that councilmembers mongeau and councilmembers price. So if the issues are that the community groups come from areas that are CDBG, you didn't think it was appropriate to speak to some of those communities that are CDBG communities about these concerns about the process. The process was not community groups. The process was the departments, the communities. The CDBG communities, and this shouldn't be an East-West thing. We were clear at the budget that we should make whatever adjustments need to be made to make sure that Parks and Rec and these other communities feel included. So we didn't get here. I do not do not want to fight with my colleagues over something that we were crystal clear about a year ago. This is a this is a. Fumble, is as a city manager, I'm totally supportive of whatever I. Think will be supported. Wants to make. This put a lot of us in a bad position because this is a this is a good thing we left last budget with funding to conduct a street a youth development strategic plan. That's why we left with that process has been undermined now it's been completely undermined and we're forced to make a decision based on information that was only disseminated to two members. We're using, frankly, a loophole. You're completely misstating what? I'm sorry. I have the floor. You do, but you're not allowed to misstate. What point of order manager? Oh, that's one sector. Point of order. Can't feel free to queue up. This is wasn't. A game. Five point of order. Feel free. To. Express it. Thank you. I'm wrapping as vice mayor. Fine, thank. You. So what I hear is that these concerns, you know, I'll just get straight straight to the point. I think that this issue has gotten incredibly political and is not the appropriate place for our budget conversation. The youth of all the city should not be have this much pressure from the council to conduct this process. It seems to me that there was some sort of backroom chatter about this, and it's undermining the process. And frankly, we haven't had to think about this process for months. My understanding was that the process was moving and getting ready to fully roll out. You know, committees have been appointed. Council members are pointing their folks and then we undermine it here. And I don't know how this vote will go, but I'm going to make a motion to separate this issue because clearly there's feelings. Clearly it's political. I want to divide the question, separate this from the main motion. So so I move that we divide this specific issue, which, again, has no impacts on the balanced budget represent divide the question in separate this to handle it after we've handled this motion. That is my motion by the question. Where a second. There's a second. So. So the first we would vote on to divide the question. Yes. Yes. And then if it passes, then it would be. Yes. Separate. Yes. This item C Roman numeral nine would be taken out and voted and taken up separately. And we know. Any questions on that? I mean, you can you get to. Discuss the motion on the floor? How do we queue for that? I think it is a debatable. Divide the question. I think the motion to debate is not debatable. I think you need to vote on. Don't know if it's debatable or not. Okay. Yeah. Could we just vote yes or no to divide? Yes, yes. Yes. Wisconsin. Oh, please. Motion fails. Thank you. So that's that's the last issue I had the talk on. It was great that I put it in the end because I figured that was going to be the one that didn't get a lot of motion. So. So the. So I guess the only thing we need to resolve is we put out as friendly and we didn't get a response to that friendly. I was reading it to vote and you get it. You didn't get up early on it. Council would make a motion said she wanted to wait till word. And. So your friendly is to keep the program in the health department at this time. No the friendly we're going back so this issues it it failed to divide the questions was that. I think so. The when we went back to so you accepted the one friendly on be safe and then the second one was the allocation 6020 1010 making it to 6040 460 2021 is that this was on before in the B or C recommendations. Can point of a point of order. So there's a lot of motions being made here and I don't think everybody's had an opportunity to even weigh in. And so I would ask that you reserve accepting any friendly amendments, and so we can all get an opportunity to weigh in because, I mean, we may do this this thing could be done by the time one of us gets to speak at the way we're going. And I know this is the last thing I'm done speaking. Okay? I would just only like to make. I'll make my comments at the end. So, you know, accepting the. I'll wait until the end. Thank you. Yes. Congressman Unger. I don't know if I want to talk now. When we. Get back, bring us back a. Hell of a discussion here. And, you know, obviously, it's a very important topic. Obviously, budgets are always tough. There's always a lot of negotiation taking place. There's a give and take. And there's also the opportunity to come to a to a a middle road where we can all be somewhat at least satisfied with the discussion we had tonight. So I, I have my point of that on this budget has many really when it comes to it, it's, you know, it's a budget that we have we have a finite budget that we have to deal with. It's a matter of how we disperse it and how we share it. And, you know, I want to thank staff for all the work that they put into it. I also want to thank the bosses. I know you've put a lot of hours into this and not only here, but in your personal time, as well as attending all the community budgetary hearings that were on the out in the various locations throughout the city. And, you know, it's a personal commitment, personal time that you took. So it's it's something that's commendable. What's taking place here tonight is, you know, we're at that point where we're just about ready to adopt a budget that's going to move forward. But it has to be a budget that we're all going to be satisfied and happy with. There's going to be winners and there's going to be losers. But I'm hoping that the we're there aren't going to be real losers in the sense that you're going to get everything you want, but we're going to be satisfied with what we get because obviously everybody can get everything they want, but we do have an opportunity to at least get closer to where we need to be. And that's, I think, the end goal that we have in this budget here. So having said that, obviously, I have I've had a few little pet peeves and pet projects that I want to push forward. Obviously, the one that I've been pushing for the last year, year and a half is the Language Access Program. And I I've said it before and I will say it again, this is a citywide commitment is not something that we need to find a budget for. It's something that every department has to make that commitment to translate your documents, to provide translators, to provide staff, to provide language facilitation, language access for people who need it. That's a citywide commitment. And I'm pleased that the that the comments that Mr. Modica said in regards to if we run out of money, we're going to find it. That's what we need to do better than that. We just budget for it. We have the budget already there. It's and we budget for it every year. Not have to find funds over here of funds over there or fund this or fund that or move but move budgets from this category A to category B. We don't need that kind of discussion when it comes to language access. It's something that we are committed to to provide for our communities, and it's a commitment we need to make from the top down, including my office. I have bilingual staff in my office. They're not getting bilingual pay. They should, but they're not. So, I mean, when it comes down to it is we need to make that commitment to provide the staff for it. And I don't know what happened to the city, but I remember a city long time ago and we had civil service here a little while ago. They're talking about, I think they do a selective certification for skills that are particular to a certain position. What happened to bilingual certifications? Bilingual selective certification. Do we do are we even still doing that? I mean, I don't know. I mean, I think we've lost focus in that respect. So I think we need to get back to that area for service minded and we serve our communities needs. And right now, what we're discovering is that we have a service need for language access and we're just not doing it. We're fighting over it. We should we should never be at this point. So. Point taken. I think we need to strengthen our language access programs or whatever you want to call it, but we need to get sure that we have the staff. And that we have people on staff who can address the language needs of our communities. We're going to call it Carmine, Spanish or whatever other language is necessary. The other issue that I want that that I want to bring up and it was one that was brought up by my Councilmember Andrews a few years ago about the Office of Aging. I'm very disappointed in where we're going with this. We need to sustain that. It's an office that, you know, work. You know, I'm a boomer. Yeah. I'm a baby boomer, and Andrew's not so much. And then before that. So he's a little bit ahead of me in that respect, but still. But, you know, we need we have needs and the needs are growing. And I say that from the perspective that in KD seven, District seven, I had the highest number of assisted living quarters in the city. I have a high percentage of assisted living facilities in my district and, you know, and the highest number of cemeteries. So when it comes to it. We need to have that Office of Aging fully staffed and be able to provide the necessary services that are aging population here. Long Beach needs. It's it's it's been it's a it's a what it calls a. It is a cycle of life, I guess, because I remember coming to Long Beach as a freshman, 17 years old, to lobby state, and I would come downtown Long Beach, and it was a older community. There were a lot of retirees in Long Beach at that time, just back early seventies, aging myself. And then we're in a in a in a in a trend now where now that the aging people are now in the in these health care facilities or assisted living facilities, and that and the youngsters are coming in. The Baby boomers. Now the baby. Boomers are getting old. And the young people are moving out. But yet we still had a need. We still had a need for aging services. So I think that we need to look at sustaining that program, sustaining the Office of Aging, and let's let's keep it there, because we have a growing population of baby boomers who are going to be needing that. And then in regards to the the issue that we dealt with most recently, I want to thank Councilmember Austin for bringing it forward in terms of what's going on with our fire station nine and the mold and the need to replace it. He has established somewhat of a undroppable plan per se, but we are talking about how best we can continue the needs of that that the station so station nine provided for the community. And by the way, it's not just an Uptown Department station. It's it provides you know, it's a citywide program. But a lot of the service area that Station nine provides isn't the CD seven. So it is very important to me to ensure that my community and City seven continue to receive the level services that they deserve, whether it's in paramedic or fire services. So it's it's important to me and I'm going to continue to monitor where we are with that. And I will work with the Council member, Austin, to ensure that the fire station nine gets back up and running as fast as it possibly can and will commit that we'll find the money for it. Finally I have my own motion I want to make and it's in regards to item f the motion to re to to amend the former RDA property proceeds item that would be item F and I would like to make the motion if I can at this time. Madam Chair, would that be appropriate? If you motion to appropriate the next 150,000 or the 75,000 project area share of sale proceeds from the sale of the former RDA properties anywhere in the city for establishing a two year lease for North Long Beach or freeze it wrong when appropriate. This is amend that motion not sorry appropriate 150,000 of the 75,000 project area share or sale proceeds received in the former West Project area and any future sales proceeds in the West Project area if needed for improvement projects in the Santa Fe Corridor in West Palm Beach area. Yes. That was something that had come up. I appreciate the motion. I will accept it. I know that originally we didn't know if it was ready, but it sounds like you've made some significant progress and I would be really excited to support that. Thank you. And that's all the comments I have. Just so we understand, it's not changing the 150,000, adding another 150,000 correct. Project in the West. Santa Fe sales. Okay. And what was the project again? Santa Fe Spring Business Corridor, a bit of a corridor, kind of like we did with the other three corridors. But this one would be. So I think. I think. West Long Beach. To revitalize Santa Fe Corridor like we've done with in. West Long. Beach. Thank you. Okay. I think that's a very creative way to continue the corridor improvement project. Okay. So we are just. I can get up to speed. I think we're on. Councilman, your ringer. Country ranking of anything else. Got some more, Austin? Okay. So I look forward to this this process every year. It seems like we we we we're talking about almost a $3 billion budget when you look at all funds and we spend, you know, several hours debating the last $100,000 or so and it never changes. But I want to thank my colleagues on the BRC also support this recommendation. I want to thank all of my colleagues one, thank all the city staff for all of their work. I think this is a responsible budget. It's not perfect, but it's a good budget. It funds our priorities and represents the values of this very complicated and diverse city. I had the opportunity to attend not just my own community budget hearing, but I went to two others, had an opportunity to interact with, you know, dozens of residents and get feedback, understand what was important to them. I would disagree. I don't believe that there's any losers in this budget. Right. I think this committee and I know this council is going to work to make sure that we're hitting everything that we need to hit in terms of priorities for our city. I also reviewed the the surveys that were taken, and the results were pretty profound in terms of feedback from residents in their their their perceptions of priorities of our budget, for our budget, that they're not far off of what we are where we are headed. Homelessness was by far the biggest issue, and people in our residents really expect us to to make a difference on that issue. It's one that we hear from every single day, and I think many of us are probably losing sleep about this issue. Public safety, obviously, police and fire, emergency response times, street infrastructure, parks and libraries. I believe those are the core priorities that emphasis by most residents. And I think those are the issues that that I think we all can can agree on. In terms of the the the big picture been a lot said about language access and I'm really appreciate the clarity that staff gave in terms of you know, funding a full time position. But not only that, what I heard is language access is being adopted into the organizational culture. Right. And that. Is qualitative in terms of how we approach language access. I think our city is a lot better today than when we first started talking about this issue just a few years ago. Right. And so we're definitely headed in the right direction. I shudder when I hear and I do respect the work of the community organizations, but for them to give us a budget number and say this needs to be in the budget, but not really have understanding as to how that money is going to be spent in the operations of the city. I think that's a that's tough to to suggest. Implement. And then obviously this budget cycle when we first this budget was first adopted. Fire station nine. We we it was an unexpected issue that came up during that period of time. And I really have my faith really restored in from my colleagues, but also city staff in terms of how flexible everybody was and how how everybody responded to that issue. This is an issue, obviously, of utmost importance to residents in my district, but also in council member Yarrawonga and Richardsons area. This is this is an issue that affects the the emergency response and delivery of services. And for, I believe, citywide. I mean, it's a system issue. And so. Mole. Removing personnel was the right decision. Removing the apparatus from fire station nine was the right decision, but also coming up with a swift and immediate plan and having the flexibility to identify resources to to. Come up with a temporary. Proposal. And then a long term solution as well is something that I'm just amazed that that actually was able to happen in a matter of just three or four weeks here. And so I run away. I really want to thank Councilmember Mongeau, chair of the Budget Oversight Committee. I want to thank my colleagues, all of my colleagues, Susie Darrell, that showed up at the meeting, town hall meeting. Councilmember Urunga, who was was right there front and center, as well as Councilmember Richardson. It showed that that we can put decide district issues and come together and understand that public safety is a city issue. And and I believe the fire said station nine will be restored in short order. The plan, I believe, is, is within the next hundred and 20 days to have have something concrete in place to move forward on. And so I know my constituents really care. Appreciate that. I, for one, appreciate that as well. We also pivoted in this budget with the quality of life issues like magnolia trees. We found out we had disease, magnolia trees throughout the city, which is a bigger problem than I think we realize. We've appropriated $100,000 to help treat many of those trees. That may not be enough considering what we know today, but it is definitely going to be a start. And I know our public works department is going to be working very diligently to to get that issue resolved as soon as possible. But I never did not foresee, you know, magnolia trees being a priority in our budget. Just just a few weeks ago, another issue. But this budget and this process has shown some great flexibility and shows that we can be flexible as a city when we need to be. There are things that I would love to give funded in this budget that I know that I won't be able to get funding for my district. And I think each and every one of us is going to walk away from this process with a sense of sacrifice. Well, you know what? We didn't get everything we wanted, but we are going to pass a budget that is going to be in the interests of the greater good for our city. And I think that's the focus in which we all, as city council members should be approaching this. ALLEYS I've heard from dozens of constituents about repairing Ali's. And I do not feel good about leaving this process without having several million dollars secured to appropriate toward Ali's. But I didn't see Fire Station nine happening a couple of weeks ago. So so I do support the 60% allocation for future measure, $8 going toward Ali's, I think to $2.7 million, if we divide that right, gives our public works department some something to work with and to help prioritize. Ali repairs restrooms in parks is another big issue for me. The restrooms that that I'm aware of and I know in other districts as well, that that is something that's very important. And so I support that as well. Playgrounds, I wish we could build new playgrounds all over the city. I think there are options and I know I'm exploring some options with grants with Kaboom! And other organizations that that can help. And there are other private interests that want to want to get involved with playground builds as well. And so I would recommend to my colleagues to look in that direction as well. As long as long, along with Partizan Parks, who can also help facilitate that. Also have a lake. It's your park that I want to get maintenance then. And I'm talking about looking to identify ways to to improve that as well. But the big issue seems to be on the youth strategic plan. And I wanted to just weigh in on it. You know. The Department that that that actually facilitates this, I think is less important because what I've heard is that this is consultant driven , right. City manager. Several consultants have been involved in this have consultants are driving this process. They just need a department to facilitate. They need a plan. And I think Parks and Recreation and Marine actually does have the best access to our youth. They deal with them. They they are literally raising our youth in parks every single day. They have the relationships. And I think it's it would be short sighted on this council and the city not to recognize that in terms of developing a youth strategic plan. If and if these departments aren't collaborating, I would recommend very strongly that they do collaborate together because there's a there should be some synergy and a nexus for for getting the best product possible and not just. One department versus another. And I'm really interested in seeing out of this you strategic plan opportunities to to to really impact some of the social ills that face our city. Right. Particularly with our youth. We we have we have gang cultures in our city that can be addressed through this process and and should be addressed. And I think Parks, Recreation and marine parks and Rec Department is very close on the ground to to to the individuals, to subject matters that we need to meet, actually reach. And I'll just say for for one, I don't recall my office being contacted regarding having anybody participate. This is the first I've heard and perhaps I'm wrong, but I have not not not had a whole lot of outreach even to my office on this. And so I'm a little disturbed that after a year after over a year now, we're still talking about the development of a strategic plan that was supposed to happen in the last budget cycle. That said, those are those are my comments. Again, I think this this budget is is all inclusive. I think it touches on the priorities of nine different council districts. Various areas, very complicated diversity, but at the same time, it's a responsible budget, it's balance, and it's one that is also thinks about the future. You know, we know that our next year is going to be a tough year ahead. We should not jump into this budget with too much program, programmatic dollars. I mean, I think there's a lot of one time's being used here. And this is this is a budget that that will allow us some flexibility moving forward. So thank you for the comments. Thank you. Councilmember Vice Mayor Andrews. As a thank you, Mayor, I first of all, I'd like to thank the Budget Oversight Committee, you know, for doing such a great job, especially for the fire department and police. You know what, the cameras and the fire department for their stations, you know, I don't think neither Mr. Austin, Councilman Austin or anyone else really felt like that was going to happen in the near future. But they found a way and I want to congratulate them on that. And, you know, me being who I am, I think it's time for me to go to my first party and it's not my PSP. I think it's just my greatest thing. And that's the aging process. And this is something I think I can handle very easily because, you know, agreeing with Councilman Pierce, anything that you can really do, aging population should really considered be considered any priority. This is a vulnerable population and the Office of Office of Aging should help us find any additional resources to help in these individuals. When I say these individuals, I mean all of us individuals that are at that age, not very many of you out there, but just keep living. So with that said, I really would like to for our staff to get with me and my office to discuss some of the status of the office and the aging as a whole and what more we can do to bring resources to the Six District. And ideally, you know, I would like to make this a standard monthly meeting, if that's possible. And now getting back to one of the main things that I see we're having some problems with, and I think we can really resolve a lot of these things because about when some of the comments, you know, that I do agree with that we can be doing more for the language access. That's whether it is translating services outreach and having, you know, proper access to the council meeting. I think that also warrants a performance review by city auditor because I think that this is a lot of confusion who it does or what it does not. Each department needs to figure out on their own translation. And I really would like to ask our head of the Budget Department that the $15,000 appropriated for the training for the nonprofit's safety employees should be instead be given to the community based organization to help us with the work that they are already doing. And that's something I wish you would take a chance to look at, if you don't mind. That's a $15,000 and give that to Councilwoman Mongo. Yes. Councilman Mongo. Because I mean, it's not the nonprofit arts or space, because the fact that I think we're already doing that. And if they can take the $15,000 themselves and see what they can do with it in their, you know, their own organizations. Can I think about that for a few minutes? You can. Okay. Matter of fact, you can take, you know, all night. Yeah. Cause we're going to be here. Yes. Yeah. And the last relationship you guys had as father be saved. I just want you to know that it is important that we you know, we should review the numbers. We also take it back to the, you know, community and the stakeholders to engage in this budget. We know we're cutting your milk, which is not healthy. For example, you know, for a while I thought the attendance there was low and we were, you know, proposing back out that as a high usage. Many issues that could be, you know, averted with additional, you know, playgrounds. We need to make sure that we are going to, you know, going back to the fourth, you know, what our community and some of these cities have relieved of, you know, the BE program. You know, but I would like to to add to Councilman Richardson's motion that we you know, we take back the sites located a determination to the stakeholders as well, because our stakeholders, the one that really makes the decisions, whether our community need these BCA programs and you guys utilize the parks is very, very important to most of our districts and I think that that's very important. And even if you just get a survey, but I would really hate to have no sixth district because basically you guys know as a target. So we know that this B program in our cities and our parks is very important for our kids. So I think that's something we should look more at, if you don't mind. And with that, I think I've taken my 5 minutes. I'm just going to be quiet. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Councilmember Pearce. Okay. Can I first get clarity on what motions on the floor? That's I was actually just checking in on so but just clarify with Mr. Modica. Mr.. I thought the main motion I know exited, so I'm not sure if it changed, but it the main motion was the motion by the BMC with the additional changes that have been added along the way to the main motion. Is that correct? Correct. There's, there's a fire recruitment position can look to fire budget year end savings to help fund that position has been added. The friendly was accepted on B3 to. Remove. The locations and those locations will be determined by Director of parks with additional input. The. The divide by question failed. There's a friendly pending to I understand correctly move the appropriated 15,000 for training estimated a half a day and give that money to a CBO community based organization. And I'm not sure the purpose of the money to be given to them. And then. The accepted friendly for F subsection F, which added a second paragraph to provide $150,000 from the sale of RDA properties in the West Project area for the Santa Fe Corridor. Mm. We also have a. Friendly that's pending on the reallocation of the money for the alleys, park bathrooms, playgrounds and irrigation pumps. I believe that the motion was to eliminate subsection D irrigation pumps and move that 10% to playgrounds so it would be divided 60, 20, 20. That has not been determined yet. I think that's I think that's right. That that's the that's the emotion is it's the main emotion with the changes that's been added as we went. Right. Okay. Okay. And if you're looking at the the the the the screen, there's a a ringa substitute that's not supposed to be there. And I think it's trying to get cleared off the screen. Maybe that's what you were referring to. Okay. That's why I was okay. No, no problem. Customer. Customer. Pierce, back to you. Okay. I. I recognize that every budget cycle we kind of go through this and this is my first body that I've sat on and I'm trying to make sure that I follow Robert's rules. And I just want to make a clarification so that when I proceed that I'm following within Robert's rules, I'm reading from Robert's rules right now that sometimes people suggest amendments that they sincerely believe will improve the original motion. These are friendly amendments offered with positive intent. An unfortunate customer has arisen whereby a person suggests a friendly amendment to the presenter, often turns to the maker of the motion to ask him. Although they need some gender pronouns in here if they would accept the amendment, if he agrees or she or they are, the presenter sometimes would also ask the seconder if she would accept the amendment. This is wrong. Once a motion has been made and seconded, it stated by the chair it belongs to the group as a whole , not to the individual who first proposed it. I could go on, but I think that. The basis of this is that we are very kind when we try to make friendlies. But it is not Robert's Rules of Orders to make friendlies. It is Robert's Rules of orders that the motion belongs to the body. And I think that this is why sometimes the budget process gets so frustrating for us, because it's left to the chair. And depending on if your issues are accepted and if you guys have had good conversations, then this process goes very differently. But when you've had a couple of conversations like I have had with the chair of the AOC and laid out all of my budget priorities, I now cannot go and talk to a fourth person about my budget priorities because I've done that with the Bossi chair. And when the boss chair doesn't align with my priorities, I am now left not able to advocate for my community. So I'm going to make motions and I'm going to ask for seconds. I'm not going to do friendlies. I do appreciate that. A lot of work has been done. I do appreciate that there's big responsibility with your position as the chair of the body, and I respect that you are good intended and trying to have those conversations with all of us to put in our priorities. So I want to recognize that. But for the basis of my community members that have asked me to advocate for things like aging language access, I'm going to make motions and I'm going to ask for seconds as according to Robert's Rules of Order. So my first motion is. The U.S. strategic plan. We've had a lot of debate. I don't want to bring up the whole debate again. And this one doesn't necessarily need to be a motion, but I would just want to make sure that the city manager's office is really managing this process. I'm not going to try to change it from one place to another. One of my conversations with Councilmember Mongo was that I thought it would be best handled, maybe with Kevin in city manager's office, to make sure that we're coordinating with the workforce, with parks and with health. If I can get that commitment, I won't ask for a motion in a second. Is that something that the city manager's office feels like they can do? Yes. Thank you. My first motion on the floor is going to be a motion to reduce the appropriations for the short term rental program on a one time basis in FY 20 by 73,000 and delay implementation of the STR program according lead to spend sorry, with the remaining 4020 staff funding and to reallocate that one time funding to continue the current Office of Aging position through FY 20, supplemented by another 73 from homeless heap 2.0 funding for total funding of 146. That's my motion. Do I have a second? There's a second by Vice Mayor Andrews. So there's a motion in a second we can go and take cast a vote on that. As any other comments on that on that issue. Okay. So let me make sure that I'm not sure this is it within the system. If the clerk is able to queue up folks under this motion or I'll just take folks that want to speak because I have cues from other other not on this motion. Are we able to do that on this or. No? No, it's one queue. Okay. Well, let me let me just if you have if you want to comment, just I call on you. So, Councilman Mongo. First point of order. Actually, let me actually first go to Vice Mayor Andrews on the second of the motion. No. Okay. Councilman Mongo. Just a point of order. We've operated this other way for the six years I've been five, five plus years I've been on the council. And so I guess I'm just. Unclear if the body gets the opportunity to maintain the procedures as we utilize them for five years. I think I can answer that, Charlie. And I think if there's if there's a disagreement, let me know. But I think that this body uses Robert rules as a overall guiding document. But we also have, over time, adopted our own rules and our own way of operating, which which we can do. And so the way we the way we've done of the way we have done friendlies being accepted is absolutely within the right of the body. However, the councilman also has the ability, if she would like to put a motion on the floor as she has. And so both ways are acceptable. So if the councilman wants to take votes on particular items, she's welcome to do that as well. And so there's a motion in a second. Let me go back to Councilman Mongo. Great. I'd like to call up Development Services, please. So. During the budget process, there have been extensive discussions about the needs and priorities. I know one of our board members, Councilmember Alston, attended a a meeting. In. The Second District and they talked about senior programing. That was a priority and I think that it important to fund it. However, in discussions with my colleagues and or the community and or anything, I work hard not to break any Brown Act requirements. So I always listen, but I don't develop consensus or any of those things. And so when I went back to Development Services to do some research, I was under the impression that the star could not take more than a $79,000 reduction, which is what we did today. So could you speak a little bit to how reducing SDR allocation over the threshold of which was done by the EEOC would potentially lead to a reduction in revenues? So it's not necessarily a 1 to 1 basis. I think that's what the email kind of outlined. You hear the question. Councilman Mongo. And as the boss recommendation included a reduction of. $79,000 to the the program budget. An additional $73,000 a reduction would put us into a situation where we'd be forced to delay the implementation of the program. The combined total of. 152,000 is a 66% or a two thirds reduction in the staffing budget for that program. And it would be impractical. To move forward on the implementation of the short term rental program if we were to reduce it. So the motion to delay implementation. Would certainly be appropriate. Because we could not move forward without staffing to initiate. The program. I appreciate that. I'd further go into that in discussions. Publicly at my community meeting and others, we kind of talked about some of the areas that were less defined. Specifically, I had questions from the community and colleagues about the funding allocated for animal control services that was not very restricted. I had questions related to PD and their allocations, and over time I know that they've already squeezed as much as they possibly can in the delayed onboarding of the mandated programs. And so for me, I want to support aging. Mr. Oranga talks about that. He has the most senior living facilities. Mr. Andrews talks about that. He's the oldest member of the diocese. And I get to say that I have the most seniors in the city living in my district. It is of the utmost importance. However, we do not have any guarantees of heath funding yet, and so I believe it impractical to cut a program further. Development Services, a short term rental program, which is our Airbnb types of opportunities, where we could be in a position that if we do not pass it. Towards the end of this year and we don't have a staff person to process the applications, then there's a potential loss on the revenue side. And so I want to think. Ms.. Tatum for the advocacy. She had to not reduce it the first 79,000, but I just don't see how I could advocate taking even more. It's been a tough fight for them on the first place. And so I would say. I would. I'm aging through this process right now and support it. Okay. And I remember I'm going to suggest we just go ahead and vote on these as they come forward. So I know I've got some of Richardson that had his hand up. I think the jury had to know. Okay, then let's go ahead and vote. There's a motion in a second because I'm appears to want to clarify it. Well, I wanted to clarify the connection between staffers and this item is that we've said that we wanted to tackle homelessness and keeping people in their homes. And one of the most vulnerable populations is our senior population. When I brought forward stars, I said that I wanted to make sure that any of those funding went directly to trying to impact housing. So this is not a huge impact, but it is a direct correlation, which is why I'm not suggesting taking the money anywhere else. So I wanted it was a thoughtful process in that a delay could be as long as two. Three months is something that I've heard. It's not a long did delay. We also haven't voted on our score policy yet, so we don't know when that is going to be implemented directly even though we are already taking in TOT. So it's well thought out. So to get to this point, I hope that my council colleagues will support. Councilman Mongo and then we're going to vote. So in the 79 that we've reduced so far, we allocated that to both library hours and be safe. And so if if the diocese would be open to really doing like for like as Councilwoman Price Pearce has suggested it would be. Not funding be safe and not funding library hours from the 79,000 and trying to find another place for that and I'm just being honest about where the money's moving on emotion. I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying that if you take that reduction, I cannot advocate for keeping the revenue at the same level because without a staff member to process the applications, how can individuals become a part of the SDR program and therefore provide us revenue? That's all. Okay, well, there is a motion, I think. I think the motion's clear cut, some reports on on the aging. And so you're unclear what the motion is. Yes. The motion is to increase appropriations out of the out of the Star Fund. Let me be clear about what I'm unclear on. It's not what the motion is. The response is that it's my understanding. The motion. Let me counselor, let me let me just finish really quick and then if I want to cue in here. So let me just so I'm clear from what I heard is the motion by counsel appears is to use the delay SDR implementation so that there is additional funding from those SDR funds to fund the motion as it relates to the Office of Aging. And so that is what the motion is on the floor. And do you have a clarification, Counsel Richardson, on that? Yes. So my understanding is there's a certain amount of money here. It's not coming from B.C. for something else. It's hey, if we delay, if the number of workouts. Correct? It's not. That's correct. That's was not coming from be safe or sun latest. That is correct. That's the way the motion is laid out. Okay. But is that the truth of it? If we allocate SDR, is this going to effectively result? I'm seeing a conflict here. So is this going to effectively result in a cut to those programs? Are we saying. This as far as that? Let me let me clarify. As far as I'm concerned, this does not, because the other part of the BSE motion remains as is, which is to use SDR funds for the other programs as described. And so this would be this would just delay the implementation. The way I'm reading it. And and if the council chooses to make other changes to be safe, then that's a separate motion in a separate discussion. And I think that's correct. Mr. City Attorney. I believe I'm reading the motion. Motion to reduce appropriations for short term rental. As to our program on a one time basis in fiscal year 20 by 73,000 and delay or otherwise adjust implementation of the SDR program accordingly to spend within the remaining fiscal year 20 as TR funding and to reallocate that one time funding to continue the current Office of Aging position through FY 20, supplemented by another 73,000 from Homeless Heap 2.0. Funding for a total funding of 146,000. That's, that's, that's how I read the motion so far. So that's how that's how it's it's pretty clear to me. So there's no other questions on that. So that's the motion, as is Katherine Austin. I'm sorry. So I'm a little unclear on terms of us not actually having a short term rental policy. Right. And I guess I need to understand, when do we expect to have that policy coming and even vote on? And if this motion passes, will we have the resources to fund that, that the staffing for that? If this motion passes, it would remove a total of. $152,000 from the staffing, the two staff positions that were proposed to implement. The program. And therefore we would not have the funding to initiate that program. The current status of that program is the environmental review that was done to take forward. The ordinance amendment is wrapping up now or it would wrap up later this month in we would envision bringing the ordinance to start the implementation of the program sometime in November . So. Council Member Every year after you adopt the budget, we come back to you and say, here's how we're going to implement what you've asked us to do and we clarify anything. So this is one that we'd add to our list. And we we can't tell you tonight whether it's a four month, six month, eight month delay, but there would be some delay. So we would then respond back to you. And we'd also look at the revenue as well and tell you this is one we could implement. So you would make a decision by the end of the year on the STR and then you'd have information on when you could actually start the implementation of the ordinance. Are you okay with that? So remember. Me. I'm okay with that because I do know that we are well, we're not getting the money from the registration and the permits. We are getting tot already by Airbnb. So. So I'm good with that and I feel like we haven't even voted on it. We don't know how long that that implementation plan is going to be. So I'm good with staff coming back. Feel like that's their job to come back to us and tell us how it will be implemented. But I ask because I know both are very important to me. Both are very important to me. And I would not go to Starz if the Office of Aging wasn't so important to me and if I didn't feel like if we didn't fund it now and I didn't have another place to take the money from which I've tried, that it would go away and we wouldn't have it back . And we have an opportunity to have matching grants for it if we do this now. That said, I'm going to support the motion. Thank you. The Office of Aging. This is not something I'm completely comfortable with, but I do understand the commitment that we've made to to our residents. And I think it is something that we should do. But I will tell you, moving forward is going to be very difficult to sustain. I understand that. And I the one year is figuring out those fundings for what it looks like or if that means that that staff person is doing a similar program like we've done with Language Access where they train others. So I appreciate that vote of confidence to try to get through this next year. Councilman Price. I support the motion too, and I think we're all on the same page. But I just want to make sure that we clarify our intent. So this Office of Aging would be directed for the entire city. And as we roll out the program, every district would be included in the conversation. All seniors needs would be considered, and we'd be looking towards finding programmatic opportunities and other opportunities to assist all seniors, regardless of their income, their zip code, anything like that. Is that you're. Abso absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. Mongo, any final comments we're going to vote after? Yes. It is my understanding from staff that while we are receiving top from Airbnb, we are not receiving the TOT from VR, bio and vacation and HomeAway and all the others. And so again, Miss Price and Pierce, I have advocated with staff for this to be a possibility. And staff came back and said, Stacy, if you were to reduce any further than the 79,000, you would need to take a proportional reduction in revenue. And so when you're allocating the 79, 73,000, there's not a full 73,000 available for funding because there isn't a person registering people. And we're not going to be able to get the total from those other programs. So I would just state that as I spoke with you earlier, my recommendation would be to take funding from one of the other areas that's not outlined because. If staff were correct in their original prediction. And I see Mrs. Tatum nodding her head, the reduction of the 73,000 would not give you a full 73,000 for aging. And so, as I mentioned, no disrespect to animal care. Love Animal Care did some meetings with Hiroto and Stacy about it. I was looking at other revenue sources for aging, all of which you rejected. This, unfortunately, is not a one for one, and I think it disingenuous to fund it from that position. Furthermore, you're only funding the position at half away. And when I met with Kelly and asked her and offered her a partial funding meeting with the department heads, as I feel is my responsibility as budget chair, she stated No, she needed the full amount of the position that it could not be a triple AA or other position like economic development uses because the level of expertize necessary for the position is higher. Furthermore, when staff came back and said that the position cost X, then we moved forward and Mrs. Copley communicated that the person had already left the department. The position is currently vacant. She took a position with scant health care and we don't need the full amount of the money because there's no one working in that position today. So there would be a delay in the implementation as well, like we have talked about in all the other programs. So we would need an additional 74,000 from HEEP, which we do not know is available. We would need to hire a person which we have not started on a process. And so I appreciate that there is a support for aging and we as a council have said that. I have also said that I'm willing to work with Councilmember Odinga and Council Member Andrews, and Mr. Price appears on an agenda item to find out a way to make that happen. How? However, this has been four weeks of data and research from the initial conversation that I had related to the desire to fund this office. And I took it very seriously. And I'm not trying to just allocate $74,000 off the top when staff have come back and specifically stated that that is not how the program works. So feel free to support this item in its intent. But the actual amount of money does not materialize that way. And unfortunately now it makes it look like I'm a bad guy and I don't want to support aging. But but the numbers 75 plus 75 doesn't always equal 150 when there's a revenue component tied to it. Okay. We're going to go ahead, go to vote. So this is the motion by Councilmember Pearce. Please cast your votes. Motion carries a thank you. Motion carries comes from a picture of another one. I have one last one. I'd like to make a motion to move $100,000 from the SAP fund that's been marked for the Civic Center. Video programing to our divide by nine for city council members. Can I get a second? For special. Events. Is there a second? There's there's a motion in a second. I got some of her peers. Did you get any official comments on that? No, I'm okay. Councilor Richardson, any comments on that? Katherine Mungo, any comments on that? Yes. So I've already allocated what the committee thought was an appropriate level, which is $135,000 for divide by nine of special events funding. I specifically have been the one at this dais who has argued for being more mindful of the types of funding available and movement of that funding. When looking at the allocations of prior years by all council members. I would say that that is significantly more than has been available in the past and specific asks of council members that have come forward were solved. And so I don't know that there's a lot of value in allocating funding from ACP with the Olympics coming, and we were warned against it by the Finance Office. And so I would ask my colleagues to stand with me on the initial hundred and 35,000. If there's any specific ask of any specific council office, I'd be interested in taking that on a one by one basis. But we're giving away our review process by situating it this way. I think that we really need to have a longer strategy and policy discussion related to all of the bigger events in the city. Summer within Parks and Rec. Some are within special events, some are within our offices. And I think there needs to be a plan and I don't think we're there yet. I'd be open to setting a portion of that aside, however. It is difficult when Leah Erickson is the department head for technology and innovation and she has been so fiscally prudent on the budget, I would doubt that she would overestimate by $100,000. And to take that away from a department who has made such great strides in promoting our city when we're already receiving $15,000 per council office for promotion just doesn't seem fiscally prudent. So I will be a no vote. Councilman Price. You know. I think what we're trying to I get completely where our budget chair's coming from. I support her completely. But I do see we have a colleague who has identified something that, frankly, to me, it also seems like $400,000 may be a lot of money to spend on programing for elevators and a digital wall in a civic center that's already beautiful naked. Right? I mean, I don't know that we need to be spending all this money in our first year to, you know, jazz it up even more. It's pretty exciting the way it is. And so when when. Ms.. Erickson was asked about that item. I have to be honest, it caused me to think, well, could we maybe, I mean, be more creative in terms of how we're doing the pieces or whatever? Like, for example, could we maybe partner with Cal State Long Beach's film school and just for the first year, do some pieces that are maybe a little bit more homegrown and not as expensive, given the fact that we have a lot of other needs. And so I just I'm just suggesting that maybe although it wasn't the plan, I don't really see it as taking money away from Ms.. Erickson. I see it as instead of $400,000 with which to provide some animations for the elevators and the digital wall, we'll have $300,000 to do that. So it's not as though there's no money there to work with. But again, I'm not totally plugged into why the need for 400, 383,000. So, you know, I'm open to hearing my colleague's comments on it. I think it's a great suggestion. What I would say is what I think the suggestion was was to add to the moneys that the budget chair has already identified for divide by nine for promoting the city through the hosting of events in Council Matic district. To the centennial. To adding to it. As opposed to I mean, so that does it. We do all promote the city through our the events that we host in our districts. And the money, I think, if used in that way, would certainly fall within the intent of ACP funds. But again, maybe the $383,000 price tag is specifically intentioned for something. But I wonder if there are some creative ways that we can bring the City Hall to life through videos and have that extra hundred thousand dollars to divide among our colleagues for the many events that we host to promote the city in an effort to have different programing in the diverse districts that we represent. So, you know, I'm I'm I understand where the budget chair's coming from. Completely support your efforts. I hope you know that. But I'm just asking for just a little bit of consideration, you know, maybe just softening of the position a little bit just to think about maybe there that's that hundred thousand isn't necessarily going to kill a huge priority project that we have in mind. Ms. And just just briefly, Mr. Mourdock, I think that whether, you know, obviously you're too programed for a certain level of quality, but $100,000 less is not going to somehow dramatically change the quality of the programing that you'll be able to do. Is that correct? So there are two components to that money. One is a dedicated position because that is there's a lot of new technology in this building and they make it all go, especially on the visual. We need somebody to be able to manage that wall. Then there's supplemental funding to help with the art that you're currently seeing in City Hall to have that program through a year. If the council would like to take that money and repurpose it, what we would shrink that contract and and we would find other ways to fill it. It wouldn't be quite what you see today, but it could be something different. Thank you. Well, there's there I'm I just repeat with a motion on the floor, I have two more folks who want to speak suggests hopefully I can get to these quick so we can take a vote on this. Councilman Austin. I just need a quick point of clarification. Is the motion specific to the B or C recommendations or something else? The motion is a response from the line item that's in the technology that I asked about earlier, which is $380,000 to program the wall. So that is that in the city manager's budget and. The city. Manager, if you want, you know, we can do this two ways. I mean, you can the most you can be to add it to the B or C recommendations that can be your motion or it could be you just you do that motion at the next. Added to the B or C. The motion to add up to be a C. Recommendations. Okay. And then I don't feel that strongly that what the recommendation here, I mean, I can support the the request because I think there are some pretty healthy reserves, particularly in the SAP fund. We did understand that throughout the B or C process, if this will will help us get through this process a little quicker than I'm supportive of. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. And thank you. Yes, a few things. One, I think, you know, I hadn't thought of it because I was just thinking within the lane of what's in front of us on A, B or C recommendation. So it's great that we figured we're figuring out how to do this. This is money that will help promote and it will be well spent. These are like the money to support the parades or community concerts or those things. So it will certainly be directed into the community. The other thing I would say is I think our youth groups in the city would love to have a crack at designing some stuff for that big wall. So while we may see this as, you know, maybe a cut to what's proposed, I would push back and say, let's go to our Summer Youth Institutes. YMCA was go to Long Beach Community Action Partnership. All these groups were developing and training youth to do these videos. This is who we should be and how they're going to their bid is going to come in much lower than some consultant. That's where we should be putting our focus. So I like this. I'm going to. Spank you there. We're going to go to Councilman Mongo, then go to vote. So. So I agree. I am supportive. The staffing position is only 138,000. There's an additional 250,000 which came up tonight at the meeting, which I am open to reducing. But I think my bigger point is that right now as SAP and our community calendar and our community concerts and different hodgepodge of projects are all trying to be united under a single policy for big events and a citywide. Calendar, and I think those are important things. I'm completely open to reducing by 100,000, but I think that it's also important to know that programing that big media wall is not cheap. There are lots of photos that are on there that are of excellent quality, but there are also photos that are of subpar quality because it costs money to buy those. Again, no disrespect to whoever did the first set of programing, but when we arrived at City Hall, the pictures on the elevator of which City Hall won the bid was not the correct city hall. I mean, these are crucial and critical things that need a staff member looking at and being held accountable for these level of items. And so I'm open to reducing even the 250 in its entirety. And Thomas Eriksen brings back a two from four of some sort. But what I also think we need to be aware of is $15,000 to put on events. It's just a small token. Each council office, in addition to $35,000 for dealers, bought those $35,000 for justice, $35,000 for MLK Parade. I can't think of the number off the top of my head for community concerts. And so these are a lot of things that come together, and we're talking about a quarter to a half a million bucks. And so I don't know necessarily that our council officers need discretion over an additional 15,000. But I would be open to there being money available to pull from throughout the year as big things come up. And I think we did that by allocating an additional $10,000 to the women's suffrage. And so if you look at the list of all the funding that council members have spent things on over the last year or two, not one office of a council member that sits at this dais would have needed more than 15. And so I would hope that we would be conservative in that we would bring these items to the council in the future. And for that reason, I would like to make a friendly or something. I don't really know what the procedure is right now. That you can make a substitute if you'd like. Okay. I substitute that. We would reduce the funding. Of the 250,000. So she has a staff position for her to at least bring back a two from four on how it would be spent and the costs of these things. And at that time, we can potentially make another decision if we want to move it around, because I think that kind of there's a lot of detail that went into this and a lot of cost estimates that we should probably be aware of before we end up having a $2 million wall that has $20,000. Parcel things because we can't afford the investment. One time we're going to get there. We're going to go and vote on the substitute motion and we're going go back to the main motion, which is the original motion. But Councilmember Pierce. So this is a substitute motion. Yeah. Yes. Okay. So I'd like to talk about the substitute motion. So I'm not supportive of the substitute motion. You're right. There's no second. No talk of the. Substance. There's no there's no substitute here. There's no second. That's right. So now we're back to the original notion, which has got to be appears as motion. And if you want to have anything else, Councilmember. I did I did want to make a comment that talked about some of the comments that were rolled into the the the draft substitute motion. And that is, yes, I agree that the ACP funds at 15,000 a council office is as is a great number. It's a fantastic number. And I think the Budget Chair for identifying those funds for us, I think an additional $10,000 would also be good and positive. I will say that these funds are designed to promote the city and there's no better representative to promote the city than the representatives that are in touch with the needs of their own district and who know what's going to bring the community out. So for me, as much as I, you know that I love to focus on public safety and infrastructure in terms of our funding, but when we do community programing, it's really such a nominal investment in what makes our city great and what what makes our city , what brings us all together, makes us stronger as a city is when we make that nominal, you know, it's really a drop in the bucket. But when we host community events and we have thousands of people come together, regardless of their differences, sitting side by side, enjoying being residents of Long Beach. To me, that's building community. You really can't even put a price on it. So I would like council members to have discretion to be able to make those decisions. And to me, you know, a lot of the projects that you listed that we get SFP funding for, for like Dale Baylis, Muertos or MLK Parade or whatever, those aren't in my district, but they're really great programs for the city. I love them even though they're not in my district. I love that we do them even though they're not in my district. So to the extent that we can do more community building and programs I'm supportive of, I think when we're talking about as huge of a budget as we have and that's an insignificant amount of money in the big scheme that we're talking about here, I think I think we get a lot of return on that investment. I will say I think it's important that Ms.. Erickson have this money to, you know, figure out really what her needs are going to be long term and have some seed money to get that effort started in a quality way. And I don't want to I want to set her up for success, too, to the best extent that we can, you know. So I think reducing it by 100,000 makes sense to me, giving the council officers discretion to decide where that money should go to promote the city and to promote their district, I think is a really great development and I thank you for bringing that to us. Had you not done that, had you not championed that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So thanks to you for bringing that. So it sounds like so there's nine councilmembers, 100,000, so I get ten. Am I getting ten as part of this monies? But just I don't want to. Rounding the. Numbers. I don't I don't need it. I'm we're good. Let me go to a let me go to. Okay, Councilman, I want to go to a vote, please. I appreciate your comments. Councilman Price and I would agree, I think that my long term concern that I will set aside for today and be supportive of this is that there's always going to be more things we can spend money on. It's easy to spend. What's hard to do is fit yourself in a budget box. And so I felt like. For a first year of having $15,000 was a lot. 25,000 is, of course, more, and I am sure we can come up with ways to spend it. I'm positive that each of us will have an email tomorrow requesting more than 20 many emails tomorrow that comprise requesting more than 25,000. And what I didn't want to have is winners and losers. And so unfortunately, this conversation throughout the night has kind of been about apportioning, and that was never the intent. It's really about raising up the whole city. And so I'll be supportive of this motion. Okay. There's a motion in a second. Which was that Councilmember Pearce motioned. Please cast your votes. Oh, it says how? It says motion to approve substitute motion. She has a substitute motion. It's a sub because it's still on the main motion. So. Yeah. Motion carries. Okay. So that will be added to the C recommendations as the motion asks for cuts. What appears to show the floor? Yeah. Five more motion I'm getting. I just wanted to say thank you, guys, everybody. It's thank you guys for the votes. I look forward to hearing what the rest of my council colleagues have to say. Okay. Thank you. So I don't have any more any other folks queued up. Yeah. He. That's weird. Doesn't have it. And where is this thing? Q Okay, so let me go back to controversy and there we go. It wasn't it was gone for a minute there. We didn't want anyone else coming in. No worse controversy or no. Has magic to. All right. Thank you. And we have a just reminder. We have a public safety committee meeting tomorrow at 1230, so I'll make my comments short. I don't want to run it into our next meeting. First of all, I'd also like to commend the Budget Oversight Committee just on a tremendous job. I think the level of detail, especially with our chair, is unprecedented. And I just really admire the amount of time, energy and expertize all the members put into this. I just have a couple of comments and then a question. So I'm so happy my colleagues are supporting restoration of Engine 17 and the nice tie in with working on Station nine is that restoration of Engine 17 reduces response times by a minute citywide, so that should help out up in District eight. Now for the third item there, $100,000 for disease, magnolia trees. Those aren't just trees on Magnolia Avenue, are they? I guess it's too late for a joke, I think. Sorry about that, Chris. But my question is here's is the removal always been my pet peeve is stump removal. And if if I could ask the chair if that includes that on your. Mr. Beck as Mr. Beck is coming forward. I believe that all stunt removal has been funded across the city and we're going through that process. If that's not correct, it'd be. Unfortunately, more changed. I'd. So you're both are correct. The major dying as we speak. So let's make it quick. The this council did during that fiscal 19 funding year allocate dollars towards removing a backlog of stumps. We've made a lot of progress on that. About a thousand of those stumps have been removed. If I remember correctly, I think we had funded roughly 1200 or maybe 1250 at the time. Unfortunately, going through a couple of drought years, we've had a number of our trees in distress and we continue to lose. A large part of our urban canopy. So we do. Have trees that have had to be removed. And we we probably have in the neighborhood another 500 stumps that that need removal. And that is a separate issue from the magnolia tree tulip scale that we've been talking about as a council. And and while I appreciate any funding that can be allocated to help address this problem. 100,000 may be a little light. Right now, we anticipate somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand trees that are infected in this city. Just like the trees scale. Thank you. Councilman Cipriano, you're the fourth. Okay, so I think the answer is that this this will not address the backlog of stumps and whatnot. So, you know, I'm going to leave it at that. We have. Well, you know. I'm sorry. I'm not making eye contact here, so. Okay. I'll leave the issue alone. Okay. And I'm sorry. Exceeded my time. I just had a comment on Mr. Emoticon on language axis. I really liked your your philosophy of inculcating a culture of this in every department city wide. I think that's really important. What we find is where the rubber meets the road is out there with our constituents. And if that could also be addressed, that whether we're working, we had a classic case in public works where a consultant went out with English only fliers in neighborhoods that were either predominantly Spanish or commercial speakers. So I think that has to be added to the mix that each department has to realize that you have to cover every single base on this. And to me, that that's where it's falling apart, is that at the user end of things? And also just I wanted to say something to Pat West and that is enjoy your retirement. I think we're padding the resume pretty well here. You're going to put on there. You saved a hospital. Two engine companies now rescue unit and and you have destroyed a bunch of magnolia trees. So congratulations to you. Thank you. Thank you very much. So let me go to Vice Mayor Andrews and. Yes. I want you to make a motion and you said give you time to think about it. So my motion is for the language access is that is that to move the $15,000 from training into item X, to move these dollars to the community based organizations so they can continue education, outreach, the language access policy, and the city manager to determine the distribute the funds. Okay. Could you make the motion count? Mr. Vice Mayor. Here is their second for the vice mayor's motion. There's a motion in a second. Any other customers want to comment on this? It's basically taking the $15,000 and having those funds be used to work with the community based organizations through a process determined by the city manager. Is that right, Mr. Vice Mayor? Okay. Councilmember Richardson. Oh, that's the other one, Councilmember Price. Thank you. I would be supportive of this motion, but I think it's very important that there should be some sort of process in place for selecting the community based organization. They should have a training curriculum in place. There should be some sort of selection criteria. Impartiality in terms of any messaging should be very important. I've I've communicated this with the folks that were advocating for the people's budget, that sometimes the language is a bit. Advocacy as opposed to information sharing. So I think it's really important and fair to the entire body that would be using these funds for the purpose of helping residents, that there be some sort of selection process that is committed to. Any work done by the CBOs in training to be not advocacy, but rather information sharing for the purpose of translation of materials that the city provides to individuals who may speak a different language. That's really, really important to me. I love working with community based organizations. My very first job after graduate school was working with community based organizations in Oakland, and I very much enjoyed it. But I also understand that sometimes the nature of those organizations are advocacy in nature, and that's at odds with any sort of neutral task that they might have, because it's important to rally support in an advocacy role to keep a community based organization going. So I think it'll be interesting to see how this works out. But I would I would hope that as part of this motion, we can include that there's a selection process that's designed by the city manager that allows for a competition of different CBOs and a curriculum for training. And I know this is very important to both Councilman Ranga and Council Vice Mayor Andrews, so I want to support them in this program. I just want to make sure that whatever we do is is fair and true to the source of the money. Thank you. Councilman Price. Councilman Mongo, I think you're on for this item, right? Yes. I think that one of the challenges that we have is in meeting with the community groups. Their biggest ask of us was $100,000 for bilingual bonuses. And when I let them know that we have over $800,000 a year in bilingual bonuses, they were shocked, just jaw dropped to the floor. And so in talking with them, well, I appreciate that 15,000 could go a long way in helping their groups. I don't know that that outreach stuff next is ready. If when people come to city hall, they're still not getting the access. And so that's why the 15,000 was originally allocated to train the staff that are getting the bilingual bonus. There would be almost 400 staff that would be touched by this program. And so I want to support Vice Mayor Andrews because I feel he knows his community best. But I also want to be very mindful of what I heard from the community at the sixth and seventh District budget meeting, which was we come to City Hall and we are not getting the help that we need. And so I don't know how we do that next step, which is inform people of how to get the help they need. If we haven't first done the rounding up of the staff and giving them the training, I would be open to. Mr. Andrews, would you be open to working with the community groups to help train the staff? Is that what you're saying? Maybe I'm not understanding. I think a lot of this is really especially when I think about our districts. You know, I don't have an awful lot of individuals coming from the sixth District down to city council. I would rather you know them take that. That's why I was really mentioning that if I had I see at city council, we just don't have that many individuals active on this. I don't know about the seventh, but I know this is a very few a number. Okay. And so that would be for outreach then. Majority of the Cambodian community. Yes. I see. Well, I don't think I don't think the motion has as majority to anyone per se. I think the motion says have the city manager work with community based organizations. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Is there any other comments? We have a motion in a second. By this motion by Vice Mayor Andrews. Seeing no other comments, please cast your votes. Comes Richardson. Motion carries. It. Motion carries. Thank you. Next up is Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And this has been a long, arduous conversation. I'm glad to see we're at the end of it. Okay. So one outstanding thing was the the allocation, the formula, wherever it was on before, we didn't. And, you know, I'll say initially I was planning to make a friendly motion because we've done it year after year. But it seems like it's more success simply making a motion and voting on it. So we didn't resolve that. Chair Mongo. So I'm going to move that. We make this adjustment, I think 60, 20, 20 between alleys, park bathrooms and playgrounds by elimination, eliminating irrigation pumps 10% and applying that to playgrounds. Is there a second on this motion? And again, the motion is 2 minutes to do 60, 20, 20 alleys, park bathrooms and playgrounds. Councilmember Pierce, anything else to add to that? Council member Mungo. So earlier today, I think this actual motion was part of the reason we got off track because in in one breath you said how much you appreciate the Budget Oversight Committee and yet that we have no rationale for what we do. It took a few minutes because, as Mr. Superhot mentioned, I've gone through every single page of this book. So if you turn to CRM 57, where it talks about irrigation pumps, I found the specific line item and the specific line item was for 35 irrigation pumps under immediate critical needs, and it's 35 irrigation pumps used to pressurize the irrigation systems or move lake water. That are not functional at all, marginally functional and decades old. And so again, I'm thinking and so again, this was a need that came up at one of the community budget meetings. It was not something that I was advocating for personally. I actually in discussing this and the item with Mr. Beck over the evening, he actually communicated that while this is important and a community member is advocating for it, what he really, really needs is that extra hundred thousand for tree stumps and other dead trees in the city . And so he said that if I were open to finding another hundred thousand, he would ask that it go towards trees, because we made a commitment last year to remove every stump in the city and because of the number of trees that have died, we have not been able to do that. So I would like to make a substitute substitute motion. That it would still be 60, 2010 ten, but that the the last actually it would be not a full ten so would be 60 2020 with a carve out of 100,000. So would be what you had recommended with the carve out to get us over the hump and finally end the discussion on tree stumps. Okay. That's a substitute motion, it sounds like. Consider Richardson. Did you want to. If you just wanna make it a friendly I'm good with it and those three categories but lumping into playgrounds 100 counts tree stumps. Would you like to revoke the motion as well? And we'll go back to the original and I will accept. One of them. That would be. Great. Great. I think so. I think Mr. City attorney, I think councilwoman was changing her original motion and says no. So it's going to be 60, 20, 20, but $100,000 is going to come out of. The. Total off the top. Yeah. To take care of of tree stamp removal. Okay. Councilmember Richardson didn't have anything else. Okay. Councilmember Austin. So I'm glad that there seems to be some sort of agreement here, but I'm still kind of curious about irrigation pumps and the need. Mr. Beck thinks he can meet it within the current allocation of the ones that are on the list. So let me go back to Councilmember Austin if you have any questions for the staff. Okay. So I just I did want to ask somebody, I mean, is there an authority on irrigation pumps who can give us some clarification? And and is this an issue that we can. Early owns what? Ignore ignore for right now because I know I have pump needs that my lakeshore park I mentioned that earlier there's you know. I mean, it didn't appear here magically, right? No. Mr.. Mr.. What actually, let me let me, let me go ahead and go to the staff. I brought her to help me, but I believe he just clarified that we. Specific to the the pump issue for lakes. Do we have moneys and also I'm looking to see for replacing our purchasing new new pumps for lakes. I think that was the question. What's in it? Well, I'm specifically concerned about your park. I know we've had several conversations. I don't want to mess up any funding or unfunded. So, yeah, we don't have for Shire Lake or any of the Lakes for the for the replacement of the pumps. Okay. And then the original budget, city manager's budget, it mentioned critical needs, 35 pump stations. Um, can anybody clarify that? Yeah, that's on an unfunded high priority. Needless. So that's not funded. It's on a list of we just wanted to let you know the other things that are outstanding so that isn't funded. Is there a an amount needed? It was up to 1.6 million. Okay. So we're going to have to hope for rain this season. Keep our grass green in our parks. Is that what we're talking about? So. Part of this list for the ads that's being referenced in the budget book was an effort to keep the council informed as part of our financial policies of needs that are not yet funded. So the budget book does do many things. But we do want to disclose that there are still many unfunded needs out there. And this list provides some of those categories and some estimates of funding and ways in which we can try to approach solving those issues. At this point, as Tom mentioned, there, there isn't funding for that. And those are things that we need to continue to look at as we disclose what the lists are as funding comes. And, you know, different studies are done in terms of assessing and providing more detail on some of these unfunded needs. Then we can start to tackle and see if, as there are additional resources, how we can apply those resources. Many of our infinite funding needs are like a wish list of of issues that we in an optimal situation we will fund and that everything would be perfect. Yes. If it was a critical if there was a failed system, then we would have put that in the budget and cut something else. So we just this is a list of things that we know also on this list or things like alleys and and water needs and tree trimming. So it's a larger list. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. Councilmember Supernova. Yes. Since Councilmember Austin mentioned Shire Park, I'd like to ask about Stearns Park. I thought that was good to go. I don't know if Craig Beck could answer it or someone from PRM could, but I would hate to see that project drop out of the queue. And also, Councilmember Austin mentioned, will the parks not be watered since we have Chris Garner in the audience? I think one of the major benefits of this implementation would be saving water to do the do the irrigation with far less water, with a more efficient system in each of the parks. Councilmember Suber. Yes. Stearns Park is still moving forward with irrigation upgrades and it is funded. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Before I go to Councilman Mongo, just really briefly. Maybe, Mr. McGuire, someone can can answer this because I always hear about the issues that are lakes or ponds. It's a constant lake issue. And so those are being identified in the budget book are all the top projects we need to get funded, some of which are not, is a correct mission. That's where I would find those. Yes. So that unfunded list just includes an overview of the different categories and types of unfunded needs. Okay. And I would just like to ask also just our management team that I think I think a plan specific to our lakes and ponds at some point, it's just constantly out there in the community. And I would love to have a plan to just kind of take care of all of them if there are issues that we could we could do. So if it's not, the cost isn't too high. Sounds like it maybe is not too dramatically high. That that would be that would be helpful. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. In the initial discussion related to pumps and irrigation and I must read my notes, it is 11:00 at night, so I apologize. 1.6 million is allocated for up to would be allocated is needed for 35 pumps. And so my assessment was the average would be about 45,000 per pump, which is what the $450,000 number came from as that would have been potentially ten parks. I know that there are ten pumps. Some lakes have more than one pump and some have only one pump. And so the original. Recommendation would have been the 2010 ten as as mentioned. And if I'm hearing from my colleagues that these pumps are as important as we thought. I'm happy to go back to the original motion. But what sits on the floor right now is Ali's at 60%, park bathrooms at 20, playgrounds at 20 with a 100,000 carve out for trees. But I'm happy to go back to 60, 20, ten, ten if we feel the pumps are crucial, as I originally thought. Okay. So we do have a motion on the floor of Councilmember Austin. One question for Mr. Moore and Mr. Moore. So I just want to be clear in terms of my priority pump. Your part. We do already have funds identified to to to to address that. The my team can clarify, but as I understand it, we recently approved a water quality maintenance for all of the lakes. That's not the pump. That's just the quality, the making sure that that a consultant treats the water. But with regards to circulating the water, that is a function of the pumps. And we do not have funding for the pumps in in in in for any of the lakes, including share. And what I want to point out, what we're doing here is you're giving us direction about future dollars that may come in and where we should spend those. So if and when those dollars come in, we can also tell you these are irrigation pumps that are failed. If that's the case, then you can make a different decision. So you're giving us general guidance and we would bring back specific projects. Well, I mean, I'm I would like to support the motion on the floor, but I'd also like to make sure that we are being mindful of our maintenance priorities in the city. And I would defer to the maker of the motion on the floor to carve out at least $100,000 in there for for for emergency pump repairs to to our facilities. And legs. So I will make all except the friendly. And the new motion will be allies. 60% park bathrooms, 20% playgrounds, 10% a hundred thousand off the top. Four Pump maintenance and repairs. 100,000 off the top four additional tree. Issues that Mr. Beck needs. And then finally to direct the city manager to come back with a plan to fund $1.6 million in pump needs. And what those pumps are and what order? And that with. 6020, 20. 2020 plus 200,000 or 200,000. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I think. I think that's the motion. Please, members, go ahead and cast your vote. Wait, actually, is that everybody? Okay. This is now the new biosphere recommendation, as has been compiled. Please cast your votes. No. Now I think we're good. We've heard it. Please cast your. Vote. Mayor. Is this the original motion? This is the amended DRC motion, as has been built throughout the last few hours. By mango. Price. Yes. Thank you. No. We resolved it. We have consensus.