Recommendation to adopt the Budget Oversight Committee's proposed funding recommendations, as amended, to the FY 17 Proposed Budget.  (A-11)
Motion carries. Item 20. Recommendation to adopt the budget oversight committees proposed funding recommendations as amended to the fiscal year 17 proposed budget. Oh. Okay. I think. Mr. City Attorney, just on a protocol question. I think Councilman Wingo, as the chair, does she have the floor to explain it, to go over the the item? That is correct. The earlier this afternoon or this evening, the Budget Oversight Committee considered certain recommendations that were passed and the chair should introduce it and then it would be subject to debate on the floor. Okay. Councilman Mongo. And there's already a motion and a second on the floor to approve. The motion on the floor is to accept or to adopt the Budget Oversight Committee proposed funding recommendations as determined earlier today. Earlier today, the Budget Oversight Committee. Recommended a budget that is not balanced. And so I am asking my colleagues to vote no on this item and receive and file. And I have a I have a substitute motion. Can I receive in file this one and then make a motion or should I just substitute? I think what we need to do first is explain what was what was approved by the budget over. Capital. City so that the the body can decide whether you want to discuss amending it or approve as it was recommended by the budget oversight. Okay. Why don't we actually, I think what would be helpful is I think there's a there's Bossi recommendation handout that was passed out and councilman, go why don't you go through that so that it's pretty clear what the recommendations are. And then at that point, you can either substitute or we can vote on the motion. Thank you. Wonderful avoider. I'd like to speak to the motion as well. Oh, everything with the motion. Okay. Absolutely. Today, a budget oversight we recommended. Just for a point of clarification, I'm. Miss Eriksen, would it be best if I used the order from the structural document that we created after that meeting or. Can I read from the itemized document? Is this okay? Will your stuff be good with this one? The motion in languages is perfect. Perfect? Yep. I'm on it. Okay. Motion to amend Mayor Garcia's proposed budget recommendations and recommend the following changes to the City Council motion to use 1.666 in general fund one times, including for 75 from City Manager's Fiscal Year 17 proposed general fund strategic one time investments 600,000 in fiscal year 16 General Fund available 70,000 in fiscal year 17 General Fund Temporary surplus in 521 from a relief of reserves for litigation and liabilities that are no longer needed for their original purposes. This funding is to be appropriated as follows. 695 in the police department for the hiring of officers offset by reduction of force 75 and the city manager's proposed general fund strategic one time investments for minimum wage. Education and enforcement and 220,000 previously approved by the City Council for Wage Theft Enforcement. 280,000. In Health and Human Services Department for Homeless Rapid Response 150. And the Public Works Department for tree stump removal 96 in Parks Rec and Marine for expansion of Be Safe 65 and Library Services Department for the expansion of Sunday Library Hours 130 in Health and Human Services Department for Public Health Professional two and the Office of Equity 250,000 for Capital Infrastructure, Economic Development or existing city programing to be divided by nine for the City Council districts, any exceptions must go to the City Council for approval motion for contingent appropriation of fifth fiscal year 16 general fund surplus in the amount of 500,000, subject to funding availability for capital, infrastructure, economic development or existing city programing to be divided by nine for the city council districts. Any exceptions must go to the City Council for approval motion to use propositions and Proposition eight beginning funds available to appropriate $250,000 each in the police department and fire departments for homeless rapid response. Motion to use special advertising and promotion funds. Beginning funds available to purchase. I lost my line. Thank you. Appropriate 60,000 of Parks Rec and Marine Department for Municipal Band six week schedule motion to use fiscal year 17 savings and Thailand's Debt Service and appropriation in 500,000. And Public Works Department for Belmont Pool and Aquatic Center. Motion to Make 80,000 of the 176 in City Manager's proposed General Fund strategic one time investments for b safe structural offset by a decrease in structural funding for the Language Access Program, which will instead be funded as a one time in 17. And that's part of the Office of Equity Funding that's back uniting that motion to designate 500,000 of the 2.2 million for police overtime in city manager's proposed general fund strategic one time investments to a Neighborhood Safe Streets Initiative to be directed at the discretion of the police chief motion to use 1.08 million and measure a revenue in the fire department for the Restoration of Fire Rescue 12, offset by a reduction in public works department measure a funded residential street repair projects. An additional 30,000 is needed to fully fund the restoration, and then city staff are directed to utilize cost savings and or funds available to make up the needed balance. Thank you. The way we're going to do this, I just checked in with Charlie because I want to make sure we have the the protocol, right. Because Councilman Mongo does have the floor, but there are a first and a second on a on another motion, even though the councilman wants to make a substitute motion. So what we're going to do, I'm going to hear first from Councilmember Austin and then we're going to hear from Councilman Price. And then I go back to Councilwoman Mongo, who can then at that time, if you'd like, make another motion. Councilmember Austin Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And it has already been a very long day with the Budget Oversight Committee having a great, great work and debate on on this FY17 budget. I want to first start out by thanking you, Mr. Mayor, for proposing a a budget and giving us a strong guideline, our city manager, our financial management staff. I want to commend the work of the Budget Oversight Committee chair, Councilmember Mongo and Pryce as well. We've all put a lot of sweat equity and brain equity into coming up with a document that I believe truly reflects the values and priorities of the residents throughout the city and the diverse priorities of the residents throughout the city of Long Beach. I am in support of of this Budget Oversight Committee recommendation, and I'm encouraging the City Council to support it as well. There is an area of a rub. And as you heard from the Budget Oversight Committee chairperson, she believes that there is a structural imbalance in this proposal, which is her prerogative. But I disagree. In this city, managers and mayors proposed budget. They propose to restore public safety services in the same vein in which we are seeking to do so in this Budget Oversight Committee recommendation. We looked at this budget very carefully and looked at where opportunities were, and this $1,080,000 to restore rescue 12, in my opinion, is very necessary. Just in the past week, we have had two rescues go out of service, which meant delays. And those delays can result in a loss of life and our inability to save lives. We made a commitment as a city council to the residents of the city to restore public safety services. To the best extent we possibly could make. And we didn't tell you them that we were going to put this much in to this and this much into that. I mean, I think the city empowered this council to come up with priorities and to to to to address the needs of this city. And and I want to thank Councilmember Price for her support on the Budget Oversight Committee for this recommendation as well. I do have a question for for the chief. I made my comments. And also I want to while the chief is taking coming up, I do want to just recognize the the advocacy from some of our council colleagues, member Rich Richardson, in particular, the last budget cycle. There were people lined up here from North Long Beach. There were postcards. There was a campaign put forth to restore Rescue 12. It was a priority for our city, which we weren't able to deliver. A year ago, we went to our residents and we we asked them to take the leap of faith to raise their sales tax in an effort to improve public safety and infrastructure. And I will tell you that in proposed the Nephi 17, there will be some tremendous infrastructure repairs throughout our city. Public safety resources will be restored. And not only police, but fire. But at this juncture, I think it's very, very important to look at this as an opportunity. We're talking about $1 million a year over the next three years, over the next five years, whatever it takes. That is a small investment for livelihoods in the city of Long Beach. And so, Chief, Mark, my question is, will this $1,080,000 in measured revenue, is that adequate to restore rescue 12? Mr. Mayor. Council Members Council. Council Member Austin. Yes, I mean, it's about $50,000 less than the actual cost of a rescue. What we would be able to absorb that. All right. And then and then secondly, I know as a department chair, as a as a department head, you laid out priorities for restorations, for rescues and engines for this council over the last couple of budget cycles. Can you remind us what those restoration priorities were. For Council Member in 2013? I sent a memo to the mayor and the full council that outlined those restoration priorities. It began with Fire Engine eight, which has been a topic of discussion in this proposed budget. Then would come rescue 12. Then would come engine 17. Then Rescue 22. And finally on to Engine 101. And today, as of today, that the data sets that we used to make that decision in 2013 have not have not changed. And with the restoration of rescue 12 help take any strain off of the existing system for four. Paramedic responses. Well, Councilmember Yes, the the reality is any time you put another resource into this system, it will ease the pressure on the entire system and in turn, provide greater opportunities for us to lower our response time citywide. All right. Thank you. I have no other questions. I would just ask to my council colleagues. Support the C recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilman Price, who is the second year on the motion. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I, too, want to start by thanking our the chair of the block, Councilwoman Mungo. She worked really hard on this budget and her recommendations. I agree with almost entirely. And I really appreciate the work that she's put into the budget. Again, almost everything that she's recommended, I think is spot on. I also want to thank the mayor for the budget recommendations that he brought forward. I think those are very thorough and they take into account the budget priorities that the residents have voiced to us over the course of these last few months, as well as in the budget surveys. And of course, our staff has worked really hard on this. Leah Erikson should be commended for working so closely with Councilwoman Munger, Chair, Mongo on this budget. Both of them have done an exceptional job. I support this motion, but I do want my colleagues to know that I'm open to suggestions and recommendations. My hope is that we can have a discussion. We measure a past. And we talked about some of the proposals for Measure A in terms of infrastructure. But I don't believe that we have yet had a discussion regarding the proportion of money that we allocate to public safety and the proportion of money that we allocate to infrastructure . And having to modify that. Our public safety scenario in the city is changing very rapidly. I think many of us on the council are receiving more and more calls every day regarding the types of crimes that are impacting the lives of our everyday residents. We are receiving calls regarding public safety issues like a lack of resources in terms of fire resources. And I think those issues are something that we need to talk about as a council. Just because we had a plan in place at the time of the measure. A campaign doesn't, in my opinion, at least this is how I communicated to my residents, is that our focus would be infrastructure and public safety and that we would be working together as we go through the years, through the months to make adjustments, as long as that money is allocated for those two purposes. And I think this is a time for us to have a discussion regarding our priorities moving forward. I think that as chair of the Public Safety Committee, I receive calls constantly and also we discuss within the committee the resources that we have and the lack of resources that we have. And that's why for me, any time we are allocating money to any causes or or any issues, the first question I ask is where else could this money be better spent? Where else would our residents be needing this money more? And it's important for me that we think mindfully about that before we make decisions on allocating money. Because the number one response that I give to my residents when they call and they want more enforcement or shorter response times, is that we have a lack of resources. So it's hard for me to be able to justify that answer if I know that we're allocating money elsewhere. So for me, most of the time, I'm probably going to be in favor of allocating any extra money that we have to public safety. In regards to Councilman Austin's motion. You know, we have areas in the city of Long Beach that have 10 to 15 minute response times for paramedics and 911. And we're meeting the standard of the the national the recommended standard of 6 minutes, only less than half of the time when we're responding to two two incidents. And of course, with the addition and the restoration of services, gradually that number will get better. But I think when you're thinking about that response time, if you're a person in need of care and you have to wait 10 minutes for the paramedics to arrive, that is a higher priority than getting an additional two streets fixed or three streets fixed. I just think it's important for us to have a little bit of perspective here in terms of what we're allocating our money to. I'm not saying infrastructure is not important. It's absolutely important. I'm just saying it's important for us to think about perspective as we move forward. We have for the next six years approximately $47 million of revenue that but for an unforeseen circumstance we can count on in the city of Long Beach, we can plan that that $47 million over the course of the next six years and try to get as much of our infrastructure done as possible. But I think we should have some perspective in terms of the proportion of money that we're allocating to public safety versus infrastructure. Both of them are great causes that. Benefit the city. But I think that we need to focus really on that. And then finally, I did want to make a comment and I said it in Boise, and I'm not sure how many of my colleagues were there, but the money that we reallocated as a recommendation from wage enforcement, you know what I said it Boise is I'm perfectly okay with giving some money to wage enforcement. I have a hard time with the 700,000 because I don't believe that that's money that's necessary to go into that department or that that effort. Now, perhaps once we find out whether we can even enforce, we can allocate more. But I don't think that's money that we need to allocate today. Instead, I think that's money that we can use towards beefing up our public safety resources. And I would like that money to be allocated to the police department for their use in terms of additional police resources. But again, I'm open to suggestions. I'm open to talking with my colleagues. You know, this isn't one of those things. I have a feeling that there's, you know, some agreements in the works or whatever. I just want us to make sure we have a discussion that we're all kind of involved in so that we can move forward . And I also know that in regards to the municipal band Councilman Austin and I recommended that we stick with the current schedule. You know, that's what we're hearing from the band, folks, in terms of what makes sense for them. If in fact, and I know Councilwoman Mango feels strongly about a different proposal, so I want her to have the opportunity to communicate that because again, this is just a recommendation and I'm open to any suggestions and would love to hear from my colleagues on it. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go back to Councilman Mongo who has the floor and and you're able to make your substitute if you'd like to now. Thank you. I'd like to start by asking the chief a question. Both chiefs are there. How great. Chief Terry, would you recommend that a city put something in place as important as a rescue if there's no plan to keep it in place long term? Mr. Mayor? Council members. Objection. Leading. Yeah. I'm taking a note from my colleague. Two seats over. Oh, she actually gets argumentative. Okay, great. So we have a we have a question, so we're gonna get the question answered and then get back to the votes. Mr.. Mr. Mayor, council member, could you apologize? Could you ask the question again, please? Would you recommend that our city put something in place as important as a rescue if we do not have a plan or funding to keep it in place long term? Well, Councilmember, I. I think the city has established and we have done in the fire department a very good job over the years at putting things in place that have structural support behind them. I think we've seen things being put in place and then shortly thereafter, due to budget constraints, they get taken out again. I think it'd be very difficult for me to determine exactly what the future looks like at any given time, but I would only be supportive of restoring things if it was structurally restored. Thank you. In recommending in alignment with the Chief and the Budget Directors recommendations that we should structurally fund structural things, I'd like my colleagues to support a receive and file of this motion. Okay. So there is a substitute. Councilman. Yes. Okay. So there's a substitute motion to receive and file the B or C recommendations. That's not a motion. I move to receive and file the recommendation of the B or C. That's a motion. That's correct. It would it would in effect, there would be no recommendation from the EEOC to adopt on the budget. Okay. So the motion is a substitute motion. We're going to take a vote on this. I know there's. There's still public comment. There's comment from the other member. But. Councilman, I have the floor. So thank you. So unless Councilman Pearce, Councilmember Pearce or Vice Mayor Richardson want to speak to this motion, which I'm. No, no. Okay. So not now. You want to vote first on the substitute to receive and file? I have some questions on the substitute. Absolutely. So let me first just go through the other. So, Councilman Pearce, you removed yourself. So, Vice Mayor Richardson, I'm assuming then do you want to speak to the substitute or not? We're going to go back to the discussion now. I'm going to withdraw. Okay. So then please withdraw so I can do this in the right order. Now I have Councilwoman Price. Thank you. So I guess the question I have is. If we haven't already voted on the budget priorities for next year's measure funds and how do we know this isn't going to be structural? Well, currently the way that. I actually saw a couple among I was actually I probably should have said it better. I guess the question was for Leah Erikson, because we're talking about I mean, you're welcome to comment on it, too. But that was my question, was that if we haven't yet voted on how we're going to use Measure a funds next year , then how do we know this isn't going to be structural? I'm just confused about that. Vice Mayor No, actually, the question is to staff. So I'm going to I'm going to direct this question to staff. So Councilman Price has the floor and it's a question to staff. Mr. ERICSON Councilwoman Price of as I indicated in the Budget Oversight Committee earlier today, we have a three year outlook for our use of Measure A and are in our budget and in our three year outlook we included $150 million infrastructure spending plan with projects that are detailed and listed. In fact, in the budget book we have 17 projects listed and a list, tentative list for FY 18. And then we also have maintaining public safety services and restoration of of a fire engine eight and the South Police Division. With all of that, we have plans for the measure eight funds for the next three years. So any dollar taken away or any dollar added to expand public safety would need to come from a dollar that was previously planned for for infrastructure. So this motion currently identifies an offset for the 17 portion. And what we are doing is we're respectfully asking for direction from city council on what would not get funded for infrastructure in the next two years. So but the budget outlook that you're talking about, how would we go about amending that budget outlook? What would be the process for that? Councilwoman Pryce, you could direct that you do the restoration and then you would identify what infrastructure that. So you're basically giving us direction to fund public safety, additional public safety, and then you would identify what infrastructure you wouldn't want to that you would what category of infrastructure that you would decrease the funding from. Could we do would we have to identify that category tonight or could we have a date certain where we come back? Because if if each council member, for example, deferred $100,000 or $150,000 of projects for 2018, that would give us the money that we need to restore. Engine I'm sorry. Rescue 12. Councilwoman Price, you could you could come back. But just to note, we did have the Citizens Advisory Committee meet on this exact plan last, last week and approve it. So any changes to that plan would also need to go through the Citizens Oversight Committee, too, as well. And so you could come back at a future date. Okay. And that's just what I want. I mean, obviously, the Citizen Advisory Committee wants to make sure that we're spending the money on public safety and infrastructure, but we can still I mean, we're not tied for the next three years to every single project we can modify things. That was my understanding when we voted on it, that that we weren't tied to these projects for all time. I mean, things might come up that might necessitate us spending money in different areas. So I'm imagining that we can take a vote as a council on that, right? Councilman Price That is correct. It's just that normally when you when you it does involve tradeoffs. And so to be clear to the to everybody involved, this does require less infrastructure. And so the sooner that we have clear expectations from city council on what direction you want to take, the better it is for setting expectations. So, yes, you're correct. It could change later. So basically what this would mean is if we were to approve this recommendation tonight, the next year of the $47 million that we're going to get in 2018, we would have to find $1 million of that money that would go to rescue 12. Correct. And so that would mean 1 million less of infrastructure spending in 18. Right. 1 million. And what's the total infrastructure spending that we have scheduled for 18? When? One moment me grab that 37 million. It's $37.1 million. Is the tentative list for a fight 18. So instead of $37 million, we would spend $36 million and we'd be able to restore an engine in North Long Beach and increase response times for people that are in need of medical attention. I mean, to me, it seems like we could work together to come up with that million. You know what? What I would love to know is I know there's an alternative plan in place. I mean, I've definitely seen the movement that's going around the council chambers. I would love to know what it is so that I could decide how I want to vote on this motion, because maybe there's an alternative plan that's better . And so, you know, I would I would ask Chair Mango if maybe, you know, I don't know how this works kind of with the strategy, but I'd love to hear what alternatives are available before we vote, because I know she's been working very hard on this. So I guess that's a question not from us, Erikson, but for Ms.. Ms.. With chair. Chair. Mango. I'm unable to agree with anything that doesn't provide at least $3.3 million to restore rescue 12 for the full three years. And so with that, I'd like to vote on receiving and filing this and going to a balanced budget proposal, at which time I'm open to discussions of Rescue 12, again, like I asked for at Bossi. But unfortunately my colleagues did not give me that opportunity. So I just like to vote, to receive and file. And at that time we can get to a balanced budget. Okay. I'm going to go to Councilmember Austin unless Councilman Price's anything else. I don't have anything else. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. Okay. So I guess the question is for our financial management. Ms.. ERICKSEN. Um, the the restoration of engine eight. How is that different from what we're proposing to do to rescue 12? Council member Austin We programed the restoration for fire engine eight in all three years of our outlook and therefore it came off the top and therefore there was less money for the infrastructure spending in the plan. So so we did account for it every year of the three year outlook as a structural spending. But every year it still has to come before the city council for it to get approved. Is that correct? That is correct. And so if city council chose not to approve Rescue eight and 18, that there could be one or $2.3 million of additional funding for infrastructure or for other public safety purposes. So from the from the this Mungo's argument that the restoration of Rescue 12 is is somehow not structural. Would the same thing be said for engine eight? I'm sorry. Can you please repeat your question? The argument that the restoration of Rescue 12 not being structural, could the same thing be said for rescue for engine eight? Councilmember Austin, as I mentioned, we did structurally plan well. You planned it over a three year outlook, right? I mean, so I just don't understand how how restoring a rescue in this the using the theme park what might measure a is any different is particularly when we have to come here year after year after year to approve the budget. It's it's a shell game. And and for this council, it's about priorities. And so I don't have any further questions. I would just, again, ask that my my colleagues support the bill's recommendations and reject these receive a file. Okay. We're not going to go to a vote. There is a substitute motion by Councilman Bongo to receive and file this motion. So please, members. Gordon, cast your votes. Was. The motion to receive and file both these recommendations. Motion carries. Okay, motion carries. So the basic recommendations have failed. Now we're going back to Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to amend Mayor Garcia's proposed budget recommendation and recommend the following changes to the City Council. If you were here for Budget Oversight Committee, you've heard this once before. There are very few adjustments. Motion to use one point. Actually, there are no adjustments. Motion to use 1.191 in general fund one time funding, including 600,000 in fiscal year 16 general funds available 70 in fiscal year 17 general funds temporary surplus and 521 from a relief of reserves for litigation liabilities that are no longer needed for their original purposes. This funding is to be appropriated as follows. 280,000 and Health and Human Services Department for Homeless. Rapid response in the Public Works Department for. Tree removal replacement. And and stamp removal 96,000 for the Parks and Recreation and Marine for the expansion of the Be Safe program 65,000 and Library Services Department for the expansion of Sunday library hours to a fourth Branch library to be determined by the Department 130 and Health and Human Services Department for the Public Health Professional two and the Office of Equity 220,000 and Financial Management Department for local investigations related to wage to 250,000 and capital infrastructure, economic development or existing city programs to be divided by nine for city council districts . And exceptions must go to the City Council for approval motion for contingent appropriation of fiscal year 16. General fund surplus in amount of 500,000, subject to the funding availability of capital, infrastructure, economic or existing city programs to be divided by nine for the City Council districts. Any exceptions must go to the City Council for approval motion to use beginning funds available to appropriate 20 50,000 in each of police and fire for a total of 500,000 for homeless. This rapid response motion to use the Special Advertising and Promotions Fund as AP Beginning Fund Balance Balance to appropriate $90,000 in Parks Recreation Marine for Municipal Band eight week alternative schedule motion to use Fiscal Year 17 Savings and Tidelands Debt Service to appropriate in 500,000 in the Public Works Department for Belmont Pool and Aquatic Center. Motion to make 80,000 of the 176 in the City Manager's proposed general fund strategic one time investment for B safe structural offset by the structural availability by Language Access Program, and it's merged into the Office of Equity Motion to designate 500,000 of the 2.2 million for police overtime in the city manager's proposed budget for strategic one time investments in the Neighborhood Safe Streets Initiative as directed by the police chief. Okay. There's emotion any second on the on the motion. I'm going to turn first over to Vice Mayor Richardson and then we'll go down the list. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want I was silent on the last vote because I wanted the opportunity to put everything in context and not piecemeal out certain justifications here. And I'm going to end with a friendly amendment. So, number one, the Budget Oversight Committee does not have full control of the city council. And although we we do work to to sort of respect those recommendations when there are dramatic changes right before the vote, it makes me lose confidence in their ability to actually present something that the city councils can support. And the indication of that is when the chair votes against the product that comes directly out of their committee. As a chair of a committee. I would I would hope that, you know, if something comes out of the committee that the chair can't support, the city council would consider that this was a dramatic change, a completely dismantled wage theft, which was a very significant issue here in this city that we discussed. And we found a middle ground approach that respected business, and it addresses workers concerns and that was completely thrown to the side. And the excuse was a very insulting and insincere attempt to utilize or leverage a very real need for a rescue in North Long Beach for north Long Beach residents. And that's why right now I'm going to go through why this made absolutely no sense and why we need to have a better plan. And we're going to talk about that plan tonight. So, number one, the recommendations here, there are a lot of good things here. Number one, we we we supported one position to support equity in the health department, which has been a priority at city council. So that's a great thing. We should acknowledge there's, you know, homelessness, rapid response, a creative way to leverage police and fire and add additional positions to go out and respond immediately, immediately to the homelessness issues popping up citywide across our city. Next, there was I mean, you know, library hours are things we support. A lot of good things that have organically come up through the community and that that that I do want to support. So I'm glad that those things are in this motion. The the context about rescue 12, the recommendation I could not support for a couple of different reasons, but I want to kind of go through this exercise and better understand it. So so city attorney, the recommendation that came out of that came out of Boston on rescue 12. What was. Can you just restate that? So we know so we understand what that was and why this is very different. I'll explain the why, but you can just tell me what it is. Thank you. There was a motion that was adopted by the Bloc was to use $1,080,000 and measure a revenue taken, I think, from the Street Improvement Fund to fund the fire department or rescue 12. And it's offset by public works measure funds residential street repair an additional 30,000 is needed to fully fund the restoration and staff was directed to find funds available to make up that balance. So how long would that funding last? Like, how long will we actually have that rescue based on that allocation of funding? Vice mayor. This this identifies the basically the first full year of funding for the rescue. This was. About a year's worth of funding. Okay, so what would happen? So, number one, what is are we projecting a deficit next year or a surplus next year or the year after? Vice Mayor Richardson We are in fact projecting shortfalls in 18 that will need to be balanced in next year's budget. So in order to maintain that restoration, we would have to, as a council, either cut or identify new revenue, correct? That is correct. Okay. So there are I do appreciate admire all the ideas about, you know, being creative about infrastructure. And I personally know and I've been following and I know a great many of many people have been following other infrastructure revenue opportunities associated with infrastructure like L.A. County Measure M and and so have we taken a look at that as a city like what our potential impact might be? What are we if should voters make a decision to move forward with that? Vice Mayor Richardson Yes, we do. We do have estimated impacts. If it's passed based on the local return, that would come to the city of Long Beach. And do we have a rough number on what we think that is? Yes. It's approximately $7. Million. $7 million. So if the voters approved that in November, couldn't we reprioritize infrastructure funding in the general fund to support services instead, since we have an additional funding source, ongoing funding source for that. So if Measure M were to become available part of the $150 million plan, that was an infrastructure investment plan that could be funded by a number of different ways of money that would be coming in. So the council could take a look at that again. And if they wanted to use additional street money from Measure M or stick with what is currently planned. And when is that? When will we know whether that's on the table or not? November eight. So two months from now. Yeah. Okay. So are there other revenue opportunities? I know that the city council vote voted to place a cannabis item on the agenda for November. And have we done an analysis of the revenue impact from that source? We are. We have done an analysis of Measure M-A and it where it can vary pretty wildly. But what we're estimating is if recreational and medical marijuana use were allowed, it would generate about $13 million. $13 million structurally, and $7 million for infrastructure. Okay. So when in a question about Measure eight, when does Measure eight actually kick in? When do we start collecting? January one. But not at the beginning of this upcoming FY17 fiscal year. Correct. January one instead of October one. I understand. So the problem with the BMC BMC original recommendation is that it uses it uses it doesn't structurally fund restoration. This leads to could this have an impact on our credit score as the city. Ask Lee Erickson to answer that. I? Vice Mayor Richardson. Yes. One of the things that the credit rating agencies do look at is whether or not we follow our financial policies and strictly balance the budget every year. So it could potentially have an impact. Okay. So this puts in that recommendation could potentially lead to about a negative credit rating on the city, a potential of putting rescue 12 back in service just to pull it out at the next budget. Should new revenue not not be available and in frankly, it's too contingent on it's not a strong solid plan and it rolled the dice with lives and you can't do that. I agree. We have fought for six years to restore rescue 12 since my predecessor, Steve Neal, was in office. And we yes. Last budget, when R&D was eliminated, we did fight and we have continued to fight and organize in the communities to do this. I want to see this happen, but I personally feel North Long Beach and all the cities, all the residents our city deserve a real plan, a better plan, not, you know, not a half baked plan. And so what we know is that we have potentially two revenue sources that could or could not be available in just two months. We know that we have potentially improved revenue projections on the first responder fee, which is fairly new. We know that measure kicks in in January and that there may be an ability to leverage measure a improved projections from first responder fee potential, you know, potential revenue from measure made here in Long Beach and measure aim at the county. We know all those things. So I want to conduct I want to make a friendly amendment now to councilmember budget chair mongo that we conduct an analysis of all of these revenue opportunities that include measure em, Long Beach measure, L.A. County measure and Long Beach measure in May and the first responder fee. And we make a plan to restore additional apparatus three months from now in January. Once that has happened, three months from now, in January, once we know what our complete budget picture, picture, our pictures, our picture is, and once we understand what the what the voters are going to do. And just to make sure that we are you know, that this is important and the entire city council has expressed that maybe infrastructure might not be the top priority one. We want to make sure this is sincere and put some money aside right now to support that should it move forward. So to support this plan and if the other revenue doesn't doesn't cover it, then we this is what we can do to kind of support this. But we don't want to spin it because it's not structural. We want to just hold it to the side. So to support this plan, let's set aside $1 million and measure any funds from let's let's see. I think I see we have 500 from the each of the ranchos and reserve it to support these restorations until this plan has come forward and we have we have some clarity on our revenue picture. So that's my friendly amendment. I'd like to hear all friendlies before making any decisions. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Richardson, are you all done with your comments? I am for now. Okay. Councilmember Pierce and I know just real quick before Councilman Pacheco, I think there may be a problem with some folks screen. So just the order I have is councilmember pearce, councilman price, councilmember your ranga, councilman austin and councilmember super nice offer and then Councilman Gonzalez. So next up is I'm sorry, Councilmember Pearce. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank all the work that's been done by staff, by the council, by the mayor in preparing the budget and really trying to be thoughtful and measured with what kind of budget we passed today. And I'll echo the comments by my colleague, Vice Mayor Richardson. We've when it comes to wage theft, we've already been there. I think there was a commitment last week to make sure that money was there and that we table that for future discussion about how those dollars are spent. But want to make sure that that because we just did it last week, stays there. Second, I want to say, you know, I appreciate going back and funding some of our libraries and and parks. I think there's more that we can do and want to encourage us to kind of look at that and continue that conversation as we go forward about where some dollars might be found for that. But third, I have to say, guys, while I while we've been having this meeting, we've said a lot of things about public safety being a number one priority that, you know, we've people voted very highly for measure with the assumption that we were going to invest in public safety. We know through, you know, different conversations in our computer community budget process that public safety has been a number one priority. And while we're sitting here in our council meeting, there was a fight and shots fired in Alamitos Beach tonight. And so we have a marine area that has poor lighting, that doesn't have enough staff, that is consistently struggling to make sure that we have safe areas, whether that's around our restrooms, whether that's, you know, up against the seawall. And that when we're talking about what number one is important is safety. And we have consistently had community members come out and say that they do not want to invest in one time funds on things like pools. But we want to invest in public safety. I think we have to look at the dollars that we have here. And this year alone, we have $1.7 million allotted to a pool that doesn't have a plan to be built yet. While we all are in agreement that public safety is a priority. So while we have two 2 million, we've got 2 million this year allotted to that. And that is new money without a plan. So I have a question for our staff. How much would oil cost have to go up in order for us to reach a plan to see this pool being built at the $103 million mark ? That question makes. Sense. So that's a difficult question to answer, but I'll do my best in. I'll give an example. In 2015, when oil was at $100 a barrel, we were essentially going to be fully funded for $103 million, was going to bring in about $39 million. And that would have gone to fund the pool so oil could go back up. It would need picking an exact number is very difficult. There are other funding solutions that we're trying to work on, but if it was just relying on oil, it'd have to go up pretty high. And how much do construction costs go up each year that we wait? That's also a difficult question to answer. We've estimated in the past that it could go up about $4 million a year, about 4% if it's a $100 million plan and it's 4%. We have seen cost escalation go above that. It really is project specific. In some projects, in cost escalation is 10% and others it's, you know, 1 to 2%. So it can vary pretty wildly. But I'd say 4 to 5 million a year is a potential. 4 to 5 million a year. And this year we have 2 million slotted for it with no real idea about where we're going with other funding cost. I would like to also ask of our fire and police department how what's the increase in calls that we have annually that 2%, 5%? Councilwoman Pierce for the police department in 2015, we had a a little over a 10%. Increase in our call. For calls for service volume. And I want to say, year to date, the last time I looked at the numbers for 2016, we were up a little over 7%. So it is our workload is definitely increasing. Councilmember The fire department is much the same. We typically our 20 year historical average, we typically see a 3 to 5% call volume increase annually. This year, however, we're right at about 6% in total call volume. Wow. Thank you, guys. I mean, to me, I cannot. You know, with a full heart. Say that I want to fund something that doesn't have a pathway right now with Tidelands funds, which, you know, are only in two districts. I would want to see those Thailand funds used to offset public safety with shovel ready projects like lifeguards making sure that our lighting is there and ensuring that we have dollars there for overtime pay for our Marine patrol that we seem to be short on right now. And so I would like to make a friendly to the council member to a lot $31,000 or $31 million to public safety and shovel ready projects in the in the area. Wow. That's a price. That's a lot more than I thought you were going for when you started that speech. I'll start by saying that in a similar way that I don't believe in funding things that aren't having a path to funding like the engine. I feel the pool is different because it is money being set aside towards a one time, if that makes sense. And I would not be comfortable taking away funds that had already been allocated by prior councils at this time. Without a plan or a. I need something much more broad and. A much more specific and much less broad on money for the police department or something. But I do have an awesome list, I would say, of of fire department overtime at $2 million, beach lighting and public safety improvements at six. But I, I hear that when I started this, 31 million was not something that was on the table. Would you be willing to accept a friendly for this year's funding of one of 2 million? What would you use it for? We would use that form of marine patrol equipment and over time we would use that for beach lighting and safety improvements and fire department, tidelands, infrastructure. So all things that are one time fees. I'll take it under advisement. Thank you. And, Mr. Mayor, if I can add quickly, just a point of clarification. We believe what's in the budget for the 17 budget for the pool. If I can just clarify that there is $1 million out of Tidelands. And then there was in the city manager's proposed budget, $500,000 in a contingent appropriation in the general fund, which is , I understand the Bossi recommendations would swap that with Tidelands. So for a total really all told, if the Bossi recommendations go forward of 1.5 million and it's all tidelands, no general fund. So would the things she's asking for qualify are all of those things in the. I mean, I guess you'd have to. They're all in the title and they're. All in the title. Yes. Okay. I'm not accepting. Not an okay of accepting, but okay of understanding. Yes. Okay. To be clear, it is using those Thailand funds instead of using them for infrastructure of a pool, using them for safety along our Marine. It's just so hard for me to take money from an investment to move it into a safety idea, especially things like overtime in the such. But I will take it under advisement. What? Next up, we have Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay. So a few few thoughts here. I agree with Councilman Richardson's position that there were a lot of good points in this budget. I completely agree with that. I think there are a lot of great priorities in this budget. I don't necessarily follow the logic. Not that I not that it's wrong. It's just I don't follow it in regards to this idea that things are half baked because, you know, for example, he's asking about marijuana revenue. What? We have a two from four that staff wrote. And although he asked about the revenue, he didn't ask the follow up question of what the enforcement costs would be to the city and actually were projecting to go into a deficit as a result of that. So, you know, I think, yeah, it's absolutely the revenue is going to come in, but there is a cost to the city to enforce and police it. But so we have to factor that in. So we're basically relying on a projection and making financial plans based on a projection of what might happen. Measure A, you know, and I and I appreciate that. You know, we're we're all you know, Councilman Austin and I and many of my colleagues who even if they're not voting, weren't voting with the recommendations that came out of Bossie tonight. I think the one thing that I think is factual is those who are in favor of Rescue 12 fully and completely understand that it's going to benefit directly Councilman Richardson's residents. And that's okay. And that's great. It's a wonderful thing. And I find it ironic that in looking for the revenue to set aside, he's looking at facilities and other districts and not his own as a place to set aside the money. You know, for example, there's $4 million set aside for Highland Park. Certainly a million of that could be set aside. But in any event, in the spirit of what we promised the residents and what we promised the citizens in regards to measure A, we specifically made some commitments to them as to the ranchos. So I want to talk about that first. I can't speak for Rancho La Cerritos because I'm not as involved in their project as I am with Rancho Los Alamitos. But Rancho Los Alamitos, it's not getting a facelift and there's not going to be any sort of luxurious accommodations. It's getting a new roof, it's getting some seismic structural improvements made to it. And Long Beach Unified requires, as part of its curriculum that students every student in a certain grade go through Rancho Los Alamitos, which is a city facility. And I know any biotech is not here, and I don't know if there's anybody here who could speak to it. But the the seismic issues that Rancho Los Alamitos are actually very real. And again, this isn't a beautification project. It's a safety project. So in the whole spirit of, you know, we've promised we can't go into 27, 2018 because we have a budget outlook that includes information that we haven't yet committed to, but that residents might be looking forward to. I don't know how we would go into 2017 where we've already published the list of what's going to happen and take away from those projects. But so I would I would ask my colleagues not to support that. Setting aside that money, I think it's interesting. You know, Councilman Richardson, I would say to you, I'm here. I congratulated you heavily with the Michelle Obama library. I'm here supporting everything I can do for Rescue 12. I support what you've done in your district. And I would hope that we don't get to a place where we're where we're divisive. I understand some may be upset at my stance on the wage enforcement issue last week and the fact that I didn't think it was a prudent use of money. But in general, I support my colleagues use of money in their districts and use of building up the infrastructure and making the lives for the residents in their district better. And you'll never see me vote against a project that you have proposed for your district, ever. I just don't do that, and I wouldn't do that. But we're talking about citywide issues, I think about whether or not we have other priorities. And and so I would just hope that, you know, we can we can separate the issues from one week to the next and not hold grudges that result in things like taking money away from seismic facilities that seismic needs. And in regards to the pool, you know, I appreciate where Councilwoman Pierce is coming from. I think it will be interesting. And I, you know, definitely want to hear what the aquatics community thinks about this, because this is the first I've heard her want to take $30 million from the pool project. So it will me that's certainly not something I had heard in my. I am. I work with Councilwoman Pearce in advance of her being on council and the numerous discussions that we had. So it does take me by surprise a bit that she'd want to take $30 million from the pool. But but I do want to say a few things about the pool. Much has been made of the pool. Yes, the pool is an expensive facility. We have heard a lot of people say it's more expensive because of where it's located. That's actually not true. The place price per square foot of the pool is the same price per square foot as competitive aquatics facilities throughout the United States. In fact, we fall right in the middle range. The thing about the pool that's different is that we're going to be able to house and see competitions at the pool, which we haven't been able to do. We don't have any facility in the city of Long Beach that can house and see competitions. Why is that important? Because out of one of our local high schools alone, we have churned out more Olympians than any other city in this region. Wilson High School has churned out more Olympic athletes than any other high school in this region. So the aquatics lifestyle is a huge source of pride for the city. And, you know, long before Councilwoman Pierce or even I got onto this body, there were discussions about the plans for the pool. I stepped into this role, and I honored and respected the work of my predecessor with the aquatics community to get the project to the place that it was when I entered the scene. And we had a stakeholder committee with residents and aquatics professionals to talk about what the needs of the pool would be to try to make this a facility that could really be an iconic facility for the city of Long Beach. The money that's proposed right now is investment money to try to find a funding gap. We are not going to be able to fund the pool through tidelands money alone. And that's why we are going to be taking $500,000 and investing in future funding opportunities, whether that be grants or whether it be fund raising. We've already met. We're working very hard. Trust me, my colleagues, I'm not sitting here waiting to build the pool year by year at $500,000 a year allocations every year. We're working really hard. The mayor, I want to thank him. He's been incredibly helpful to me and the city manager and assistant city manager Tom Modica. And we're we're trying to find creative ways to fund the pool. We're working hard on that. We definitely are not going to be looking to the general fund to fund $44 million of the pool. We're talking about $500,000 to try to invest in funding opportunities for the city of Long Beach. A lot of fund raising companies require you to give money in order to be able to set up a fundraising plan. And if we're going to raise $40 million, we can't just do it based on amateur fund raising techniques. We're going to need to bring in a private company to help us figure out what our options are. So that's the story with the pool. And so I would urge my colleagues, you know, let's again, you have never seen me and nor will you ever see me vote against a project that's going to benefit your residents in your district. None of you. We may not see eye to eye on things, but I'm not going to punish your residents because you didn't like something I did the week before, and I'd ask you to please not do that to my residents either. We don't agree on wage enforcement. That's okay. But please, let's not carry that meeting after meeting because that's not fair to my residents and certainly not fair to the thousands of Long Beach Unified School students who go through the Rancho every year. So thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilmember Gringo. Thank you, Mayor. You know, budget season is never easy. I go through a budget season every January with my wife. Talking about how we're going to spend our money for the year. Looking forward to April 15 to when we have to do our taxes. And then sometimes we come up with the budget surprises, making donations that I didn't know she made or me making a donation that she didn't expect that I made. So there's always these negotiations and these nuances with budgets that that are very difficult. And that's what we're dealing with right now. It's never easy. When I was I was looking at the at the EEOC meeting earlier today, and I was somewhat taken aback by some of the recommendations that were coming through, because I saw them as 11th hour type changes that I, I questioned because as far as I was already . Oriented, too. We made a commitment to the people through Marjorie that we were going to use those funds. As we said, we were infrastructure, public safety, and we were going to take care of all those issues that we needed to. Once those funds start kicking in in 2017, 2018. Including and that included, you know, monies towards reestablishing not only a south division for the police department, but also hiring new police department personnel and also reinstituting Engine eight and Rescue 12. It's all there. Why is it important for like at this point to do that? I would just taken aback by it. And it wasn't so much that that I was taken aback by. It was how we were going to fund them, you know, at the expense of of a minimum wage, at the expense of of the municipal band. We promised that we were going to give eight weeks back to six weeks. That's going backwards. We were also going to take money away from homelessness response. We're going to cut back on the safe program, some library hours. I mean, I just couldn't couldn't fathom why we were making those kinds of cuts when we have a plan. And the plan is already set. It's ready to go. We adopt this budget and we let the rest of it kick in when we get into our 2017 2018 budget with major funds coming in in January. So and then the final part, I guess the one that got to me was at the end, you know, there's the committee chair. Took issue with some of those cuts, and I could see why. I mean, it was it didn't make sense to me and it probably didn't make sense to her. So I'm glad that she has her alternate amendment to the motion. I agree with it. It's it's a structural plan. It's not one based on one type funding. It's structurally sound. And that's what we need. We want a balanced budget. And I think that that's what the proposal will do. And more than that, more than that, it's a responsible budget. It's one that we can all live with and knowing that there are going to be other measures out there in the very near future. Council Vice Mayor Richardson brought up Measure M. They're going to be coming up in November, which provides an additional source of funding that will just give us a bonus. But of course, we don't know that. We won't know until the day after the election, November 7th anyway. So I mean, I'm I'm supportive of the the motion presented by Councilmember Mongeau, and I hope that my colleagues do as well. Thank you. Next up, we have council member Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'm going to do my best to try not to sound half baked in my my response. But I think I need to address a few points here this evening. I was appointed to serve on the Budget Oversight Committee. And while I do and I did give great due respect and accolades to our budget chair, who has done a remarkable job and put a lot of time into developing this budget. And she's talked to every one of our council colleagues, clearly. But it is a committee and a committee and city council members are free to disagree. And we disagreed on probably 1% of this entire less than 1% of the entire budget. Right. Most of the budget recommendations put forth by the Budget Committee chairperson were agreed upon or agreed upon by the committee. Right. And most of what is being proposed, I want to be very clear, will probably be here for the next 3 hours talking about this, but will be agreed upon by the city council. We're talking about $1.1 million. We're talking about two weeks from the municipal bill. I really want to keep this conversation dignified and respectful, understanding that, you know, I'm not going to respond to childish at hominins or petty attacks against my district. Measure a. There were promises made in Missouri and the ranchos both Rancho, also Cerritos, Rancho Los Alamitos were included in that promise. And so to to come in and say we want to make a friendly amendment. That's nothing friendly about that. That's hostile. That's a hostile act for my district and people who are working hard to make that rancho and both ranchos treasures in our community. A lot has been said about speculative ink revenue. Measure M and we will have a study session next week which will be pretty robust and we'll have a full breakdown on what measure M does. But what it does is add a half cent sales tax to the residents of Long Beach. And that's a conversation we need to have. Right. But it's speculative and risky to just speculate a budget based on what the voters may or may not do. Measure M I would say the same thing about that, but there's also still Measure R that provides funding for streets and infrastructure projects in our in our community that was passed by voters in 2008. So so, Mr. Modica, I know you're a subject matter expert on all measures. How much do we get annually for Measure R. For. Streets? Mr. Chair and Councilmember Austin, if memory serves, it's about 5.7, $5.8 million from Measure R. And that is also included in our R, C, IP and streets budgets. Correct. Corrected funds, primarily residential streets. All right. I wanted to make sure that we understand it. And is there a sense that they don't measure R. I believe it's a 30 year sunset at this point. It's 2039. You all right? Yes, sir. You know, measure it in. By the way, as we will learn, next week has no sunset. That's correct. And so and I want to be very clear. My motion to restore Rescue 12 is certainly benefits. I think the entire city, as the chief mentioned, that, you know, it take strain off of the system. In my district, I have two fire stations, both our have rescues, rescue nine and rescue 11. And so my motion was not to benefit my district and it wasn't about me. Right. It wasn't a selfish emotion. It was it was a motion to actually, I believe, help and lend a helping hand to our residents in North Long Beach and particularly the council member in that district. So I want to move off of the the the measure. Because if the councilmember in the ninth District doesn't want rescue 12 right now and he doesn't think it's important enough to do that, then I will get off of that that flight back to the municipal band. There was an existing motion by Councilmember Mongeau. She has generously put together a plan that would expand the municipal band concerts from six weeks to eight weeks. Right. What we heard in Budget Oversight Committee to address Councilmember Yolanda's point, it wasn't a cut. It was to keep it what it it where the where it is. Because the folks who are operating the municipal band concerts the and I would invite them to come up and speak on this if not out of order. They recommended six weeks. They wanted six weeks. They don't think it's functional or or doable to do that. And that's what I heard from them. And so that was in my motion, original motion to restore it back to six weeks. And I can tell you that the residents who I know and as well as you, Mr. Councilmember Urunga, are very happy with six weeks of municipal ban. And if we break it up as being proposed in the two four from okay, we're going to skip a week and then come back a week. That just messes up the the the I would just call homeostasis of of a neighborhood. People get used to going to municipal band on Wednesday nights or Tuesday nights or Thursday nights. It's part of a tradition. And sort of to make it make it inconsistent I think would be a disservice to our residents. And so those are my comments. Like I said, I think we agree on most of this budget. I hope we can can get there again without the pettiness about without trying to throw digs at one another and do the right thing for the residents of the city of Long Beach, this city. So is that a friendly? The friendly would be, too. Yes, my friendly would be. Thank you, Chairman. Go would be to to keep the municipal ban schedule as as proposed in the mayor's budget. So I want to talk a little bit about that. I've worked closely with the Parks and Rec Department and one of the members of the Friends of Municipal Band. I'd asked for the cell phone number or contact information to get a hold of Mr. Curtis, but was unable to get a hold of him. And so I wasn't able to talk through all of the things that the community had talked to me about. So a couple of key points. I appreciate the employees of the municipal band. I love the municipal band. I've probably been to the most municipal band concerts of anyone here on on the on the dais. And Mr. Curtis is nodding that that's true and not always do I go up on stage, but sometimes I do. And I want the community to know that both the mayor and I care a lot about the municipal band. The community. Has shown us by the lack of attendance on Tuesdays that that is not a night that is convenient for them. Two council members have not been able to attend these municipal band activities and pull together the support on Tuesdays because they're here at council. Collections on Tuesdays are extremely low. And so in those things, when I hear that a colleague of mine would love to have a Friday night concert, I think that there's extreme value in that. I know what Friday night concerts in the park mean to my neighbors. We have the largest turnout of all the municipal band concerts in the city. And so when I looked at the schedule proposed by Parks and Rec and Marine, it wasn't as similar to the proposals that I had heard from neighbors that I'd communicated, because there were a couple of things different. One was that there would be eight separate shows, and I don't think that that was the intent. I think that in discussions with Councilmember Richardson and Councilmember Urunga, it would be neat if a show had a jazz theme, a show had a Latin theme, but within that, there would still only be five shows. Week one would be show one, week two would be show two, week three would still be show two, and it would rotate to a different set of parks. And then the Symbion symbiotic myth that Mr. Austin, the Blues Council member, also said, okay, well the symbiotic ness that Councilmember Austin referred to would be backfilled in the way that Councilmember Price and I backfill the end of the summer right now with local bands that are well known the Emperors, the Elm Street Band, Knight Rider, those groups. So there would still be eight consecutive weeks of concerts in Eldorado Park because I would put up my one time funds to support that and ensure that there was no decline. I would even go as far as to say that we would collect during those weeks and still donate all the money to the municipal band for weeks. They're not even playing, so they theoretically have collection two locations on the same night. And from what I understand, Eldorado Park has the most generous bucket collections within that. I talk about how I really care about the employees, and we as public servants are all here. For the neighbors, it's mostly about the neighbors. There are no additional general funds going. The original mayor's proposal was general funds of 60,000. My proposal is 90,000, but it's from special advertising and promotional fees. And the reason I feel that that is appropriate is because I believe that Sapp funds are appropriately used for the minivan because it is such a special citywide opportunity for people to engage, and it does fit the definition of special advertising and promotions. So just as I am going to listen to all my friend live, I will hold that friendly as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Supernova. Thank you. I think I'd like to piggyback onto one of the friendlies, but I don't know which one, so bear with me here. What I'd like to talk about, you know, let's just just take the premise that Councilmember Austin has. And if we want to look forward to other revenue sources for restoring rescue 12, you want to look at a plan for, you know, a couple of months from now. I'd like to add engine 17 to that. And I've talked about this before, so please bear with me. We had back to back garage fires last night and a week ago Monday, and those were total losses of garages in very densely populated neighborhoods where the fire came in and confined it to one structure. So last night we had a garage fire in the in the heart of Los Altos. And the apparatus showing up would be engine five from the fifth District. That's in the Eldorado Park area. Engine 14 from the third district by the Colorado Lagoon. Engine 19 from the fifth District out on Clark, engine 22 from the third district. That's on Atherton and Palo Verde. Rescue eight from the third district. That's in Belmont. Sure. Arson one and arson six. So my question for Chief Terry is what was left on the east side of Long Beach? I think Engine four would have been did not respond to that. But basically, my point is it takes a lot of resources to respond to a structure fire. Okay. He's nodding for you. Okay, great. So I think that's just anecdotal, but it's an example of the need for a fire engine in my district. I have the only district without a fire engine. I'd like to thank Districts three and five for sending all that equipment out last night. And I would just like it included in the conversation when we're looking at restoring rescue 12. On another point, completely separate, but we are looking for alternative revenue sources. Thank you, Margaret, for speaking on the libraries. What I'd like to add to that conversation is that I don't think it's actually been decided, but we're looking to add Sandy hours to the libraries. I'm fortunate enough to have two libraries in my district, Los Altos and brew it, and neither one is is kind of in that conversation for adding sun hours. So I'd like to look at a revenue source and that is finds that our access to JetBlue airlines and it's a substantial number. Many of you may not know that those fine dollars go to the libraries. And for the past year, that is 12 months, the total is over half a million dollars. That's $538,200. So I would like the folks at the library just to consider those revenues for adding sun hours to Los Altos. And I say Los Altos because there's no other library in the city that is more impacted by the airport. These not only are they right in line with the approach, but they're at a point where the planes are just a few hundred feet above them. And so I think it's only fitting that they might be considered for sandy hours using these phones. Um, I think that's it. And to chair mongo, I'm not sure how that works out in a friendly I'd like to as I said, I'd like to piggyback on one of the others. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. So I'd like to just thank my colleagues for this great discussion. I think we have a lot of priorities, many of us. And I think we certainly have to look at these priorities holistically and what makes sense for us all. And for me, I would say, you know, stuff is an important issue. It's not just a. Prudent you know, we're talking about a prudent. Use of money, not money down the toilet. And I think we heard that earlier today, and I was very shocked when I heard that. And I would think that, you know, thousands of people missing out on their their livelihoods and making a means and a better life for themselves is very important. So I'll leave it at that. I hope that we can stick with keeping with that funding that we had allocated as of last week and sticking with that plan. Another big important thing, I think for my district, there are certainly parks and libraries that are very important perks that don't even have programing. At this point. So we don't even get anything. I mean, there's you know, I've spoken with our director. Marie, about this, and there's ways that we, you know, proactively go out and look for or when contractors proactively go out and look for park places. And, you know, a lot of the western side of the city, you know, sometimes there's not enough funding for parks. So I'd like us to look at five parks. These parks are as follows Craftsman Village. Which is between the first and second District. Peace Park between the first and sixth District. Drake Park. Chavez in Seaside. Park. All in the first District. I think those are very heavily used parks. Be safe. It are at a couple of those parks. But I think we. Have an amazing park staff that I know can come up with something if we just had the funding to be able to provide additional resources. And it also helps with public safety as well. I think it's very important that we activate these parks for kids at times, that they're out of school at times, that they are not in school in the summer and that they have something to do. And those are areas I feel that would be most impacted, impacted in a very positive way. And I believe the funding. The. The I'm sorry, the. The cost for each was. 26,000, I believe. For Saturday and Sunday too. To be able to. To fund them for 4 hours. So that's where I'm basing this off of. And then secondly, the main library I know that is in the second. District, but I've often spoken with. My colleague, Councilmember Pearce, about this. And we. Also. Have many residents who have asked about the main library and how very important it may be to extend hours. I know it's a very big library and I know adding Monday may be very costly. However, it would be great to. See additional hours at the main library, and I believe. That that is I don't know how many hours, but I've. Been I think we've been quoted about. $26,000 as well. To extend some hours. So I'd like to have us look in that direction. Also, I think it would. Be very fruitful for our. Residents to have additional hours to do homework. Tutoring, whatever we might need. So I think that gives us a total. Of about $156,000. Not asking for too much, but I think that these programs could certainly be used very positively in our districts, and I'm very excited to see homelessness move forward. I also. Think the municipal band being able to have more opportunities for growth and certainly Rescue 12 as well, I certainly believe in that and extending more public. Safety. Opportunities. So thank you very much. Next up is Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mayor Garcia, and thank the council for so many thoughtful responses. Just, you know, following tracking this, you know, I, I don't have a $100 million pool in North Long Beach. I don't have a historic rancho. I don't have a municipal band. District nine does not have two rescues. Well, we do have is a 93 year old community center, a Highland Park. We have a brand new fire station with absolutely no rescue in it. And frankly, we have a plan for both because North Long Beach residents deserve both. And it's unfair it's an unfair proposition to make residents of North Long Beach or Central or West choose whether they should have a community center that doesn't have asbestos or a paramedic rescue unit. That's an unfair proposition. And when you make the council have a hard choice between a rancho and a paramedic, you see where values truly are. So there's no need to imply that someone doesn't care about their district or want to restore services in their district. The truth is, you know, we fought this fight for a long time when, you know, when the city council tried and rolled the dice on R&D and that pot, that pilot was eliminated. It was the rescue in North Long Beach that that suffered. And that was eliminated when the council made that choice. So what I'm saying is I don't want to roll the dice with our residents. I frankly think this is a bad it's a bad plan, and I'm proposing a better plan. And if North Lawn Beach has to, you know, look at these revenue sources and look at all of it to restore something structurally, that's great. Now, in terms of the funding for the for the ranchos. So number one in this budget has a restoration of engine eight in Belmont Shore, which is, you know, great helps the system . It has restoration of the downtown downtown division, which I'm completely supportive of. And, you know, and no one said anything about, hey, your district is winning or your area town is is winning. And I put forth you know, I had a conversation with Councilmember Pryce today, and she said, What do you think about. Well, I said, I'd love to have your support on my plan. I think, you know, I've been working for a long time, you know, what do you think about this? I'll think about it. I'll take it under advisement. And today, a completely different plan caught me blindsided on something I've worked on for six years. So, frankly, Northland Beach deserves a better plan. I don't have to be, you know, be petty about a rancho or not. My motion stays the same, but I'm going to withdraw the portion about the ranchos simply because, you know, it was interesting to see how people react when they have to make the choice that we make in North Long Beach every day. Thanks. You mean the friendly stays the same, right? You're not. The. Yeah, the friendly is going to stay the same. I'm going to withdraw the element about I mean, we're going to we still want to look at measure 8ammam first responder fee and Measure A, but I'm not going to specifically call out those ranchos. I think the point has been made here, but those are the sources we should look at. And just to be clear, we're not saying that those measures are going to pass. But we shouldn't necessarily be ready and have a plan. If on November 8th, if the voters decide to implement those, the residents know exactly what they get because the plan is put forth and has been transparent. If it fails, then we know we're left up to measure a and first responder fee one way or the other. We're in a position to talk about and discuss restorations on January 1st first, which is essentially three months from now with a better picture. So it's just more responsible to do things that way. Thanks. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. So I want to state for the record that my comments in regards to the poor have been something long going and trying to decide how we prioritize equity in our city. That this is a conversation that I've had for several years and that I see the value of the pool. My daughter swims at the pool every week. It is a great asset to our community, but when we're talking about public safety, I have to put that into context. And so, you know, it's my obligation to prioritize funds for safety. I understand it's a lot of money. Right now, we have $58.8 million already allocated to the pool that can be used to help fundraise. And I would like to reach some beach safety priorities currently. So I would like to ask Mr. Modica, if you could share with us a list of shovel ready projects that would help improve public safety along our beaches right now. Well. So to just give us a sense of some of the projects that are that we are looking to have additional funding. There's a big list of projects all the way up and down the beach in you know, from we have a very large beach. We do have some needs in our marinas for sewage removal systems that it would be one of them. We also have beach maintenance needs up and down the beach in terms of our path. We have parking lots that need to be resurfaced and also could be brighter at 72nd place. And at Granada we have if I try to think of some others. We have other like deferred maintenance at the convention center in terms of lighting and safety, lighting and safety systems. There are a number of different projects up and down in the Tidelands that could use funding. And, you know, so hopefully that's somewhat of an illustrative list. If if the council really is interested in that, we could look at a more prioritized list of going back to our project needs. We wouldn't be prepared to do that today, but we could do that down the road. Thank you, Miss America. I went through the capital improvement list that you have there that include things like Marine patrol equipment, fire department, beach lighting, safety improvements and fire department, tidelands infrastructure, which are some things that I would like to see addressed quickly and and hopefully get us a path to do that. With the 1.7 or 2 million, I know there's a couple of numbers that are out there, as you know, and a quick turn around. And so I just wanted to make those last statements and definitely, you know, we look at our park programs and making sure that we don't have parks that are without park programing and fully supporting the extended library hours here at the main library. And I would also like to say that in addition to seeing those library hours extended, making sure that we have a quick turnaround on when our new main library is opened, that that library has full time hours, including Mondays and Sundays. And so that's not something that's urgent today, but want to make sure that we're working toward structurally supporting that. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I'm not sure if there's still a friendly out there regarding taking money away from the fool. But if there is, what I would request is that we would that certainly we can always take money away from the pool. So anytime you're mad at Councilwoman Price, you can always try to take money away from the pool. We don't have to do it tonight. The only thing I would ask is the aquatics community. I'm already getting emails from people who are watching this at home, so the aquatics community has a right to be here to be heard on that. So if you if you want to take money away from the pool, great. Let's go ahead and do that another time and not tonight so that they have an opportunity to be heard, because they've been working on this for a long time, too. I do want to publicly apologize to Councilwoman Gonzalez regarding my comment earlier at BMC regarding us flushing our money down the toilet, that that was a wrong comment. You know, I'm not human. I'm I mean, I am human. I'm not perfect. I'm only human. And there's been a few times when all of us have said things we regret. And certainly I'm there's I'm no exception. I am I am flawed in all the right ways and all the wrong ways. And if there's some and I have to say, I was very disappointed in how we voted last week, because I know what all these needs are. And I had come to the meeting last week and had articulated everything that I put on those two PowerPoint slides with one of my colleagues. And I was very, very upset and I just felt like was just very angry about how that vote went down. And so I apologize. That was absolutely the wrong use of the word. But I do believe it was a waste of taxpayer dollars simply because we don't even know how we're going to use the money and if we can use the money. And so, I mean, no, just and I've said repeatedly, of course, sometimes people forget that I said it last week and I said it earlier tonight. You know, we have this we have this thing in law under the evidence code. It's called evidence code 356 that says when you mention one part of a conversation, the other side has the right to come in and put it into context and talk about the totality. And I did refer to it as money going in the toilet, but I also, in the same breath said I am totally in favor of funding it at some level, just not at that $700,000 level. And and I hate when people repeat something that you said and don't repeat all of it because it takes it out of context. So I'm invoking evidence code 356 and saying I said more than just that. And what I said was I didn't think it was a bad idea. I just don't think we need to allocate 700,000 to it. So with that. You know, and the other thing, Councilman Richardson, you know, I. Sometimes I have conversations with colleagues and I feel like maybe we had completely different conversations. Oh, is it here? Yeah, he's here. I did talk to Councilman Richardson today, and I told him I had an idea for rescue. Honestly, if this isn't important to Councilman Richardson, I don't even know why I'm fighting this fight. I really thought this was important to him. And as a way of trying to reach out and extend that olive branch, I called him and I said, I'm willing to defer $150,000 of projects out of my budget, if you will. If you think that's a good idea, what do you think about that? Do you think that's something that we can do to to, you know, pull the money together? I shared the same thing with Council on Mango. I was just trying to find a way. And what I was trying to say to him is I'm willing to try to come up with the money, and I'm even willing to defer one of my own projects and take a hit for this for you. And he said, Well, I'm thinking about Measure M, but, you know, quite frankly, you can't accuse people of having half baked ideas when we're relying on a measure that hasn't even gone to the ballot yet. So I was just trying to bring that idea to fruition for him. So it's not that I didn't agree with his plan. I think if that county measure passes, yes, of course, that's an extra source of revenue for us that we can think about. But I was just trying to advance things because I thought it was important to him and I was I was trying to extend the olive branch and that was probably a mistake on my part because it didn't get accepted in the spirit that it was sent. Having said that, what I would like to do is from the $700,000 I'd like to make a friendly from the $700,000 that we approved last week, I would like to allocate $156,000 to the projects that Councilwoman Gonzalez wants, including the five parks and the extended hours at the main library. I'm completely supportive of the main library, extended hours. I would actually love to bring back the main library on a Sunday. I spoke with Glenda Williams today and Main provides a really unique opportunity for the city. The reason it's never considered as part of the Sunday library hours is because it's so large that the amount of money to staff it on a Sunday is really difficult to do. But they have a studio there with 3D printers that we don't have anywhere else. They have video editing software that we don't have in any other library. They have a Long Beach history collection, which is phenomenal. They have the Miller Room and Art Resource Center, which we don't have anywhere else. We have 70 public computers there, which we don't have. That's a lot of computers. We have a lot of wi fi, more access to wi fi. And we have an auditorium that houses 286 people there that we don't have anywhere else so I'm all for extending Sunday are the hours that main. I'd also like to take $65,000 from that $700,000 and allocate that to a. Fifth Sun Library. And that would be Los Altos to accommodate Councilman supervisor's request. I think he makes a very valid point. So for, you know. Right around that $200,000 range, we can accommodate Councilwoman Gonzalez's requests. The main library extended hours and open up another Sunday library hours. I would feel like that would be a really great accomplishment for us if we're able to do that tonight. And we'd still have 400,000, more than $400,000 for wage enforcement. And if we're able to do more, if we're able to do more with the state, then we can look at our budget and add to it next year . But this is our first year. We don't even know how we can spend that money yet. So why don't we start with 475 or whatever the case may be and we can always add to it next year if we find that there's a place for the city to actually enforce that money. I'm not against it. I just don't think 700,000 is reasonable. And then finally. I think that they're the I have a I, I appreciate the creativity that Councilwoman Mongo has put into the municipal band scheduling, but it was very difficult for even me to follow. So I just want to you know, I think we should stick with the six weeks and the and allow them to keep the schedule they've been doing. But again, I know they're here. They've been here through both meetings. I'd love to hear them talk about it if they if they would like to. Thank you. Next up is Councilman Andrews. Thank you, Mayor. Mm hmm. Just getting to that final hour. I just thought I would just sit here, just listen to all of this, because, again, this senior spokesman of the group, I just what I'll only think about. Are we really serious? Can't we just all get along? And it doesn't seem like that because we're talking about friendly motions. Friendly. Is it really friendly? You are not asking for very much because. I know my district is really there with me 100%. And the things that I. Hear in the budget and I want to commend, you know, Mrs. Mongeau and. Mrs. Price and also Mr. Austin. You guys have worked very hard, extremely hard with this budget situation. And we sit here and we're promising Young off a lot the money. We assume it is there. But I'm. Just sometimes I just wonder, do all of this that this bickering that we're going back and forth and see and I wish, you know, you're saying this is why is all of. That necessary? Because I think. At the end we will have a balanced budget and a lot of you may be happy, loud you. Want. But in the. End, we will have the I've been here for over ten years. We always balance the budget. But through this I don't think it's been this strenuous, you know, among the diocese, the way we've been going at it and the time of were taken. It's not all necessary. We'll get through this, you guys, so you can go home, go to sleep, do what you have to do this. I tell you, the budget. They will take care of this. I want to thank Mr. Super now. Well, then, you know, because I don't know what, if any, is the way the way they're talking. So possibly I'm glad we're going to be able to get mine, you know, especially especially for my part, you know, because the fact that that's what I need mostly in my district, you know, it's more time in the parks because that's what I use with my kids. I always told you I tired kid is a good kid. We're going to get money for that. You now is here really the my biggest thing it was for station 12 but I have a feeling that that's going to come to fruition also and I'm hoping that it will because the fact we had a terrible accident, you know, in my district and it had it I one of the you know, the other stations that it really caused maybe and I'm not saying that that was the biggest part of it. But still, we need all of our stations, you know, open. I just feel like we have to find money. But one of our basic things, you guys were doing all of this talking, but I hope we stay really, really compassionate about. That of homeless. You know, this is not a district problem. This is a national problem. And you guys take that under consideration. Open up your heart and soul to. Our homeless people out there. We're really trying to find a place to lay their heads in, food to eat. Thank you again. Yeah. Thank you, councilman. Next up is Councilmember Orengo. Thank you, Mayor and councilman councilmember. The Andrews spoken like a true statesman in regards to the level of discussion we're having here. But, you know, I have to say that if you say it only when I heard just a little while ago explanations of discussions that took place between two individuals and, you know, some some backtracking on it, that that gives it more credibility and should than it deserves. It was said, move on. Let's continue on. A lot of this a lot of the the discussion that we have right now is based on what happened at the EOC. And there were some things that were presented at the B or C that were surprising to a lot of people to me. And I said that earlier and, you know, while I was maybe under my breath saying some unsavory comments, I didn't make them public. You know, I kept on to myself and I have to and you know, I've been an elected official now 16 years. I was first elected in 2000. In 2000. I've gone through many budgets. This is my second one in city council. But I've been through many budgets, including at the national level. And there's always, always a disagreement with where money should go and everybody always has a priority where to spend it. I have one too. I didn't mention it earlier because I thought, well, I didn't think we were in another discussion at that point. Now I'm at a discussion where I want to bring up an issue that's important to me, too. But what I'm trying to say here is that we are going to disagree and we always are going to have that that that differences in opinion. But we and we should and let's maintain that the collegiality of who and what we are. We are nine different individuals representing nine different. Council districts. But we are one city. And we have to keep that in mind always, because no matter what happens in District nine, in District one, District eight and District seven, six, whatever it all, it affects all of us. And I don't think that Councilmember Richardson, you know, Ed, besides what might be said and it was said that that he might not care about his. Unit 12 paramedic unit. Unit 12 being activated. He does? Of course he does. We all do. But, you know, saying that, you know, maybe we should withdraw from this fight. It's not a fight. It's a discussion. It's a it's a perhaps. And in fact, we all agree on it. We just don't agree on how we get there. Because we all do care about public safety. We all do care about lowering response times and the increased response time said having a lack of units available at any given time in any given day affects all of us because we know how important it is, especially when we're talking about protecting life and property. So having said all that, I have one one an item that I would like to see increased or at least worked on, is that my office has been working with the Arts Council and most recently my, my, my office sponsored a open conversations forum with the Arts Council and the Long Beach Unified School District, and their efforts to improve arts education in the schools and the Arts Council has about $50,000 is about $50,000 short of reaching a goal to improve opportunities for poor people in the arts to do outreach into the school. So there's there's an effort to get some a challenge grant out there for the Arts Council and I would strongly support that. We, we, the City Council support that. And, and I would like to also add a friendly that we moved to provide $50,000, $50,000 challenge grant to the Arts Council and to make sure that in FY17 that we we start looking at getting permanently and institutionalizing funding. For the Arts Council Arts. The Arts bring brings a lot of not only tourism to Long Beach, but it enhances our city as a whole. Mural projects getting getting the schools to participate in more arts functions. So I think we we need to look at the arts as well and financing them and providing them with a challenge. Grant would add that to that. So if, if it were to be amenable to the maker of the motion, I would appreciate an additional funding for the Arts Council through a challenge. Grant. Member Your anger. I'm sorry. What Council? Councilmember Your anger when you say challenge? Grant It would be that they would need to fund new fundraising of an equal amount to draw down the grant. Exactly. Okay. So it wouldn't be traditional. It would be not the traditional fundraising, but new fundraising. That would be. Gosh, great. I, I will ask. There's no Mr. Eriksen. Oh, there she is. I've always loved Eriksen. Miss Erickson, I know this is one of the things we've been talking about for several weeks, and we were trying to fund and I know one of the questions was whether or not the SEPP funds would qualify. And in all the hectic ness today of Rescue 12, I actually didn't ask you that. At B or C, would you be able to let the committee know that so that I could move forward with your answer? Chair Councilwoman. Mongo. So the. A special advertising promotion funds could be used for the Arts Council challenge grant. Wonderful. And that would have been a part of my earlier motion had I gotten to discuss it at BRC. So absolutely that I know I usually wait to accept all the friendlies, but in this case, this was something that I was very passionate about from the beginning. I know that many of us were. So as long as they are fundraising new money and it does not necessarily need to be for any services, I know we talked about what their original thoughts were and there was some duplication. We want to make sure there's no duplication and then they would be able to draw it down through a challenge. Grant So I think that would be wonderful. Thank you for bringing that back up. Thank you. And then I think also what I was just talking to Councilwoman Mungo. Once we get through all the friendlies, Mr. City Attorney, we're just going need to confer with you for a minute to make sure we have them all down. And we understand they're very clear so we could do these appropriately. Councilmember Austin. Thank you. And I'll do my best to be very, very brief. This is my fifth budget and I can tell you the very, very first budget that I came here, a lot of very tough decisions were made. We were looking at cutting just about everything. We were about 17 million, 17 and a half million dollars in the hole. And so the challenge was just before this council, I think, are the problems that we have are good problems because we're trying to figure out how to spend money and deliver services for our residents. I wanted it to go back to the municipal band issue because I think our black chair, Councilmember Mungo, eloquently laid out her intentions on what it meant to go from 6 to 8 weeks. I just want to just clarify, make to make sure that are we actually getting more concerts in eight weeks for the same amount of counts, concerts in eight weeks? Can anybody from staff answer that? So, Mr. Mayor, a members of the council essentially and the what we were asked to do is come back with a memo to say, could we reorganize the current six week session into eight weeks and eliminate Tuesdays, which is a low attendance day? And so we send a memo today. So the eight week season would essentially be the same amount of concerts, I believe it's 24 as in the six week season. So it's the same amount of concerts when you issued the memo and came up with that. Were you able to confer in any way with those who were in operations with the municipal band? Yes, we did spend the last week taking a look at what those costs would be and also working with the municipal band to see, you know, because they there are costs on the city side for providing rentals and equipment. And also there's the operational impact of the band. So it is possible and there are some complications and some challenges in doing that. And we've outlined the outline those in the memo, and it's a cost of about $30,000 to do the additional equipment rentals and to have extended time for the band to be able to play for eight weeks. So effective from Councilmember Yar'adua's friendly amendment were to be accepted and we were to do $50,000 and challenge grants using the same money that we would use to fund a couple of more weeks of municipal band at the same level of concerts. We could actually do that. So it looks like we're moving in the right direction. Well, Mr. Mayor, I would love to have the prerogative to just ask the minister, the representative from the municipal band, to come and answer a couple of questions. Let's let's get through those that are cued up and then we can go ahead and go there. I think I think I want to. This is germane to the topic that I'm dealing with right now. Okay. Well, we did public comment. I'm going to hopefully clear some stuff up here, but the miss will be on next, so. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Austin, are you older? Okay. So I want to. I want to touch. There's a lot obviously being discussed right now, and I might have some comments on some of the other proposals that are out there. But I want to just focus on two right now that are important and then we'll hear where other colleagues are on some of the other stuff. So I want to talk a little bit about Rescue 12, and I also want to talk about the municipal band here in just a minute as well. The first thing I just want to say, obviously been hearing a lot and including the PSC meeting and I just want to make sure that I'm clear as well that there's there's no one on this council that has advocated more for the restoration of that rescue than Vice Mayor Rex Richardson. In fact, I think on a weekly basis, he comes into my office and asked me about the plan to restore Rescue 12. So I want to thank him for his advocacy for that. And I want to thank him for being the biggest cheerleader and supporter of getting that rescue back in service that there is because of that advocacy. I know that Vice Mayor Vice Mayor Richardson has been working directly with the chief, has been working directly with the rank and file membership, has been working with City Manager West on looking at ways in the next few months of putting a plan together to restore Rescue 12 in a way that is long term, that doesn't take away from the infrastructure projects that are in the Missouri plan, but that is something that could provide consistent service and that we're not worried about whether or not it's going to be eliminated in the near future. In fact, I know that the vice mayor and I are committed to ensuring, just like a year or two ago when I said we would get Engine eight restored and put back in the budget. I'm I'm certain that we are going to work as hard on the next priority, which is getting a rescue 12 restored. And in fact, we are a few months away, I believe, from putting putting together a plan that is going to work on Rescue 12. And so I just want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for his consistent advocacy and and being its rescued 12th strongest supporter. And I'm confident that we're going to get that and that rescue restored into fire service over the course of these next few months in a way that is long term, that can't be that can be supported . And where we don't dip into infrastructure, as I've always said, with infrastructure, it gets more expensive every year. So we don't fix the cost of something. Today is is will be more expensive next year. And so I appreciate the discussion around that. I also want to thank the the the men and women of the rank and file of the fire department because they've been a part of these discussions. I know as early as this morning, Vice Mayor, you've been meeting with the. Membership. And and they're on board with with this with this plan and moving forward. And so I want to I want to thank you for that. I also just want to just to mention and again, there might be other things I want to jump in on a little bit later. But I also want to just quickly mention the municipal band. So I think that and I know this that that councilmember Mongo is a huge supporter of the band because I've been to concerts with you. She wants nothing but to maximize the concerts. I think at this time. I'm hopeful that we can stick to the original schedule that we that was proposed initially, add the additional $60,000 to create permanently that six week. And then I think we're all open and I know that the band folks are open to having some conversations in the future about how we can make some some changes if there's interest from from the council. But I would like to just ask Councilman Mongo, and I think that that she she wants what's in the best interests of the band as well. If we could stick to the original schedule on the band that was presented and and go from there. So that's where I will leave that suggestion to the council, the councilwoman. At this time, it looks like there are there are not additional comments. So what I'd like to do is just take a 1 to 2 minute, not really a recess, but I just need a confer with the city attorney and and the chairwoman of the BFC to ensure that we have all the friendlies down exactly as they were said before we move on to actually discussing. This may or may be helpful if if myself and Lia could read them before we take. This break. That would be great. There were so many friendlies and that would be great. Okay. So as I understand, the motion on the floor is as written by the council person from the fifth District to move on 1,191,000 and general fund one time funding, including 600,000 and therefore 16 general funds available 70,000 in FY17, general fund, temporary surplus and 521,000 from a release of reserves for litigation. Liabilities are no longer needed for the original purposes. These funds are appropriated as follows 280,000 in Health and Human Services for Homeless Rapid Response. 150,000 in the Public Works Department for tree stump removal. 96,000 in Parks Rec and Marine Department for expansion of the Be Safe program to four additional locations to be determined by the Parks and Rec Department. $65,000 in library services for the expansion of Sunday library hours to a fourth location to be determined by Parks and Rec or by the library services. Sorry. 130,000 and Health and Human Services Department for Public Health Professional and the Office of Equity. 220,000 in Financial Management Department for local investigation related to wage enforcement and 250,000 for capital infrastructure, economic development or existing city programing to be divided by nine for the city council districts. Any exceptions must go to the city council. Motion for contingent appropriation of FAA 16 general funds surplus in an amount of 500,000, subject to funding availability for capital infrastructure, economic development or existing city programing to be divided by nine by the city council districts. Any exceptions to go to the City Council motion to use Proposition H beginning funds available to appropriate 250,000 each in the police department and fire department for homeless rapid response and in motion to use special advertising and promotion funds. Beginning funds available to appropriate $90,000 in the Parks and Rec and Marine for Municipal Band eight week alternative schedule. And emotion to use a FY17 savings entitlement to debt service to appropriate 500,000 in public works department for the Belmont Pool and Aquatic Center. Motion to make 80,000 of the 176,385 in the city. Managed proposed general fund strategic one time investment for be safe structural offset by a decrease in so in structural funding for the Language Access Program, which will instead be funded with one time in seven NY 17 and a motion to designate 500,000 of the 2.2 million for police overtime in the city manager's proposed general fund strategic one time investments to a Neighborhood Safe Streets Initiative to be directed at the discretion of the Chief of Police then. We had friendly amendments. First Friendly Amendment from CD nine was to report back in January on potential revenue based on the ballot measures for the purposes of adding back rescue 12. Then second a friendly by Council District two to reallocate $1.5 million from the Tidelands to Marine from the Tidelands Belmont Pool budget to Marine Safety. Three. Friendly amendment from CD8 to change the allocation for the municipal band to increase the funding by 60,000, not 90,000, and go from a eight week schedule to a six week schedule. Four friendly amendments from CDA four to review or approve reallocation of the fines from JetBlue and the airport two that go to the library to fund a Sunday programing at Los Alamitos. Also to look at a program or possibilities for funding. Fire Engine 17 for Long Beach Fire Department. Five. Friendly amendment from CD1 to allocate additional funds for park programing at five parks in the approximate amount of $160,000 and $26,000 for additional funding for hours at the main library. Friendly Amendment six from CD three to allocate $160,000 to fund CD one's friendly amendment for the park programing. And then the $65,000 to fund the additional hours that Los Altos library said for a friendly amendment. That money, as I understand it, would come from the 220,000 added for wage enforcement, leaving 475,000 the original wage enforcement funding. And then the seventh Friendly Amendment was by CD seven to add $50,000 challenge grant to be funded from the SRP, a special advertising and promotion fund. And then I believe that's all of the friendly members. It is a complex list. However, what I'm going to do I'm going to take just a minute. Mr. City Attorney, can you come over here with that list? And we're going to make sure that we're have the same thing here with the chair and we're not going to recess. But this is this might take us just a minute or two. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We're going to I think we have all the the motions. I'm going to ask. Mr. Eriksen, if you can just stay up here in case we get one of these. Incorrect. Okay. And then we're going to go and go through all the motions. Each. Each we have. We have the motion on the floor that we have. We're going to go to the friendlies. And then Councilman Mongo has, I think, an additional two at the end. Okay. Okay. Great. So I'm gonna turn this back off. I can have a council back. Okay. Councilman. Mango, you have the floor. Thank you. I have a list of friendlies that I'll be accepting. I will accept. So I'll read all the friendlies and then at the end I'll say which ones and accept it. And how's that? Item one is Council Member Richardson's plan of coming back in January with a review of the potential sources we discussed related to a plan to restore Rescue 12. It was to come up with a plan now, correct? To restore it by. Get restored in jail. Thank you. Yeah. You'd think I'd heard that from you so many times. I would have known it by heart by now. Item number two is the $1.5 million of shovel ready projects from Tidelands. Item three was a six week muni band. Item four is. $130,000 for. Parks programing in downtown and 24,000 for a additional evening hour on Thursdays at the main library and. It doesn't have a source. Am I able to add a source right now? Because I don't make okay. I'm just reading them. Next is the reallocation of wage enforcement funding to fund item four. Item six was a challenge grant for the arts out of South funds, but I'm sorry I added that, so I can't say that yet. A challenge grant for arts and then seven was the mayor's recommendation for the muni band at. Six. At 24 concerts and that they would work with parks and rec to. Figure out how to accommodate the community and it would likely be six weeks. Oh. In item five with wage theft, there was also 65 allocated for. Los Altos. Definitely not Los Alamitos. Los Altos Library. We are definitely not funding this library outside our city. Yes. Okay. So now for a point of order, what would you like me to do next? At some point, we're going to have to decide whether to accept the French. I'm going to do it right now. Okay. So I am going to accept Councilmember Richardson's friendly on Rescue 12. It's been a priority for a long time. We've been working on options for a long time. I'm really proud of him that he got this way. And I appreciate the work that he did. Item number four. I'm accepting the next item number four, which is 100. And stand by. I don't know, before which was 130,000 to park programing and 24,000 to. Thursday our I will accept it with a slight change that I would like to add an additional hundred and 34 central parks parks in the central part of the city . And I need to come up with a source, so I'm going to give you some revenue because I don't approve things that don't have a revenue source. I'm very consistent. If I can read this. Stand by. I'm going to fund that through contingent appropriations. And the reason I'm going to do that is because it's far enough away in the summer that we'll know by then if we have it, and I'm confident that we will. But we'll be sure by then. And if we don't have it at that time, I'd like it to come back to council to find another source. But I'm confident we will that. Okay, great. Next all except friendly number six, which is the arts. Challenge grant through set funds. And I'd like to make an additional amendment to my own motion. Related to the Los Altos. Los Altos. Library to add sun hours. But to study what's allowed for Sunday hours, as we know that there's some trickiness to those fines that Councilmember Superman mentioned. And so if the libraries could send back a two from four on that and let us know what's possible and try to work on making that a possibility, that would be great. Can I get a quick pause before we do anything else to confer with Miss Erickson to make sure that make any other mistakes. Or if we need decisions on the other friendlies that you have not discussed. I. Well, I don't plan to accept them, but I might make one more change to my own motion. Standby. Okay. I'm going to have two other suggestions to that. To the councilwoman. Were you ask if we got 134 Central Park program? I mean, they said that. Okay. Thanks. Well, I want to clear that up real quick before we move forward. So one thing is, is I just. 130 for the 134,000. Let me be clear, it's 130 for downtown park programs and an additional 134 Central Long Beach Park programs. Okay. So it's two separate 134 to the park programs. Just to be very clear. Plus the 24. Plus the addition of the extension for the library. Okay. I would also like to ask Councilwoman Mungo, I understand what's the conversation around around the pool? I think it's important that we that we fund the pool. I think it's important that we have the money to move forward on the pool. But I understand Councilman Pierce's asks and how important she believes the priority to move, particularly the lighting on on the on the beach as a priority. Since the last time we did the title and priority discussion, I know that Councilman Pierce was not here. I know that was done under Vice Mayor Lowenthal with Councilwoman Pryce. I'd like to ask Councilman Mongo, if we keep the pool funds in place, if we can have a dis a staff report for Mr. Modica and work with Councilman Pierce on re looking at that list so that we can set her priorities and that one around 1.5 million that is clearly in the area that she'd like to see done for this lighting project so that that can get moved up as soon as possible and we can get those projects done and so that she can be a part of that process. Can we do that? Yes. And just for clarification, we understood her motion to be public safety type projects rather than lighting projects. If that's something that we can look at, kind of public safety type project. I may have misunderstood. I thought it was I thought lighting was part of it, but maybe it wasn't. So part of the public safety was lighting. So part of it it's include I would include that into public safety. Okay, great. So then the motion would be for funding stays the same, but we do a review and we'd like to work to move this 1.5 up as as close as possible on the posture to meet Councilman Pierce's answer. And I would I would ask that when that comes back, that we ensure that where the funding source is coming from, I wouldn't want to take dollars out of other capital improvement projects that are already shovel ready. Absolutely. So that will rule review. So you get a chance to be part of that discussion. So, Councilman Mongo, can we be okay with that? I'm okay with that one. Okay. Thank you. And so just to clarify, the contingent preparation for the library hours and the two park distributions is to 84 and then to speak to. My agreement with Councilman Price on programing and setting aside funds. I know that we are probably expecting a two from four back from the city on wage enforcement. So I think that the specifics of what that is for, it might not be necessary at this time and so that it doesn't need to be spent and that we could set that aside until the two from four comes back on what those programs are and what that looks like. So if I understand that we would you would ask us to not spend the wage enforcement money until we have a chance to give the council an overview of what those moneys would be spent for. Did I get that correct? That's typically what you would do. Let the council know what you do before you spend it. So but you're asking us rather than included in the budget and it's just for the city manager to spend. You want us to come back with a report about how it would be spent? For the council to consider. It's in the budget and you will inform us of how it would be spent. Not necessarily in the same original. I know there's a lot of confusion last week and I just want to make sure that we have time to have a plan. Certainly we can certainly outline what that plan. Would be, but the money is as as is presented in the budget. Understood. All right. Okay. So I think that covers all the friendlies. We have a motion on the floor. I'm going to go to Councilmember Super, who's cued up and then we're going to go to a vote. And just to clarify, the municipal band proposal is for six weeks. And the $60,000 additional. That's what that was the. And to discuss with the community. Correct. 24 shows to discuss with the community. What we're doing that we're doing, the six weeks. They're going to discuss that with the community. But I think we need clarification on the budget. Is it 60,000 for the current six weeks and working on what we would then look for the next season or is it 90,000 for the eight weeks and do it now? So. I hear strongly from the community that they want the municipal band. And I have serious fears that when we did not fund the amount last year and when there are several council districts that don't have concerts and that there are still concerts happening on Tuesdays that have low attendance, that that is not in the best interest of the community or the band. And so I have tried to communicate this. I have worked hard. And I would like to set aside the 90 and a affirmed 24 concerts and leave it to the Parks and Rec directors discretion to work with the band to make sure that while the band is a priority, we as a council, our number one priority is the community. And we need to work together to make sure we find something that works for everyone. And I think that that is what makes the most sense. If there's underutilization of those funds, maybe it could go to help the lack of the hole that was left in the prior year. But there is 90 available from state funds today that we can put over to that cause, if that makes sense. Let me go to concern for supernova first. Okay. I think this is a friendly on the library finds for chair mongo. Okay. On the library finds. In place of a two from four from Glenda Williams. I would recommend first of all, there are a couple of entities here. The Long Beach Public Library Foundation actually receives the funds. Those are then passed on to the libraries. What I would ask is that we get a two from four from the city attorney's office on what the parameters are of this consent decree and where the monies can be spent. So we can certainly do that. Okay. So. So if Councilmember Mongo is agreeable to that, we're going to have the two from four be from the city attorney's office. He's agreed to that on the consent decree violations. Absolutely. Okay. The second piece is and I'll say it one more time, I, I totally support studying funding for Rescue 12. I would just like to add Engine 17 on to that study. Station 17 is unique in that it's its area abuts six different fire stations. So when you don't have 17 some place centrally, potentially six different fire stations are covering that area. I think it's well worth studying. And if we're going to study Rescue 12, I think Rescue 17 should come next in line and should be a part of that study. Councilmember maybe wasn't I wasn't clear, but it was basically the chief's order. So look at the revenue sources go as far as you can go on restoration. So so I would you know, that's the intent. So call out 17 as well. Okay. Thank you. So so that's agreeable to Councilmember Richardson, so. Absolutely. I mean, it's not just fires fire, it's PD. There's been conversation about gaming. And although you just have to talk with the Chiefs, they've both established priorities. The idea is a plan to get us to more restoration, a structural plan. So that could be, you know, rescue. Well, the chief stated tonight what his order is. So that doesn't change. The path to 17 is through rescue 12. And then on PD, you just have to talk with the chief as he was. Priorities are okay. I'm aware of his priorities. I just wanted us to mention that in in our in our amendment here. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you. I want to say that I want to thank Chair Mungo and the entire council. I think we've had a really great spirited discussion tonight where we're all advocating for different priorities to the city. And I appreciate the collegiality and the respect and make a commitment that I will always try to to honor those principles. I will say that I'm a little bit confused in regards to are we funding the Sunday Los Altos library hours? And then we're also going to look at the additional revenue source or are we not funding the Sunday Los Altos library hours? Because I really would like to try to fund the Sunday library hours. I know, I know. But I would ask for that too. I just don't have any more sources of funding. I've been tapped dry, I think Leah told me on, like, our fourth meeting. Stop turning me upside down and shaking me so. Money falls out of my pockets now. I just want to clarify or. I wish I did. I mean, I want to fund Los Altos. I would not if I wanted to fund the main library. It's just so expensive and there's just so much need in our community for things that I, I, I don't have a place for that. Leah Yeah, a point of clarification. So currently the motions do not have funding for a Sunday library, but I would like to point out that we have indicated that the Library Department can't continue to sustain and over time model for additional branches. They're really they're really strained with the three libraries they currently have. And they did identify a fourth library was funded that they could manage that. So we will study the fines issue and will study, you know, funding Los Altos. But I just I wanted to caution that it might not be sustainable or feasible to do an overtime model. So the cost may may be different than the $65,000. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Okay. With that, again, I want to thank everybody. I think it was a successful night, even though it was painful at times. But it was good. Thank you. Okay. And then the mayor and I have discussed some options for the Muni band. I am very, very positive about them raising this money. And we have another fundraising option that might help fill that gap. So what I'm open to doing is another year of week, six or six weeks with Tuesdays. But if we are not able to correct the issues related to Tuesdays and the lack of attendance and lack of funding, we are going to have to have a very serious conversation next year because. The community deserves the band. And. And the only way that's possible is if we meet the fundraising goals. And you have to know I love, love the Muni band and I love a lot of things in life that I sacrifice personally because I never want to be in debt and I never want to own anyone. And where we are today is where the muni band is 30,000 behind. And that hurts my heart. I know that I've talked to Laura about a fundraiser on the 22nd that I want to help with or I'm sorry, in November that I want help with. I want you guys to get the money. And I really feel that if you're collecting a lot of money on Thursdays and Fridays, we need to look at where that is and where that gets the support. I know Laura brought up an idea of moving Wednesday through Saturday. There's lots of options. I just want to come up with options that get us to a point where we're getting the collections that we need. Because what we don't need is to come back every year begging for money. And I say this to anyone who comes to me for one time, if you talk to the Arts Council, they'll hear the same thing that I've said to you and to everyone else. I want to help us get to a place where we're doing fundraisers that have high ROIC. I have the partnership motion that Mary is working on, and those are all options. But I'm going to go with the six weeks. And if you come up with a plan to move to six weeks, it's more feasible in terms of fundraising. That'd be great. And if not, please, please work with us on what those things are, because that's a budget share. I can't recommend a program that's in the red every year. I can't and I don't want to be in this position again next year. So let's more work more closely together. So, yes, Mayor, I'll accept your friendly. Okay, thank you. And I'm going to and I'm we're going to work together and and figure that last piece out. Thank you, Councilwoman. So from there, we have the motion on the floor. So, members, we have the budget in front of you. Members is going to cast their votes. Motion carries. Thank you. We have a couple more budget votes and they're going to take a recess before the rest of the council meeting. So let's finish up the last few votes which are administrative here. Okay. Next vote.