Recommendation to request City Manager to engage California State Lands Commission and other stakeholders regarding potential modifications to the Oil Barrel Production tax; Request City Attorney to prepare all necessary documents to place a ballot question on the November 2020 ballot for an increase in the Oil Barrel Production Tax and to work with the City Manager to provide options and financial impact on the amount of the tax and mechanisms for a progressive tax that increases over time and for a resolution defining the City Council's intent for use of the funds; and Request City Manager and City Attorney to explore the feasibility of preparing a ballot advisory question on whether to reinvest future cannabis revenue into economic equity, health equity, and youth investments, and to further strengthen our cannabis equity program to expand equitable ownership opportunities.
Thank you, Madam Clerk. We are now doing item 23. Communication for Mayor Garcia, Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilmember Pierce, Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request City Manager to engage California State Lands Commission regarding potential modifications to the oil barrel production tax request. City Attorney to prepare all necessary documents to place a ballot question on the November 2020 ballot for an increase in the oil barrel production tax. And request city manager and City Attorney to explore the feasibility of preparing a ballot advisory question on whether to reinvest future cannabis revenue. Thank you, Madam Cook I'm going to make a few just opening comments. I know that the Council is queued up to to discuss and make comments, so I'll be fairly brief, but I just want to make some overarching comments. I just wanted just a little a little context. Obviously. I think that as we know that from a timing perspective, the council is going to consider anything for the November ballot. Now is the time to consider those and trying to give the city attorney enough time to bring what a ballot measure would actually look like in front of the city council. So that's why this is being discussed. So the in line, which we have, of course, an oil barrel production tax, it's a common in cities that have this industry. We know that here locally, the last time that this tax was raised was about ten years ago. Actually, it was part of a proposal by our city auditor, Laura Dowd, who increased and took to voters an increase of $0.25 to the oil production tax. Back then, it was 11 years ago that passed the voters and at the time it was put in place for public safety services. And in fact, we still see those to this day. We know that in Long Beach, the oil for the oil barrel production tax is $0.47. You look at our neighbor in Signal Hill and it's at $0.67. And so there certainly is a difference between us and and our local our local neighbor. These taxes just for the council discussion are not taxes on residents. So local residents, of course, don't pay into this. It's directly on oil barrel production and essentially is on companies that that that produce oil. But in addition it's also on those that that see revenue. So if you include the state of California, the city of Long Beach, which also, of course, the oil revenue are also part of the overall production pie as it relates to revenues. And we concern it just broadly speaking, obviously, you think about Long Beach is as a leader on climate, we've been doing a lot of great work around climate, whether it's been the cleaner action plan that we've got to finally adopt solar or the first cities to go to all LED lighting craft across the city, water quality issues, electrification at our ports, our bike biking, multimodal plans. We've been aggressive in those areas, but we also know that we have had and continue to have in the city a debate about the future and quite frankly, debates happening across the country as far as what's the sustainability and the dependance on oil here locally at home as well. We know this is a very this market is unstable. We can see where the prices are today versus where they were years ago or or years before that. And so we know that this is just a piece of that conversation, but it's one that I think we should have in this time. There's an opportunity for us to reinvest in issues around climate justice, around equity and health, around the work happening, around the framework. And so I think this will be a it's a good discussion to have, and it's certainly not it certainly comes with precedent. And there's something that the city has increased, you know, over over the years, the last time being ten years ago, when we look at this time to look at it again. And I want to thank everyone that's been involved in the conversation. With that, I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember Richardson, who has a motion, and then I'll go through the list of of members. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to start just acknowledging that we have a great city. We talk about it all the time. We speak about it all the time. You know, downtown on the waterfront, largest port in the United States, great educational institutions. We're also a city with deep, deep economic health and environmental divides. And we have to do better to change our systems and invest in equity. We're at a critical point in our history, the history of our city, the history of our nation. We have an equity mandate in front of us, calling on all local governments to recommit to structural investment investments into equity programs, governments at all levels. I've heard from community that they expect more from us specifically as it relates to the investments that we make, our commitment to equity and addressing inequality in our communities. This call to action from the from the public is why the City Council moved to embark on the framework for reconciliation four steps acknowledging, listening, convening and catalyzing action where we're in the process of concluding the listening process over the next week. And then we begin the process of shaping recommendations immediate, short term, medium term, long term for action for the City Council. And we know the staff have done a good job. I applaud their efforts to engage with community and we think staff are meeting the commitment. When we started this we said, Hey, make sure that you keep us in alignment to not miss the opportunities for this November. The staff has come to us and let us know what that timeline is, which has prompted this this conversation tonight. I want to be clear that this item isn't meant to undercut or diminish the framework process. We're continuing with that and we're making great progress and we're going to take a look. We should be in a position in a matter of weeks, not months, to begin taking action, but rather we are complementing that by making sure that we meet these critical deadlines that have the resources necessary to actually take meaningful, meaningful action to advance equity. As we discussed, discussed tonight's actions. It's a this is a process of us asking to prepare and engage with stakeholders on a source of revenue to actualize many of the things that are coming to light throughout this framework process and will be further informed by it. In addition, there's additional actions that require other processes to take place concurrently, like our budget. So let's get started. Let's go to the next slide. So today's recommendation has three parts. First, we're asking the city manager engage with State Lands Commission and other stakeholders regarding the modification of the oral burial production tax. I want to be clear. Other ideas may come up from this. So we want to you know, we want to really listen to what folks have to say because it may inform what what ultimately goes on the ballot. Secondly, we want to request the city attorney to prepare all necessary documents to place a ballot question on the 2020 ballot for an increase in the oil production tax. Third, we want to explore the feasibility of preparing a ballot advisory question on whether to reinvest future cannabis revenue into economic equity, health equity and youth investment. Next oil. We have a long history, a little bit of context. We have a long history of oil in our city. From 1911 when the state placed all of its all of its state lands within the city limits. 1932, when when oil when discovered oil was discovered in Wilmington oil field. And for the past 60 years, pipelines has been restricted to Titan's area, making it difficult to invest resources into other parts of the city that are also affected by oil related industries. Pipelines goes into services like police and fire lifeguards, beach maintenance, lease management, parking operations, a whole host of investments. And 27 Long Beach voters approved Prop eight. That's the police and fire public safety oil production tax to increase the barrel tax on oil producers to support public safety. That was the legal strategy the more broadly invest outside of the titans by taxing oil production. That is the legal way to invest in the entire city utilizing the oil production tax to fund service. So this is not a new concept. That's the point. In fact, public safety departments still receive funding for oil production taxes that were approved 13 years ago. Although the city's an operator of our domestic oil production, we operate as a trustee of the state. Because of this dynamic, we are engaging with state lands and that is a part of this motion. I had a very productive talk just this afternoon as chair of State led with the staff from the from SLC. They were very open to talking with us. They were very appreciative that we spoke with them and they look forward to the conversation. It was a very productive discussion. We have a meeting next week with the lieutenant governor as a member of the commission. She was very open and willing to have a talk. She's one of three members of the State Lands Commission. So these are very productive conversations. And above all, this is an opportunity to leverage funding to advance health and environmental equity that includes climate investing, youth programs, the resources and address the economic issues that have been raised within our communities that have been historically left out. Let's go to the next slide. So so we have a unique opportunity to respond to the disparities impacting, you know, the North and the northwest, the southwest parts of our of our city. The areas that are impacted by environmental challenges. That map on the left shows Long Beach residents where Long Beach residents live by race and ethnicity. Asian Pacific Islander, Latino black residents live northwest, the southwest part of our city and greater concentration to the right. You see the Carolyn Biro screen that reveals that those neighbors, those same neighborhoods, are exposed to higher concentrations of pollutants, which also happen to be in northwest and southwest parts of the city. I didn't include a map of household income levels where they live, but the correlations are the same. Low income communities of color are concentrated in portions of the city that have the worst air quality and environmental health metrics. Near the port adjacent, the 1791 corridors in our industrial corridor. These neighborhoods have fewer open space or green space options. They're on some of the largest environmental waste generators means of color in Long Beach already experience health disadvantages, such as higher rates of asthma, heart disease, diabetes, low birth weight. These environmental health disparities are also apparent in the overrepresentation of African-Americans, Latinos and positive COVID 19 cases and hospitalizations. More. Additionally, with respect to cannabis, in 2016, the state of California legalized recreational cannabis, followed by Long Beach, passing ordinances on both medicinal and adult use cannabis in 2016 2018, which includes a cap on 32 dispensaries in light of the legalization of cannabis as well as the adoption of cannabis, social equity programs are steps in the right direction. There are still equity issues that exist in the in the high cost of entering into the industry and that it continues to exclude many communities of color. These communities have been impacted by the war on drugs that's left a long standing impacts like loss of property, disqualification from employment opportunities, reduced earning potential exclusion from public benefits and other negative impacts. The night's item offers an opportunity to explore to buyers requesting that cannabis revenue back into communities and retool to invest in ownership opportunities. We may or may not the council may or may not move forward this question. We understand that, you know, there would be there are ways that we can achieve this without action on the ballot. But we want to make sure we head down this direction and we can make that decision. Whether to move forward on this part or not based on additional research will do on what we can access the council meeting next. Like really this this is a great opportunity for us. It's an opportunity for us and we don't have to start from scratch. We have you know, we can fund key areas where we know inequity persists. Our research and engagement has already been done on a lot of this. Now is the time that allocate resources, support the findings and drive change as it relates to youth development. The city department has published the safe Long Beach Violence Prevention Plan. We discussed it tonight. We need to fund these things and fund you. We're in the we're engaged in a youth strategic plan process and the Parks and Rec Department. Both of these plans employ collective action approaches to understanding gaps and opportunities for our youth. Early, early intervention. This is an opportunity to make a real commitment to our youth and a world class youth development operation in the city of Long Beach. Next, you'll see under as it relates to environmental health equity, we are in the process of establishing our first ever climate action adaptation plan, and we're reminded of the various impacts of climate change on our low income neighborhoods, kids of color, their ability to respond and adjust. Long Beach Community Health Community Health Assessment also called out health and quality of life disparities facing disadvantaged communities. Investing in programs like Black Infant Health, Climate and environmental education, placemaking infrastructure that improve health outcomes in the most impacted neighborhoods are types of the types of things that we can we can address. And then as it relates to the economy, we know that we have tools. We've done the research over the last few years and work like everyone in economic empowerment zones, our digital inclusion roadmap. We know that we understand the disparities as relates to how our communities, the economic divide within our communities and the strategies move forward. We've already adopted these things. We've lacked the resources to invest in it. These are things like investing in and opportunities to make sure folks who buy homes, small business support, teen workforce centers all of these things are things that we can move forward if we have the resources to do. Let's go to the final flight. So, so close. Number one, it's not this is not a new taxes proposal. It's not a tax among these. Rather, this is an opportunity to align our oil production tax with neighborhoods, neighboring cities, and invest in areas where are in the issues where our disparities exist. It's an opportunity to align funding with our city's current priorities. This is an opportunity to have a world class youth development strategy make a real difference as it relates to our health, climate and environmental issues, and also make real steps to close the economic divides of our cities. Our next steps engaged California State Lands Commission and other stakeholders regarding the potential modifications engaged community partners such as the Best Youth Coalition around what the resolution may look like for this next report. Back to the City Council in time for us to give direction in order to get it over the November 30 ballot. And I want to add that we also want to make sure that we evaluate options to create an oversight mechanism that can look like aligning with an existing commission or creating or creating some other oversight mechanism to make sure that we're continuing to invest these resources in equity as we move forward. That that is my my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. I know that was a motion seconded by Councilmember Pearce. That's our. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate all the work that's gone into this. This motion, this concept of being able to at least get at par with our oil tax, with our neighboring cities. We know that right now we're in a historic moment where we have lifted up the systemic issue of racism that we have not given enough time to in the future and in the past. We know that we are living at a time when our climate continues to deteriorate as much as we have been a leader in things like electrification and trying to bring in new EV charging stations. We also know that. Time is running out. Some of you guys might have followed me online. I am taking sustainability classes at UCLA right now, so I'm bombarded when I'm not in council with the reality that even if we did everything that we needed to do today, that the effects of what we've already done are going to be lasting into our great grandchildren. And so I'm continually feeling the urgency of figuring out a way to inspire us to act on a bigger scale with our climate. And when I dove into the numbers and recognize that the number one cause of death for people in our community is not police violence, even though that is the most violent and atrocious because we see it and we know that we are paying out our community members to not have that happen. The number one killer is diseases that are caused by pollution and other issues around our heat islands, around poor water quality, around lack of access to food because of food deserts. And so when I see this item, I see all the buckets that Councilmember Richardson has talked about. But I really talk about climate, not only because it's a tax on oil, but the reality is that the market for oil is going down and that when the cost of oil goes down, it's not necessarily great for our climate and the cost of oil goes down. It means that it's difficult for people that have been living below their means to access, whether it's electric cars or green energy on their home, whether it's solar or whether it's retrofitting that it's important for us to make sure that that that gap is thin. And when that happens, we're able to see more investments in clean energy. And we as a city can play a role in making sure that we're using this this pocket of money to create new renewable opportunities, to create more opportunities for solar, to do a home retrofit program that has a jobs component. Some of you know, I've been very busy talking to everyone from Black Lives Matter, to people in the labor movement to organizations in Los Angeles that have dealt with how we close this gap. And they've all been supportive. I'm really happy to see, at least on one letter, there's 15 organizations that have signed up to say that they support this and several community members. So I support all the buckets and making sure that we get to the highest payroll tax that we can. I think that the $0.67 mark is an important mark for us. I think making sure that we have an oversight commission is absolutely critical and we know this idea has been talked about over the years, but we really saw a window on an opportunity right now to move quickly. So I know that some people haven't been able to be fully involved in the conversation, but I'm hopeful that that will change now that this vote has happened or will happen. And I want to make sure that we have public process in the meantime, where we're talking about the opportunities for the jobs pipeline, for health impacts, and making sure that those that are most impacted by our poor air quality are along the 710 and the 91 are the ones that can have access to the benefits of increasing this tax. So I am very supportive. I'm very thankful for the mayor and Councilmember Richardson's work on this. I look forward to hearing from our community stakeholders that are going to speak on this item as well. Thank you. Thank you. And also, before I move on, I have Councilmember Austin next. Before I move on, just want to clarify also that this is a this is a all about production taxes. It's a general tax would not be a special tax. Just wanted to clarify that. And the city attorney was asking and so just to clarify that as well. Let me move on to Council member Austin. Thank you to Mr. Mayor. And I believe this item also of to a cannabis. Question on the ballot, potential ballot as well. I think we should also give some attention to that. But I'm pleased to sign on to this item because it makes me feel good about this measure of poor oil production tax. It makes fiscal sense for us at this time and makes good timing sense. It makes sense from a community justice standpoint, from a fiscal sense. Our residents are demanding more investments in programs to address disparities and inequities that affected our communities of color for far too long. There is systemic change and greater investment in and community in, particularly the black community. Given the budget constraints we are facing in the coming year, identifying new revenue sources makes sense. Oil production tax is not a direct impact on our residents, especially our communities, and we're trying to help make a difference in November by putting it on the November ballot and if it's approved by the voters, will be able to start investment funds within a matter of months to benefit our revenue by dedicating funds to programs that support our youth economic opportunity and health and environmental equity. We're committing to our residents that we have been have been disproportionately affected by the health crisis, academic, economic impacts and lack of opportunities for our youth. I strongly support the goal to ask our residents to vote on this investment in our community. But I do have a couple of questions regarding the other part of this item. And of course, I signed on to it as a code. But there and again, I think most of this makes a lot of sense. I want to understand that that, you know, putting forth ballot initiative is also a cost for the city. And the and as I understand it, the part regarding cannabis and perhaps, you know, the interesting thing to clarify, but the part regarding cannabis, cannabis is meant to be advisory or only an advisory measure, a question to the voters of and that of revenue and revenues the city already receives from a measure, and they are a general tax, from what I understand. So the Council can already vote to allocate some of the revenues of that program already for measure or may without an advisory measure. I'm not mistaken. And so I guess the question is, what about it? I've seen a while of having an advisory measure. Measure is there rather than part of the budget process or framework of the reconciliation. We see community input about investing a portion of these residents, these revenues from cannabis. I hope you guys got that. You know, so basically, are we are is this going to be too damaged, spending this extra money for a question to the voters that we as a city council already have the ability to to move? I guess I put that question to you, Mr. Richardson. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember. You're absolutely right. So we're you know, we're in the process of obviously exploring what we can and cannot do get in one of the cannabis laws measure M require to go to the ballot. Kind of the the are on recreational adult use did not. It seems like we can probably get to this without the ballot question. So if I go so far as to say it was strategic, this was included strategically. But we may not need we may be able to abandon this at the end if we as we kind of research and learn a bit more, the timeline for this, the timeline for the framework of running concurrently, the listing process ends this week. We should expect, you know, in a matter of weeks, not months, for recommendations. And that process might play out in front of the council. And that's when we will know very clearly about what our options are. So I agree with you. If there's a way for us not to have to do this and save a little bit money, we can. And I think we'll get to that point when this comes back to council. Okay. Thank you so much that that's my comment for now. Again, I support moving forward with this with the question mark on the cannabis question. And you know, I'm sure a staff research it wants to put this together. We can we can make a decision down the line. Within the next couple of weeks. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilwoman and House. Councilwoman in the house. You may. You can hear me, right? Yes. First of all, thank you to Councilmember Richardson for bringing this item forward. I think it's very, very important. I share the same sentiments as my colleagues, and I look forward to to the development of this item and putting it on the ballot. Hopefully, we are we are headed to some very, very difficult times when it comes to talking about our budget. I think it's going to bring this item would bring additional revenue to service our communities that are so much in critical need. So I'm fully supportive of this item. And, you know, it's going to be something really good that the public will actually have the opportunity to vote on. And I think that whenever we have the public be able to vote on something, I think that's very powerful. So thank you again for all the hard work that's done on this already. Councilmember Richardson and all those who've signed on to it as well. It's important to make sure that our budget reflects our values here in the city, and I really think that this is an important step in doing that. So thank you again. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman Price. Q Mr. Mayor, and thank you to my council colleagues who brought this item. I think this is a very productive discussion. I think it's an opportunity that's definitely worth exploring. I do have a few questions and I also think. Well, let me just let me ask that some of the questions I have, and then I'll come back to that. So in regards to the item, I really in my opinion, I don't think the cannabis piece is essential. I think that we have flexibility with our current structure to allow or some policy decisions to be made regarding the expenditure of those funds. I am curious when we're talking about cannabis as a revenue source. I know the last time we received an update. The revenues were falling far shorter than what we had expected. Mr. Modica, do you have an update on that revenue source? And if so, we will as part of the budget process? We're looking at that right now. My general sense is that it's doing better than it was last year. So we always knew this was going to be a lagging revenue source where it takes a couple of years to build. We are now seeing more dispensaries on board and so we do expect some revenue to be increasing from this, from that, the exact amount we'll have in a couple of weeks. Okay, great. But I do think that we have some opportunity there. Maybe the city attorney could weigh in on this. I mean, is it necessary for us to expand 3 to $400000 to put this on the ballot? Or is the city infrastructure in place to allow the council to weigh in on how those revenues would be expended , given the language in May, as the city attorney can the city attorney weigh in on that? Council member this is Charlie Parker. And you're correct. And I think Councilmember Richardson said it, too, that you have in place during the budget process that revenue is coming in and is currently allocated under the budget and could be reallocated by the Council during the budget process. Okay, great. So good. It sounds like we're all kind of in alignment on that. That was one question I had when I was reading the item. So I'm glad we had some clarification for Mr. Modica. Is this a tax? And I know that Mr. Madison I talked to off line about this, but I have received quite a few questions from residents as well as some oil operators as I have several of them in my district. So would this be a tax that would be placed on local producers? So the way the oil barrel tax works is, it's essentially a tax on those who are producing the oil in Long Beach and it becomes a unit expense of the oil field. So it is ultimately paid by the person who has the mineral rights as one of the operating expenses of the field. Okay. And does the city have the mineral rights for any of the fields that are operating right now? So about 94% of the funds that, you know, that would be spent are come from the state of California. And of that pot, the city has a portion of that where we get some interest in tidelands. We also get some upland. So we would pay a portion of this. The state pays the vast majority of this. And then some of the other operators that have oil interests and mineral rights would pay that as well, as well as anyone who else who owns little fractions of oil. We do have some of those in our community. Okay. So when the report comes back, will it outline what the city's obligation would be if there were a change to the rate? Yes, we would take a look at, you know, what what this could generate. I believe the item is to have us look at a number of different, you know, factors and then come back with a recommendation. And we would certainly do a financial analysis as well. Okay. Because obviously, it would need to make financial sense for us since we would be responsible for some of the some of the tax obligation as well. Correct. Okay. The other question that I had is I know there's a request for communication and outreach with stakeholders. Are we including oil operators, local oil operators and producers in the city as part of the stakeholders? And will we be doing outreach with them? So we haven't designed that process yet. I think we wanted to hear from counsel. We can certainly ask those who are, you know, kind of the bigger players. We're only going to have, you know, a couple of weeks at most to bring everything back. Be happy to talk to anyone who is a person who is affected by payment of the tax. It's going to be a pretty small group. Since this isn't a tax and it doesn't tax our population, it really has a limited group. So we'd be happy to talk to anyone who has an interest. Okay, so I'd like to add a friendly I'm not sure who made the motion, but to the maker of the motion, I'd like to add a friendly that the oil producers who would be subject to this tax be included in the stakeholder outreach. Council member, my understanding is only three potentially. So that's a synergy signal, Hill Petroleum and CRC. And so they've already they've already engaged with the city. And so I don't know that we need to put it into the into the motion to call out specific companies. I think in general saying stakeholders. I think that broadly says if they're paying into this, they are a stakeholder and they're already used the manager, the flexibility with them. That that's fine. The reason I made the friendly is because I received calls from them today. They didn't know anything about it. So I just want to make sure they got that. At least all of these stakeholders, every single one of them, is involved in the outreach process. So if that friendly is denied, I appreciate that. But it was just meant to be inclusive. So hopefully the city manager can hear that. I think city manager, I think I think under the current motions in front of us, I think you have that flexibility to do it. Councilmember Price And now we can talk to to those groups for sure. And if you have any others, let us know. We'll do. Thank you. And then in terms of the Tidelands Fund, Mr. Modica, can you please explain the impact, if any, of this ballot measure, if it were to pass on the existing tidelands funds that we utilize for capital and infrastructure projects in the Tidelands area and also for operation of services in the Tidelands area, including police and fire. So we'll know that a little bit more in specificity when we come back. My general sense is it's going to be pretty minimal. We would probably be looking at a, you know, something in the range of a, you know, ten cent, 2010, 30 cent, maybe 40 cent increase. We don't know yet. We have to calculate that. And each $0.10 is about $1,000,000 and the state is probably about 60% of that revenue. And the city is, you know, in the 15 to 20%. So our share is going to be pretty small. We would certainly do our best to estimate what that impact would be, but we don't expect a big impact on on existing projects. There might be a slight reduction in some of the Tidelands revenue, but ultimately we will have more revenue in the general fund net because we would be taxing, you know, the state of California would be paying a big portion of this, as would a couple of others. Okay. So when the report comes back, is it going to include a breakdown of how it would impact current existing enterprise funds like the Children's Fund? Yeah, we would do a financial impact of what it would mean for the general fund and what it would mean for Tidelands. Those are the two big funds that would be impacted. Okay. And then the Tidelands Fund has currently has some restrictions on where that money can be spent and what for for what purposes would that restriction remain in effect? And those tidelands funds still be limited for that purpose? It's my understanding that when we do a citywide tax, it becomes a a general fund revenue. That's how we do it with sales tax. So for example, sales tax in the of sales in the Tidelands becomes a general fund revenue if it's applied citywide. So it's something we'd work with our attorney, but we that's how the tax has been applied in the past. But that's the tax portion. It's not the tidelands portion that we currently use. For this trial. That's correct. That the Tidelands portion has to remain in the Tidelands, as Tom explained as a tax. It is not considered restricted by the Titans fund. Yeah. So all the oil money that we normally get from Tidelands would not be affected. Just whatever that tax amount is that is increased would become general fund. Okay. That sounds good. And then the other question that I had is, is there any tax opportunity for oil that is imported into the city? You know, the tankers that we see out there filled with oil. Is there any tax revenue opportunities on those sources of oil? So we currently get some franchise fees. We'd have to look into that a little bit more. We do get franchise fees for certain pipelines that are in the ground that we have an interest in, and that is part of our general fund revenue stream. Typically, the taxing of imports into the United States is a federal issue rather than a local issue. Okay. Is that something that can be definitively studied and reported back on is is imported oil and whether the city has any sort of opportunity to. Exercise any options in regards to tax revenue on that? I agree with you. I believe it is a federal issue, but is that something that can be definitively researched and included? If that's the will of the council, we can do that. They would probably not. That's going to take a little bit more time. We we wouldn't be able to do that within the 30 days. We can do the initial research, but maybe not a full proposal, but we can look at that if that's the will of the council. Yeah. I mean, I think that I think it would be a fairly simple question. I mean, if it's a federal issue, then the city wouldn't have jurisdiction to impose any tax burden on it. So we can do that high level analysis. Yes. Yeah. Because if it's not an option that it's not an option, then you don't have to go any deeper. But I'm just interested to know is does the city have any standing to impose tax on imported oil since we do have a port in the city and we do are source of receipt of a lot of imported oil. So I think the answer to that question is that it's a federal government standing and not a city standing. But if it requires further research from that, then maybe you can report on that and we can require further action on that. That would be. Great. Yes, we can report on that high level question and then it'll be more of a nuance question about franchise fees. That gets pretty complicated. So we'll do our best to answer both those questions. Okay. Thank you. I have nothing else. Thank you very much. Thank you, Captain Ringa. Thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate all the commentary from my colleagues. The one thing I do like about this coming forward is that the fact that it will include some kind of oversight of those funds, and I think that's wonderful. It would be an opportunity for the community to keep abreast as to how we're spending those funds. Once it starts generating, of course they need to pass first. But so I'll be very supportive of the settlement. Thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Woman Mango. Can you hear me? Now. Yes. Hello. Oh, wonderful. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this item. It's important to kind of talk through some of the high level things. A lot of those questions have been fleshed out. But what I think it's also important to. But I think it's also important to kind of recognize is that the price of oil is that. By the market. And so it doesn't necessarily mean that this tax is passed on to the consumers. I will say that when we added some fees at the airport a few years ago, I don't think any of us could have predicted that the largest share of the fees would be burdened by one hotel or one user or one person. And so when we look at this, I'm really interested in seeing this protocol. You said 65% would be paid by the state of California. 15% would be paid by the city. And then of that remaining, 25%. I hope that it doesn't fall on one provider. I know Mr. Richardson stated that there are three providers and one would hope that. It's not being burdened just by one company the way that some of the other feeds have kind of turned out. And I know that that wasn't done in a way to harm any particular company. I think it was an unintended consequence of a policy that when the information came back to the council, that level of analysis wasn't included. And so while I'm not here to ask the specifics of any of those three companies, I think it's important for us to know whether or not any one company is going to be taking a burden that's significantly larger than the other two. But I don't know what the production levels like, and I also don't know if every year the percentages that come out are the same or if there are various volatility and variability of their production makes that difference. So is that something that you think a quick high level could be included? Sure. We can report back on what the the users are a bit of the Long Beach unit and then some of the private just in general how many barrels per per day that they produce. So the numbers I gave were kind of rough swags. You'd be happy to kind of show you what that actually looks like in terms of barrels produced. And then when it comes to the marijuana side of the discussion, I appreciate Mr. Austin and Mr. Price's discussion. It is something that we can do at the council level. I just would like to remind us that we were sitting at the dais not four months ago, reducing taxes on marijuana. Now that everyone has gotten up and running and a lot of these facilities are at full steam ahead, I don't know that the stated objective of the reduction in the tax has actually come to fruition. I don't see that we've had any additional applications or any of those things. And so I think that it's a good time to restore what the community asked for. In terms of the question of what level tax should be at. And I think that that's important, at least in my discussions with some of the. Individuals that are in that industry. They want some certainty. They don't want us coming to the table and reducing and then increasing and then inducing and increasing. And the same is true of what that does for the market around them and the customer base. So I think it's important for us to set a standard and if we want to have an escalation over time or a rebound of what changes things in the future, I think we just need to come up with some policies that are consistent and forth and very transparent to that group of individuals so that they know what they're working with as a business owner. The most harmful thing that they're facing these these times is the uncertainty of so much. And so to add another component of uncertainty, in my opinion, would be not great for the industry. And so I think that we need to work with everybody to come up with what that could look like. Other than that, those are my comments. And thank you for my colleagues for their openness to discussing and understanding the depth of impact of this before we make what could be a very impactful decision. And then I think I'll just add one additional question. Mr.. MODICA It's my understanding that the amount we pull out of oil, out of the resource over time is going to be declining. So we would be theoretically creating a new revenue stream that would decline over time and eliminate itself. That's correct. The number of oil barrels produced declines about 8 to 10% every year. And then at times we get large investment and it actually goes back up and then it tends to decline over time. And so at the the highest level, $0.40, we're talking about $4 million a year. And then it would go down theoretically at 8% a year until a potential investment came. And then theoretically, it could pop back up. But we're never talking about large amounts of money of more than 4 billion a year. On the oil side. From the oil bear attacks. It's it's I don't have the exact numbers. It's roughly in that in that range. Okay. It doesn't go up. It's huge amounts. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm going to go to you before I go to Consul Richardson and then also then to the public. Just as a as a just a perfect nation, I think there are three major companies. But there are more than three companies, I think, that are involved in this work. There are some small, smaller operators as well. And I wanted to clarify that as well for the council, the public. So, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I think it was a good discussion by the council. I want to take a minute and just acknowledge the letters that have come in today in support letters from Senator Gonzalez. Dr. Benitez, come on, girls in action. Invest in you. Long Beach Forward, LLC seven Neighborhood Group, The California League of Conservation Voters. California Mexico Study Center. Earth Justice Green Education Inc. Great Alternatives to Los Angeles Long Beach three six. The Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy. Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and Healthy Community. Long Beach Community Choice Energy Working Group. Long Beach Environmental Alliance. Long Beach Sacred Resistance. Long Beach Alliance for New Economy. Small World Strategy. 350 South Bay. Los Angeles also acknowledged that we've received letters from the State Lands Commission. We again, we spoke with them today. They acknowledge that within that letter, and we're going to continue to talk with them as as state led and staff is going to do that based on the result of this vote, as well as the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce. And and we want to just acknowledge all of those stakeholders for for submitting their letter. That's it. Let's go to public comment. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Court. Please go through public comment. Our first speakers and a christianson. Your time starts now. Anna Kristensen, Sierra Club Conservation Chair, Long Beach Area Group. The Long Beach Area Group would like to share the following concerns and suggestions regarding this agenda item. We find the goal of ending racial. And social injustice in our city. To be both admirable and absolutely necessary. The city can and must take immediate action by directly funding measures to address. These critical issues from the city's general fund. And must not rely on the success of a November ballot measure to do so. Additionally, we are concerned that the oil. Production. Tax is like those on cigarets and alcohol, basically a center in which the city profits from a product. That is destructive. To the health and well-being of individuals and the community. Funding social and environmental justice should not involve doing harm to people or to the natural world. As the agenda item points out, is primarily low income. Communities of color in Long Beach who are most impacted by GHG. And other toxic emissions from importing drilling, refining oil as. Well as from vehicle emissions. Sierra Club takes the position that oil should be left in the ground and. Cannot help but wonder. If increasing city revenues from drilling will. The center buys us to end oil operations in our community? Culver City is moving toward eliminating oil production, and Long. Beach must do the same. As stated in the agenda item, the Aquarium Pacific's calculations. Show that. Our oil operations are one of our largest polluters. Sierra Club stands with Black Lives Matter and advocates for defunding the police. Therefore, we do. Support a ballot measure to either repeal Prop. Eight or to redirect Prop eight funding for police officers and the related. Costs of policing. To address equity concerns. As instead, current operations. In the lower Cerritos wetlands are at the highest level of. Toxic emissions in the city. This area is within the sacred. Side of both Obama and both Sierra Club and tribal leaders. Oppose the city sponsored. Expansion of oil drilling operations, leading to the. Release, which will lead. To the release of an additional 70,000 tons. Of additional GHG emissions. Native Americans suffer when the land suffers both spiritually and physically. Racial and environmental. Justice for. Tribal people means leaving oil. And ancestors in. The ground as the oldest and largest environmental. Organization. In the United States. Sierra Club asks to be included in council members and city staff outreach. We have not been, I might point out. And to shape. A ballot measure. Should this agenda item be approved? I find. It very interesting that that no. City council member reached out to Sierra Club. And yet you managed to find people up in L.A.. So maybe you knew that we would have problems with funding social justice by. You know. From oil money. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have Cesar Armendariz. Your time starts now. Hello. My name is Cesar Armendariz. I live in zipCode and I know a24. I am calling in support of this item. When I think of oil and pollution, I can't help but think of my son. His name is Steel. He was born with chronic lung issues, and the more that we pollute the environment, the more likely that he is going to suffer because of it. And my story is not unusual. There are many, many people in the black and brown community, kids with respiratory issues because of the pollution in the air. So the other thing I think about is I want to make sure that when we move on from this earth that we leave behind something for the future generations. And the scientists have made it clear that unless we phase out immediately from oil corporations and fossil fuel corporations, that we are not going to leave a habitable planet behind for our kids. So for me, this to measure this item is about taxing the oil industry out of existence, period. Now, I understand that there are some political maneuvering that has to happen. I understand that everybody has to talk about incremental change and all of that. But this is about the environment. And ultimately, unless we act quickly, we're not going to leave the planet behind for our kids. And so I do support this item now as we think about, okay, if we were to tax the fossil fuel industry out of existence, what about the jobs of the people in that industry? Well, we should also be talking about a just transition process to a green economy, and that is part of this conversation. Now, in addition to that, I would like to see as we tax that oil industry out of existence, I'd like to see those that that tax revenue go to the black and brown folks who have been paying taxes with their lives. Air pollution is a big reason why black and brown folks have short lifespans. And so as we tax these big oil producers out of existence, it's important that the revenues go to the black and brown communities. Councilman Richardson has talked about dealing with the upstream issues rather than downstream issues. And so the upstream issues would include investing in the youth programs, libraries, park health programs. So I asked them when we passed the House tax possible, the revenues are specifically earmarked to lift up our black communities and other communities that have been left behind by our economic system. Councilwoman Mongo is right that oil production is diminishing and that we can't rely on this revenue stream. So to address our budget issues, we also have to look at our budget and reassess our priorities, which will also include divesting from the police and investing in programs that are more effective and helping our quality of life. Thank you very much. Thank you. Your next speaker is Christopher Chavez. Your time starts now. Yes. Mayor Garcia and city council members. My name is Chris Chavez and I am the deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air. I am also a resident of the sixth District. I wanted to thank the councilmember and the mayor for bringing this item forward. This is an important conversation and the need to correct decades of environmental injustice that the people on beach face, particularly those living in the western, central and northern parts of the city, needs to be addressed. Simply put, the global economy is subsidized by the health of long beaches, front line communities. The South Coast Air Quality Management District estimates over 75% of the air toxic cancer risk in West Long Beach is from diesel particulate matter. Oil drilling, transportation, storage and refining emit volatile organic compounds which help form smog and impact public health. Meanwhile, the climate crisis continues unabated, putting us all at risk for more extreme weather, coastal erosion, disaster intensification and more. What we cannot forget, however, is that communities of color and low income communities are disproportionately impacted by air pollution and the climate. Our letter to the Council submitted earlier today recommended several policies and practices for reinvesting and transforming the community. I want to emphasize for currently first the oil palm oil production tax revenues must be directly invested into Long Beach's disadvantaged and low income, low income communities. It's a similar to the requirements governing over the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the state's cap and trade program through SB 535 and AB 1550. Second, there must be community buy in and control over the investments and programs that are created through these funds. Third, local nonprofits and community benefit organizations that work to organize, educate or provide direct services to disadvantaged communities should receive some of these funds. Lastly, these investments should yield quantifiable benefits via air quality public health or economics to the community, as well as avoid harming the community and the population currently in place. Finally, if the city is truly committed to correcting these and other environmental injustices, Long Beach face as many environmental injustices the city must create and implement policies that are consistent with this goal. We urge the city to carefully consider its actions and incorporate environmental justice principles in its actions. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, we have Dave Shukla. Your time starts now. Hello, this is Dave Shukla. In this capacity, I speak as the operations director for the Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy. We wish to applaud the the council people who brought this motion forward. The voters deserve to decide where oil money are spent. Proposition eight. 11 years ago, they decided that public safety would be a priority. The values, the vision. The priority. Of this country, of the city. Are changing the revolt. There is no stopping, but there is no stopping the recognition that we have maybe ten years to not only bend the curve planetary emissions, but bring them all the way driven down on a trajectory that goes one direction, like the Mongols suggested. It draws down. We need to start discussing things like a drawdown date for his own oil operation. We need to start discussing things. Like the cost of inaction or how much money we've left on the table. We need to start talking meaningfully. Microsoft, as mentioned and as I mentioned earlier, only certain people have already been paid with their lives, with shortened life. For the way that other people live. The way that other people get from. And that's the crux. So much of what we talk about. When we talk about transforming the system into one that works for everyone. The people who are tired, who are desperately tired to an economy of death need not be. Patronage transitions, although. Thank you for your support on this item. Thank you. And last speakers and control your time starts now. Good evening. And control and looking at the air quality map included in the staff report. It's obvious that oil and gas production have a tremendous negative effect on air quality and health of Long Beach residents. This is one. Of Karp's arguments against allowing new oil drilling near the Los Cerritos wetlands. According to the ballot measure the staff report, the ballot measure will address two different taxes oil production and cannabis, and how these moneys will be spent. They should be. Two different ballot measures. It is stated that future cannabis revenue be spent on, quote, economic equity, health equity and youth investments. I believe most voters would agree with this use. This does. Not say how the oil production. Tax will be used. The staff report requests the city manager and the city attorney to provide options and financial impact on the amount of tax and mechanisms for a progressive tax. That. Increases over time and for a resolution defining the Council's intent for the use of the funds. Currently prop age oil revenues, $0.33 a barrel can only be used for fish, police and firefighters. I would suggest that the entire oil barrel tax increase be designated for clean energy, such as putting solar on every public building in Long Beach . This might make the syntax more acceptable to those of us who want to leave the oil in the ground. Also, the cost of this election is not three or $400,000. It is 1.4. Million dollars. I think that the council can come up with a better way. Of. Providing social equity than causing them spending over $1,000,000 for another election. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Do you think you will go? And with that, I think we're going to go ahead and do a roll call vote. District one. I district to. I district three i. District for. I. District five. High District six. High District seven. I. District eight. District nine. High motion carries. Thank you. Next item, please, is going to be on the eviction moratorium discussion. 26.