Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Director of Economic and Property Development to create a policy to allocate all proceeds from the sale of city owned properties to fund blight removal, ongoing economic development efforts, revolving loan funds for small business establishment and growth, local incentives for business to locate or expand in the City, and key infrastructure investments. These proceeds should be tracked and directed to the project areas where the former Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (RDA) properties are located.
Item 32 Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilman Andrews and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Director of Economic and Economic and Property Development to create a policy and to allocate all proceeds from the sale of city owned properties to fund and track properties. Property project areas where the where the former Long Beach Redevelopment Agency properties are located. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember Rex Richardson. Thank you. So, first of all, thanks to everybody who hung out. I know it's been a long, long meeting. We're not quite finished yet. We still have a little bit more work to do. Secondly, before I get going, I hear that this is really noisy and just cut on so we can turn it off. Let's turn it off. It is kind of noisy, so it's hard to hear. Great. Thanks. We'll just. We'll just keep the doors open. Thanks. So this item was crafted in the spirit of the former redevelopment agency. And I'm going to give us a little bit of background here on where this has come from. So in 45, the California legislature enacted the California Redevelopment Act to assist local governments in eliminating blight through development, reconstruction, rehabilitation and a number of other activities . This gave cities and counties the authority to establish redevelopment agencies. The Long Beach Redevelopment Agency carried out its mission of enhancing the quality of life by improving blighted and blighted areas of Long Beach, revitalizing neighborhoods, promoting economic development, creating jobs, so on and so forth. In order to meet that mission, project areas were established to capture tax increment from property taxes within those project areas, to be reinvested within those same neighborhoods and focusing on blight removal within those established boundaries. In 2011, the state of California eliminated all California redevelopment agencies, effectively eradicating a vital tool to revitalize communities. And in 2012, the Legislature passed AB 1484, I believe, which outlined a process for local communities to dispose of former RDA properties. The city of Long Beach currently has roughly 50 properties that will be sold spanning north Long Beach, central west in downtown Long Beach. The successor agency is currently awaiting approval of its long range property management plan, which outlines the disposal of these properties. If authorized, the City of Long Beach may have an opportunity to direct one time proceeds derived from the sale of these properties to be spent in alignment with the original mission of former Long Beach RDA. For example, blight removal, economic development programs and so on. So the purpose of this item is to, you know, I think there is a thought here that we've got one last opportunity here with this redevelopment. These redevelopment properties. They were purchased with tax increment generated in the project areas. When we sell the sell these properties, it won't be a lot of money here, but we should carry out the original spirit in which it was intended. Now I want to. My motion is going to give some flexibility to the city manager. City manager will be able to come back with a recommendation on how he would purchase those. But what's the crux of my motion is that they should generally be invested within the project areas. The general area is now. When redevelopment was established, the boundaries were not. Perfect. People complain that the Port of Long Beach was in the North Project area. People complain that certain areas might have been cut out that might not maybe shouldn't have been cut out. So so I want to give some flexibility to city manager, just to say the North Project area, the West, you know, Central, all the project areas and the the sort of community and communities of interest around that, those areas, we should be able to think big about how we really want to invest along the spirit. So it may not be whatever comes back doesn't necessarily have to be tied down to the specific rules of redevelopment because we're not bound by those anymore. But the general spirit within those communities of interest. Now, here's an example. Let's say that a project area ends on the West Side, and and but there's a specific interest on a corridor on the West Side. And the you know, there might be an interest of a facade program, a business loan program that might extend just down that corridor right outside the project area. I don't think that that should be. That should limit the city manager on what he comes up with on his program. I want to give the flexibility, give the city manager some flexibility to come back and let us have a have a discussion about tangible things. That's it. That is my motion. So I'll move the item. Okay. There's been a motion and a second to the item. Councilmember Austin, I'm going to have then I have Councilmember Price and then you're Ranga. Then I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for bringing this item forward. This is, as he mentioned earlier, this this item wasn't a brainchild of the city council. This is one that is borne of our community, our residents here, former North Pack members, Central West Pack members, project area committee folks who worked in the redevelopment process for many , many years to eliminate blight, to promote economic development, to to do some great work in North Long Beach and central area and including the West Side. This was something that they said we need to have happen. The city council is now listening. And I would encourage my my, my the rest of my colleagues to to hear those those cries as well. I like the fact that Councilmember Richardson is looking at communities of interest because our park areas are defined by specific redevelopment, areas were defined by specific boundaries. This extends that to to to to other areas that may not have been drawn in that park, but it gives the city manager the discretion to, for example, improve the Santa Fe corridor or to to add other areas of the West Side that may not have been cut into the park areas. And so with that consideration, I mean, this is an item that that really spans not only District eight and District nine and District seven, but the sixth District, the first District and the second district as well. And Fourth District. This is this is a this is an item that that can now benefit many communities throughout our city. And so I would ask for support. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you. Has there been a motion yet? Yes. Okay. I would like to make a substitute motion to adopt this recommendation, deleting the second paragraph of the recommendation that targets the proceeds to be directed to the project areas where former Long Beach Redevelopment Agency properties are located. Second. The reason there is someone has the floor. So continue. Councilwoman Price. Sure. The reason that I'm making this motion is that I believe that, first of all, I think while I appreciate the spirit of bringing it forward, I do believe it's it's slightly premature because we have not received approval yet in terms of where the money can be spent or if it's coming back. So I think it's a little bit premature. Having said that, I think that the money should be used to support our citywide economic development discussions and efforts. We have talked this council since we took office. We have talked about the need to increase our revenue and promote businesses within the city. And I believe that any money from redevelopment should be used to support the efforts of the city to promote economic development in all areas of the city and to incentivize businesses wanting to establish throughout the city wherever they may want to establish. That money could be utilized to help small businesses establish through perhaps loan programs as the item calls for or a waiver of license fees. As we've discussed, this is money that can allow us as a city to help all businesses establish in the city of Long Beach, regardless of where they want to establish. I note that in 2012. There were a. Project, there was a Pacific Electric Right of way project in District six that was developed with RDA funds that was $9.5 million. Right now in the third district, we have a long stretch of the Pacific Electric right of way that is in desperate need for funding and to be redeveloped and we don't have the funding for it . This is an example of a citywide project where these monies can be used and there are no other moneys available for. Improvements in the area other than our general fund, which we don't have. So having said that, I believe that we should take a city wide as opposed to a district specific approach to this particular item. If and when the successor agency reports back in a manner that's consistent with the reallocation of these funds. Thank you. I have next I have in order to have council members you Ranka than mongo than Austin. Thank you, Mayor. I too have issue with the second paragraph and how it reads, because the seventh district was basically a redevelopment a long time ago and was never really included. Council member Austin did mention the fact that we touch upon the seventh District is touched upon by the Central Park, the West Bank and the North Park . But very little redevelopment was present in the seventh District. Very small, very little. Those those agencies did not touch the seventh District at all. So that's before my time. I had no impact on it. But I think here's an opportunity for me to correct that. And so this is why I have two issues with both of these proposals. One was the the the thought about having a close proximity to communities of interest. Redevelopment. I have an issue with that because I'm not sure that that's going to work. On the other hand, having a citywide project, I have an issue with that as well because how do we work out the priorities? She has a right away that she wants fixed. I have a park that I need fixed. How are we going to prioritize that? So my and if I can, who is going to repeat who read back the the the the motion. The city clerk is not here but. Well, the what the what the two motions are. Now what what's what's what's the one motion that that's what we're at right now on the floor. The motion that's on the floor right now is a substitute motion by Councilwoman Pryce. That is essentially the recommendation is presented minus the second paragraph. So it's requesting the city manager to work with the director of economic development to create a policy that allocates the proceeds from the sale of city owned properties. No, I can't support that either. What I'm a friendly amendment or amendment is, is to take it back to the city manager, for them to come up and develop a plan that is much more inclusive of how and much more clear in terms of how these redevelopment funds will be used citywide, if that's if that's the plan . However, it has to be very clear that it's going to be inclusive, that the areas that are that are identified as being blight and now may be the areas that were there already. But there but there are there's there are areas in the seventh District that were not. Included. In those areas. And I want to I want to make sure that I have an opportunity to bid for or include a project in the seventh District that will that will be inclusive of all areas, not only in terms of of communities of interest. Communities of interest is a little vague for me at this point. So, I mean, that's my most. Point of order. So I. Hold on. Only one person has the floor right now. Let me. Councilmember, you're Ranga is wrapping up his motion. I want to get that clarification that I have a speaker's list. And I know that the authors of the motion are trying to make a clarification. So we'll get to everybody first. Councilmember Urunga, I believe you have made a substitute substitute motion or was it a friendly amendment? I'm asking Councilmember Frank. Nobody else, an amendment to take it back. Okay. So I'm asking customary ranking. You ask for friendly amendment. So you're asking for a friendly amendment. I'm I'm I'm I'm assuming of Councilwoman Price's motion or of the original motion. It would be to councilmember prices. The motion that's on the floor. So you're. Asking. Okay, in that case, I'm would substitute motion. Okay. So you're making a substitute substitute motion. And from what I understand, the substitute substitute motion is to ask the city manager to come back with options to the city council, for the council to look at as to how we could create some type of policy for how for the any sort of revenue or income we may get from the dissolution of properties. Is that right. And with with it with a plan of how those will be mitigated. So with with with plan and background as far as what those would look like. Yeah. Okay. So Mr. City Attorney. So just just to be clear, the substitute substitute is a motion to ask city manager to come back to council with a plan and or options as to how he would present the how would what his plan would be on the dissolution of the properties and the revenue created with some plans as to how that would work. That was about right. That's my understanding, because substitute substitute eliminates. Was there a second to that substitute substitute? Was there a second to that? There was not a second to that. Who stuck with the game to. Be vice mayor? Was that a second term? No, it's not. I have a clarifying. Okay. So I have a I have a couple of people with clarifying questions. So let me get to those. Let's go to speakers. Oh, that actually, I'm doing the clarifying questions first. Clarifying questions first was Councilmember Ashton. You had a clarifying question to clarify something, not something I because you're on the speakers another point. So I just wanted to clarify something because we we talked about communities of interest. And I think in the spirit of what Councilmember Richardson was, and I think he mentioned that in his remarks, in the spirit of what he was trying to achieve is is not excluding the west west side. And so would it be out of order for me to to to attempt to make a friendly amendment to Councilmember Richardson? Well, you're you're you know, you're you are coming up right after council after Councilman Mango. Why don't you make your friendly when you're up on the on the board? You can make the friendly really easy when you when you're up. Duly noted. Okay. So I have one more clarifying question and we're going to go back to the speaker's list. Vice Mayor Long thought that you have a clarifying comment. I did. In what I heard from what Councilmember Urunga had described, it actually sounds the same to me as the motion that Councilmember Mongeau and praised the motion the Councilmember Mongo made. Hi. Sorry, I'm looking at Councilmember Price, but I'm saying mongo. Yeah, it does sound the same to me. So if I could ask. Isn't that the same? No, no. How is it different? Because Councilmember Price asked for the item to be just the first part of the recommendation, which is asking the city manager to create a policy to out would you would the city manager not be coming back with this policy? He would be. And so the policy could be a set of options. I interpret that as actually the same. It's a nuance, but it's the same. And so instead of complicating it, I think we can take what Councilmember Yang is looking for, which inherently is in that motion, it's in that language. Well, if it if it's the same. Does anyone want a second? Roberto's substitute. Substitute? Only if we acknowledge that it's the same. Because I firmly believe it's the same. Listen, it. It sounds. It sounds the same to me, but I. But I want to make sure that contrary. So I think we can revert back to the original maker of that motion because the language is right here and I'm hearing would count. Well, my colleague, Councilmember Turanga, is asking for and I wanted to have the assurance that it's actually the same. And if I can hear from the city manager or the city attorney, what is your interpretation of the first part of that recommendation? Mr. City Attorney. The way I understood Mr. Councilmember during his motion, and he can certainly correct me if I was wrong, is that he wanted the city manager to come back with a policy for the allocation of the sale of the city, proceeds with no limitation on it as to the blight removal, economic development, etc., which was the motion by Councilmember Price. So that's the difference that I saw between the two motions. I'm not sure if Mr. Rangel agrees with the way I understood his. That that is not my understanding of the motion, that that was not my intent of my motion. The language that's in the first paragraph is good. I mean, I have no issues with that at all. In fact, that's what it should be. That that's what it is. The issue that I had is with that second paragraph, obviously, and I to strike that. And that was a motion that that Councilmember Price is making. The issue that I have with that is the nuances of striking that and still goes into a general fund, yet not being able to identify priorities in regards to what we define as either communities of interest or which are the ones that are, say, in a 1 to 10 scale of blight and what what conservation, what comes next, and those priorities. That's what I have an issue with. If I could. Yes. Mr. CITY. And then I think council member or Vice Mayor Lowenthal is is correct in that the motion is the motion by the councilmember from the third District, and that the city manager would be coming back with a policy for consideration by the entire council on those items. So his motion is essentially the same. Councilmember Arango So at least the city the city attorney is interpreting your motion to be the same as that as Councilman Price's motion. So I just want to make sure that with that, before we move forward, whether you agree with that assessment or not. So. Mr. City Attorney, because I know that he was having a side conversation real quick here, can you just real reiterate one more time your thought of both motions, and let's let Councilman Ringa clarify. Thank you. The motion by Councilmember Price, second by Councilmember Mongo deletes the second paragraph and leaves the first paragraph in its entirety. The way I understood your motion is that you would like to see options brought back by the city manager, and obviously this requires the manager to bring back a draft policy for your consideration. So there. So you're really not committing yourself this evening until you see the policy that would be created by the city manager. Right. Well. In essence, what I'm wanting to say, what I meant by my substitute motion is that I want to take this document that we have before us right here. And take and give it to the city manager to come up with a plan. Okay. Okay. So I think that I. Think that if. It's if it's if it means striking the paragraph two and that's it. That's what that's the interpretation. I mean, the way I read it in court from Richard Attorney, but that is essentially striking the second paragraph. So I think the first paragraph asked the city manager to come back with a plan for the council to review. It could include various options. Is that right? That that is my understanding, yes. So the substitute substitute comes from a hearing, according to the city attorney, in the way it's interpreted, your motion is identical to Councilman Price's motion. And it would be. It's on the floor. It's on the floor already. A point of order, Mr. Mayor. The motion died without a second. If we are reading this to death. Well, that's all we're clarifying. So. So that's the motion. Thank you. That's. We're clarifying. I want to make sure that everyone understands who we're talking about. So that was the motion that was made. There was no second correct account. Sum rearranges motion. Okay, now I have one. Mr. Mayor? Yes? If I might still have the floor. Absolutely. I did. Have. But she did have the thing. Miss Mungo, I had the plaque for clarifying it. Just to be abundantly clear, it's not beating a dead horse, because it's very important for me to make sure that one of my colleagues understands that what he wants to see for his communities, for his district, is actually very much it's right in the motion that was already made . And that's very important to me. And I wanted to understand that from Councilmember Urunga. And I'm thankful for the time that we spent, and I'm glad that we arrived at that. It's not a waste of time. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go back to the speaker's list. So I have Councilmember Mongo, then Austin and Richardson. Thank you. Thank you. I think that we are. Significantly. Ahead of the curve on where we have options. First and foremost, I want to thank the Economic Development Committee, specifically the staff members that brought forth a staff report that had this particular recommendation in it several weeks ago. And with the tweaks that have happened now, it kind of reverts back to Councilmember Price's motion. Really goes to the vision and mission of what Economic Development Oversight Committee is responsible for, which is helping set the policy for the city that has the greatest advantage for the whole city. The city that sometimes you could live on the border of a city and a job in the night or excuse me, at the border of a district and get a job out of the other side of the district. And so what I would like to say is thank you, Councilman Price, for caring through the vision that the three of us had at a previous council budget oversight I'm sorry, the budget oversight, Economic Development and Oversight Committee meeting, which is that we should be looking citywide to make the greatest impact for all residents when it comes to economic development, workforce, business growth, business support. So with that, I'm going to be supporting your motion. Okay. Next I have is Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And let me just say that my mom lives in Detroit and she's the only person that I will allow lecture me. I don't need to be lectured by anybody on this diet. I think everybody here is an adult. Secondly, I'd like to just speak to the the equity issues in terms of distribution of public funds. The RDA areas were set up for the RDA areas and to improve blight and economic development conditions in the RDA areas. Let's be very clear about that. North Long Beach. West Side. Central areas do not benefit from tidelands funds. You know. No, we don't. We don't. I'm just going to say we don't benefit from them. And so the RDA was set up specifically and in these areas we're set up specifically to address conditions in those areas. We've we've utilized the tools and resources I think extremely well to the credit of great city staff or city management. I see Amy Bodak, our Development Services Department and a lot of hard work and dedication from residents who have spent a lot, countless, countless amount of sweat equity and brainpower working on behalf of this community. So with that, I'd like to offer a substitute substitute motion to. Include the recommendations, as has as originally brought forth with the second sentence, and include including the communities of interest, the West Side and Seventh District. Was that a second? Thank you. There's there's been a substitute substitute, which is the motion on the floor. And I believe the second was from Councilwoman Gonzalez. Okay. Next, I have Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I wanted to just have maybe a reasonable discussion. I feel like, you know, the first concern here with the substitute motion was that it wasn't the appropriate time. So I want to ask city staff, have any cities that received approval of their long term property management plan yet? Mike Canwe. Mayor, members of the city council. There have been a number of cities that have received approval of their long range property management plan. So far, so good. Most of those cities, though, have had very small number of parcels. We have 259 were a bit overwhelming, I think, for the state. There hasn't been an approval of a plan of our size. So some cities have received approval. They haven't gotten to the size of cities our size, but it would be appropriate, more so prudent to prepare for it as we were anticipating it. Correct? Preparation is always good. Are you preparing yourself for the approval. From the council? Richardson We have been drafting RFP in anticipation of approval so that we could issue them as quickly and prudently as possible. We also have a slate of of real estate brokers to whom we would issue the for sale properties and have them listed as well as soon as we have approval. So we are indeed our city preparing for the approval of the long term property management plan. That's correct. Okay. Secondly, before we get into heated discussion about like where this money is, I would like for the public just to know exactly how much money we're talking about so that we can really have an understanding on what what this discussions about. So could you please shed some light on what is the anticipated value of the properties that are listed for future future sale? I am sorry I don't have that number at this time. I'll have to report back to you on that. Well, let me let me let me ask this. Where do we have a. List of those properties? Yes, indeed. I think they were distributed today. Hmm. So yesterday. Would you mind just stating for the public where those properties are? Well, there are they are in former redevelopment areas. Is that so? In this item, there is a breakdown. There are two categories. This is for the future development, correct? Correct. And this is for sale? That's correct. Okay. And Central there are 946 FS, so there are 15 parcels in central Long Beach for sale. In downtown, there are ten for future development and one for fuel for sales. So that's 11. In North, there are eight for future development and seven for sale. That's 15 in West. There are six for future development and one six for future development and one for sale. So it's 15, 11, 15 and seven in central, downtown, north and west. So my question is, how were those properties specifically acquired by our city? First, I think I'd like to clarify. I don't believe those were parcels. I think those were sites like. Site, an accumulation of parcels. Accumulation of. Persons, though, likely be sold by site. And so future development properties were traditionally assembled and acquired by the Redevelopment Agency for Future Development for uses consistent with the strategic guide in that redevelopment area. So they were acquired by the art redevelopment agencies within by the budget within the project area? That's correct. How were the budgets within the project areas? How were those funds derived? Where did they come from? I'm assuming they would come from tax increment from the increased property values since the time the redevelopment project area was established. So the property properties can. So the tax increment came from those local communities central, downtown, north and west. Correct. I believe that's correct. Okay. So based on that. The city. It is very comfortable administering funds through, you know, by boundary. We administer our Titans funds that way. We have CDBG funds that we craft and have to spend in certain ways. We've established that this is not a new process. We're already making preparations to do this. I think the public just needs to know this is the fact is this is talking about taking about 50 the proceeds from 50 properties specifically located in low income, downtrodden, blighted communities and investing those in programs that aren't specifically targeted those communities. And secondly, the funds generated are not it's not going to be a lot of money. Whatever comes back, whatever we derive is going to be over a period of time. And the state hasn't even determined whether we can only keep 21% of that the taxable what the taxable proceeds are for the city. So we might be talking about, you know, not that much money over a period of years, so to say purpose that city wide, you really diminish the impact that you can make. Whereas there are still sitting there existing programs today that if we would invest money in facade programs, revolving loan programs and really target those a certain areas, it becomes a rising tide, lifts all ships and it also helps us to raise our property values. So I just wanted to, you know, I mean, my my motion is that what we're going to be voting on? I just wanted to make sure we go through that process and have that discussion, because I believe the the residents deserve to hear those those responses. Thank you. Next, we have Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you. So I just want to reiterate as well, of course, this is not a new idea. We've been discussing this prior to many of us even being on the council. I've only been here for six years, but I know it's been an ongoing discussion and having these and retaining the redevelopment funds. And I believe firmly that this is a citywide policy. This is a citywide attribute that will benefit all of us. I'm going to give I'm going to run over a list of a few of the items that just have happened in my district alone to give the council an idea of how this really relates to citywide project . This isn't just us working in silos. We really have made great progress. Just in the First District alone. We've, I think, made progress of over 20, almost $25 million in seven years, just invested in the first District alone. So you can imagine with the other districts what that means. But we've done things like Armory Park, which will be taking care of the the most dangerous intersection in the whole city. We've done the courthouse. That's the city wide asset, I would believe. Pump Station on the west side, surveillance cameras. Harvey Milk Park, which is the first park named after an LGBTQ leader. Seaside Park, which is a park that is in one of the second highest in violent crime areas in my in my neighborhood. These are all collectively, I believe, citywide assets. And so we don't have access to other things like Tidelands. We don't. And we just approved a pool that was a city wide asset. I think that we need to make sure that this goes back to their original intent. And so, as I mentioned, we had about $25 million invested just in new parks, corridor improvement, small business improvements in some of the highest violent crime rates, some of the most impoverished neighborhoods and severely deficient buildings and blight issues in the whole city. So I would just ask for our support for your support of the council to make sure that we continue to move this forward. Okay. Thank you. Now I have Councilmember Durango. Okay. Since the my original motion. My motion, anyway, died of. Or, let's just say, was not approved. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think perhaps it was because I misunderstood. So I I'm going to make I'm going to probably ask a few questions for clarification from Councilmember Price in regards to her motion and what it means. Does that first paragraph still stand as is with with removing that second paragraph? Because if I heard you correctly, you're talking about the possibility of developing some areas that are not blighted and have no need for redevelopment or in those kinds of situations. When you're talking about that, that. Right away. I don't see any right away in the third district that really is blighted. I mean, it might be underdeveloped or not developed, but in regards to being blighted, I you know, I don't see that where there was blight in the sixth District when they corrected that, that right away, it was blighted. It was horrible. There were there were, you know, drug addicts there. Prostitution was taking place. All those types of things that that that we want to get rid of was I was corrected or addressed by redevelopment money. So that's where I guess I'm a little confused as to what your emotion is because when it comes right down to it, I don't see a whole lot of blighted areas in the third. In the fifth, there might be some in the fourth and there and there's a few in the second. But I don't you know, I don't see that type of blight in those areas that I see in my area in the seventh District. Then that's that's the clarification that I want to get. Councilman. Absolutely. The first paragraph should stand as is. It's supposed to address blighted areas as well as economic development. And I don't want to get into a subject subjective determination in terms of whose area is more blighted. I'd be more than happy to give you a tour of this particular right of way that I'm talking about, because I think you would agree very objectively it needs some help. But this isn't an issue of trying to grab what you can for your district. It's we as a council made a commitment to economic development. And economic development means increasing our sales tax revenue, among other things. And where in I would be more I love your suggestion that the city manager come back with ideas of how best we could use this money to support our collective mission of economic development. So it's not just about removing blight, it's about opportunities for businesses to bring in sales tax revenue for the entire city, whether that be in whatever district it may be. So that's you know, there are multiple things listed in paragraph one. I agree with every single one of them. And I do want to make well, it's probably not the appropriate time, but a couple of comments about the pool. I'm not sure how that relates to anything and Tidelands funding. I would love for staff to give counsel and education on how long the second and third districts and some of the will have received Tidelands in comparison to RDA funds and what the limitations of Thailand's are. So, you know, to have that discussion I think is unnecessarily divisive. The point of this was how can we allocate money so that it supports our collective economic development purpose? Okay. And that and that's part of the problem that I see there is that. And there's a mixing of words here that that are confusing me further. You know, I'm an old man, so, you know, sometimes I. I get lost in my own mind. Is that when you talk about the first paragraph in this in this motion here, and then you talk about the general issues of economic development, that's confusing to me, because when we're talking specifically about areas of blight and and the need for economic development, I think it's in those areas that are blighted, that need that economic development not as a whole lot in general. That that that's what I'm trying to address here. And that's why I'm concerned about just putting it back into a general plan for economic development. It doesn't ring with me because I still have issues in the seventh District that are specific to the seventh District, specific to the blight and and the and the economic development that I need in order to make my seventh District thrive. So that's that's where I'm coming from. Now, if I can ask now the attorney and the city clerk again, can I have a re affirmation of what the motion is that we're working on right now. Which is the substitute substitute. If you can read it back to me, you know, I may be a little selfish here, but let me get a reiteration of what it is. The substitute substitute motion is a motion by Councilmember Austin, second by Councilmember Gonzalez, to include the recommended staff action and the second paragraph, adding that it will also include communities of interest, the West Side and the seventh District. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify. Yes, I have. Have you next? Have you next? Let me let me real quick. So city attorney. So. Cosby Renko, you got that. Okay. I have Councilman Richardson for clarification and then went back to the speakers list. So since all of the motions have included the first part of the original motion, I thought I would just re highlight the fact that the original motion was for the city manager to come back with recommendations. The discussion here is only about how wide we go when we target these resources. Therefore, I'd like to just say that communities of interest is not buy by my motion or by Councilman Austin's motion does not necessarily limit to districts. If there is an adjacent community, leave it up. Leave some flexibility of the city manager to say, hey, this is, you know, a priority for Cambodia town. It may not entirely be in RDA, but this might be a recommendation. This might be a recommendation. There might be a project on Santa Fe or in the downtown that might not be included. So it leaves that flexibility. At no point that we say this is specifically what you need to do and said, come back with a recommendation on the policy. Thank you. I'm going to go back to a few people that want to speak. I want to just make a couple of comments. And actually, Councilman Richardson and I think had a pretty good conversation yesterday about kind of my point of view on the item. And I just want to I think it's it's somewhere close to what some of the folks are talking about. I don't know that anyone here up here disagrees that there are certainly areas of Long Beach, particularly those that were formerly had RDA, areas that have more blight than others. That's a fact. There are parts of the city that have more blight than others. I think what the where the discussion where I'd like the discussion to go is what I think management's initial intention was, was to bring back a plan to the city that one would address the areas that are most affected by blight and that need economic development, which are the areas that we've been discussing, the north north area, the west area, central Long Beach. And there's certainly other pockets throughout the city that is I think everyone agrees that that need to be addressed. I think what some of the other members are trying to get across, and I would agree is there what what I mentioned the customer Richardson is I think that the initial motion, I think limits a bit the ability for for management to bring back some city wide ideas that could be part of this that could lift all boats. And so I think that there is that we can still address. There is no question that if we're going to do blight removal and address that issue, that's going to be focus in certain areas of the city. And that's going to be a big chunk of what is what of where this money is going to go. But I also believe that there are citywide programs and there are other parts of the city that are not. And I think, Councilman, your income makes a great point. There are huge portions of the seventh District that were left out of the RDA process, not just in West Long Beach. That unfortunately would not be covered by the initial motion. And so I think that there has to be room to have some citywide opportunities. And so I say that because I think there's I think there's a happy medium there. I think that we should recognize the fact that it's likely that a majority of these funds should go to the blighted areas. But we should all we shouldn't close off having some citywide economic development initiatives for the whole city. And so that's my $0.02. That's where I think the motion should go. I think that you should allow staff to come back with options for the council, but we should be able to come back and say, here are the options we can do. We can focus on blight removal in these parts of town which need it the most, which is going to be north, central, west parts of downtown. And certainly and there are parts on the east side as well that have blight issues. And here are some citywide initiatives that will help the entire city, which is also inclusive of the Northwest, but everyone, including East Long Beach and other parts that also need economic development. I want to remind the council that this council, through the budget, approved a new department. The department also needs some type of funding support. This this money, by the way, is going to be housed in this new department in economic development, economic development and property management. And so I think it would be nice for this department to be able to think creatively about what we can do citywide to help everybody. So I hope that's where we go and that's not where we at right now. But that's my $0.02. Yes. So at no point I'm not sure that this motion or councilmember price motion or councilman or my original motion. I'm not sure that any of them really preclude like let's say that there was a tool that's managed by our new department. And it does you know, it does support economic development activities. How would you approach it if you said, hey, look, open, open encounter, for example? This is a program that the city's interested in working on. It's going to cover all project areas in addition citywide. Would that be something like an option under either of the iterations of the motion that you could bring back as a recommendation? It's a question. Mr. City Attorney. I mean, I can't if I'm wrong, but I think the original motion, though, precludes that. That's correct. The while it's not a defined term, communities of interest, the discussion has been it has to relate or be adjacent to the redevelopment areas to follow with the spirit and the intent of the redevelopment law. So by definition, you would probably be eliminating some areas of the city. So if there were a tool that could work in these areas, like if for some reason the original the original motion passed, would you just like craft that tool to only work in certain areas? Or would you be able to come back and say, look, here's where the motion might need to be tweaked. This is what this is what we came up with as a recommendation. What could be adopted? Like, are you limited right now? Like and how you what your approach your what your approach would be? Absolutely. We're being told to come we're being directed to come back with a policy with options. Options, excuse me on how this money could be spent in agency, geographic areas. And communities of interest. That certainly would. Preclude. Us from going. Too far away from what we would consider a. Community of interest. Community of interest is. Really definitely defined in. Redevelopment law. It certainly wasn't a. Health and safety code and I don't think a community of interest would be if you jump three or four miles away. So if. Councilman so where I want to get to is what would be something that like what what do you need to hear in order to focus your, your resources into a certain area but still have the availability of think about certain tools that do impact the whole city? Like where's the balance? If we're just given the opportunity to come back with options, that would look at the entire city, maybe focus on the agency areas, but not but also look at other areas of the city. We could certainly do that. But right now, the way it's crafted, we again, we would be doing this, but he'd be precluded from looking at areas that are. Not a community of interest adjacent to a geographic boundary of the agency area. Okay. I want to hear public comment and maybe revisit that. Okay. So I do have two other speakers I want to make sure I want to share. They don't want to speak now first or wait. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, did you want to make any additional comments? Okay. And Councilmember Mongo. Okay. We're going to go to public comment, so please go ahead and line up over here. Thank you all. Just over here on the on everyone's right. Please, and make sure that everyone can just introduce themselves for the record. And please begin. Thank you. Hi. My name is Sean Darren. I'm a system manager of the Uptown Business District working in ninth and eighth District. And I just wanted to lend support to Councilman Richardson's recommendation, speaking from someone who from the perspective of someone who works with businesses and property owners every day in the business district, this would directly impact the economic development within the business district. For instance, many businesses don't have enough money to improve their facades to get new signage. And so this some of these funds could be directly allocated towards the signage and improvement of the facade so that it attracts new businesses. So that attracts customers more importantly. And so and also it improves the look of the the area. Also, it would also help fund some startups. I get I get calls all the time from businesses who want to come into the district, but they don't have the funds to start up in there. They're always asking for city programs or any kind of funding that would be available to help them start their business. And also this would also help impact existing businesses who want to relocate to the area. And it will also impact things like security. We need to make the business district safe for residents to shop there and also for businesses to relocate there, which some of these funds could be allocated toward that as well. And and also things like security. We have a we implemented a private security firm which helps decrease some of the Long Beach Police Department calls that would redirect some of their resources. And also it would help fund some of the businesses to get security cameras and to have a more robust security system, which would also help impact businesses as well, and help customers come into the community and help it impact the safety of the community to have a safe business district for businesses to and customers to shop in. So I just wanted to lend my support in the business district, support for the initiative and to help some of these blighted properties, which there are plenty in the business district. There are vacancies which have, for what I understand, have been vacant for a very long time. And so we need to do something and we need to redirect some of these funds so that the original intent of the redevelopment agency to help some of these by two areas is is finally realized. Thanks. Hello. My name is Larry Cherish. I might ramble a little bit now because I'm tired and I think that's kind of thanks to you guys. I work for the city of Long Beach. For many, many years, I did. I worked in redevelopment. I did economic development. I was the senior economic development officer for quite a while. And then for a short while after Jerry Miller left redevelopment to go to the city manager's office. I was the acting bureau manager for economic development, and so I know a little bit about economic development. I created several of the loan programs I think that the city still has, and I think I was the one who did the first facade program studying down on Pacific Avenue in the seventh District, maybe six. At any rate, let me tell you this. The money that's coming out of North Miami Beach really ought to stay in North Long Beach to take money out of north Long Beach, which is really got terrible problems and spend them citywide and in districts that don't have terrible problems would really be wrong. You might be able to do it, but it would simply be immoral. It's like stealing. These are these are really low income neighborhoods to compare, say, A right away and the sixth district to A right away in a third district. You do like Roberta was saying, you just can't do that. The money has to stay where the money was generated. You're taking the money from the communities that absolutely need it the most. I'll tell you this. If you create if you take that money and you put it into a loan program, for example, you're going to get businesses lined up from shore, from the fifth District, lining up to get that loan money. And you're going to struggle to make those loans in North Line Beach because it's hard to make loans in North Line Beach. What you need to do with North Palm Beach money is spend money on businesses in North Long Beach and find a way to do it. You. You just can't be taking it away like that. I think it's just wrong. I came to this meeting to talk about the airport, but I just couldn't help myself when I heard all this. Why not? I worked there and put my heart and soul into economic development for such a long time. Thank you. Laurie Angel, Northland Beach's Project Area Committee Chair for North. And this is near and dear to my heart. I've worked on this for 15 years, and unless you've been here and you've worked on it, you really don't get how important it is. It isn't just a pot. It's not just found money. It's money with a purpose. It's it's money that was intended to fix problems. And if all things were equal in the city, I could say, sure. Just divide it up and give it to everybody. But they're not. We have a lot of catching up to do. And most of the serious problems occurred during the L.A. riots. And it has been a difficult struggle. We've lost all kinds of businesses. And I don't know if you have. Streets filled with empty, vacant buildings and lots. But I'm going to tell you, as Larry said, is that the folks that live in the wealthiest areas with the best businesses are going to be able to find money. People up here are not going to be able to find money to support their businesses. And I tell you, if you make this area productive, it will contribute ten fold to the city in terms of property taxes, sales taxes and business taxes. So to deny the ability to skid the grease, to give, you know, grease the skids in order to be able to help this area take off and contribute to the rest of the city, you are denying the city the additional revenue that you would have otherwise to help you in other areas. Thank you. You know, my name is Mike Maltz. I live in a nice district, but I'm a Long Beach boy. I've been here since the day I was born. My family's been here since 1918. I have most of my family buried in the Sunnyside Cemetery on Willow. I've been raised on the West Side. I spent 20 years in the seventh and eighth districts, and now I'm raising my grandchildren in the ninth District. I wake up every morning and I look at two vacant lots, one of which we're going to have taking care, of which is the library. The other. I look at the South and Atlantic corridor, which was going to be the village. Who knows what we're going to end up with now? We want to see the money kept where the money needs to go in the areas it was intended for. This is what everyone I have talked to in my area has said we need. I wouldn't start a business in this area. Because of the fact that the way it looks. You got to be able to do something to promote businesses in the area. And right now, I can't see it happening. We are getting some stuff done, Rex. Steven Neil Vallance worked on to get our streets looking better, to get the lighting up and the things that have accomplished on Long Beach and the Atlantic corridor. But the major issue I'm afraid of and what I saw back in the seventies was now you're talking about a civic center. And my biggest fear is the moneys we do get back from the sale of these properties will go back downtown and everything will go back to the way it was because we had to straighten this infrastructure out with redevelopment. That's my fear. I want to see. The money's come back up here so that my grandchildren and my great grandchildren can be happy to say they came from North Long Beach. Thank you. Well. My name is Annie Greenfeld. I am the current. President of LBC PAC, which, by the way, included the First District. The Fourth District. The Sixth District. The seventh District. Okay. We did have certain certain. Areas in the seventh. District. We now cover everything from Redondo to the L.A. River. Okay. Pass the L.A. River over to two where the west side is. From Ward, from ward low to Ocean Boulevard, we are now discussing changing our boundaries to come up north because North doesn't have a park where a501c3 nonprofit. And we welcome working with the Economic Development Task Force or whatever committee there is. Now, let me just. Point out a few things that Rex pointed out. The tax increment came from the. RDA project areas. LBC back in 2010 celebrated 20 years. Of volunteerism and working for free to help our communities. North PAC did the same thing. They were around much longer. We have always been an advocate for the West Side. We didn't need to do Westpac businesses because they just represented the businesses. We represented the communities, the residents. So as far as I'm concerned, I've got. Cpec has most of the blighted areas in this city. You go up and down Pacific Avenue right now. And you will see more vacant storefronts. I just can't even believe I'm up here. Saying this to everybody when most people should know how bad it is in the sixth, the seventh areas of the fourth, if not for C PAC or Isabel Park, wouldn't be what it is today . If not for North Pack. Admiral Kidd Park wouldn't be what it is today. So this money grab is just beyond me. I can't even understand. Why you would even consider it. So I just want to remind you that I am in total support of the last. Motion that. Was on the floor. Keep the money in the project areas, please. Even though redevelopment is not here. Okay, we are still here. Thank you. Good evening again. Recap Village eighth district. You know, I have to say, first of all, I believe that the duty of city government is to build public safety facilities. But the city of Long Beach didn't have the money to build those facilities. So redevelopment money jumped ahead. Instead of focusing on the projects that were developed over many, many years. And they built the West Side Police Department. They built the North Police Department. They built Station 12. They're building the North Library. So all of those moneys that were put to those projects could have could have brought our community so much further ahead. But it didn't because it stepped back for the better of the entire city. I have to say, Suzy, you said that we have a need to increase revenue. And Stacy, you said that that it should be about the greatest advantage for the whole city. Then I want you to consider something. If property tax revenue is the number one source to the general fund, which it is, then further development to improve these neglected areas. And they have been neglected for a long, long, long time. Then when you improve those neighborhoods, you're going to improve the property tax values, which is going to generate more money to the general fund so that it can so that it can be provided for everybody. But if you don't take the time and you don't look long term for visioning and planning about how you're going to bring these neighborhoods that have been allowed to go down the path that they're down with no source of money coming in. And by the way, I think you ought to also be talking about a new source of revenue, or, as you stated, we're going to be in trouble. We're going to be in big trouble. The Tidelands, I know you don't like to hear that, but one, two and three benefit greatly. And thank God we have that. Or we'd be in No. One, not one. Okay. I'll take that back. But we got the Naples canals, we've got the pool, we've got the aquarium, we've got the beach improvements. We look really good to people that come to visit us in the downtown area. I encourage you to do something that Bonnie Lowenthal did with me when I first came on the council. She said, Let's take a drive through each other's district. I want you to see what my challenges are, and I want to see what yours are. And I'm going to tell you that for a number of you, for two, four, three, four, five, you don't come close to what some of these other neighborhoods are looking at. So I ask you, please keep the tax increment money in the neighborhoods that it came from. And let's find another source of revenue for the general fund. Thank you. John Doe Lottery, eighth district. I think when you look at the spirit intent of the RDA, when it first came out, it was basically meeting, I think what Councilman Mango and Price, I think it is what you're saying, bringing up the collective of Long Beach. Right. Is basically let's make these blighted areas, places where businesses want to go. And we can then. Start collecting that tax revenue. By keeping those funds there, we can accomplish exactly what you want to see happen for the good of Long Beach. More money coming in. Spend that money where it needs to be, where it was originally, excuse me, designed to be in these blighted RDA development areas. Thank you. Hello. My name's Phil, so I'm here. I was part of North PAC. I was the chair of the Economic Development Subcommittee for that PAC. And. I think a lot of things that were said have been said that I was going to say. But I would want to say that we attempted in North Park to try and get develop the businesses in the area there. And we did go in to ask the economic development. Officer for the city to help us, which was we got very little help. So we had to we were having to do it on our own. So that's where we were using some money. The one thing I want to bring up is. Something that no one else has. I think you covered everything else. I was on the planning commission up until about a month ago. And we'd have issues come up on the Planning Commission for different projects, low income housing. And also we had the. As the fifth District would know, the area, the mental health facility. And a lot of those things come up and people, they raise those issues. And between that and homeless shelters, what ends up happening is those projects, after all these discussions from other areas, they get dumped into the west and north side of the city. It's taking all the things for the entire city. The city has obligations, arena requirements for housing. It's for the whole city. But where does it go? It goes on the west and the north side of the city. We're taking a lot of the. The brunt for the whole city. And I think we'll also get because we just went through the. Marijuana ordinance. And part of that is on that is going to have farm sites for if we're growing marijuana. And it appears I would probably that most of those sites are going to also be on the west and north side . So I think. This Council should have an obligation to realize what the burden that these in this area has taken and try and do. Give them the money. It's a blighted area and give them money to support some of these things because they're carrying the load for the rest of the city on a lot of these things . Thank you. Good evening, Council Mayor. Staff. My name is Dan Press Burg. I live in the ninth district and I reiterate all the things that have already been said, but there are some things that some people seem to have forgotten. The North Park started originally when we started forming just a team was in 1996. It went until 1998 when we had our first meeting and Laurie Angell was there. Although she was not a pack member as part of the pack, I served as secretary for about two and a half years. I was the vice chair for seven years, part time chair off and on till Martha took over. And then I was her vice chair for a couple more years. I was entirely involved. Some of the projects we did did not start in our areas. There was a there is a necessary brownfield removal in the third district that is now a nice set of condos. We've done wayfinding signs in the second next to the Queen Mary, although it was considered part of the North Park. For two and a half, three years. We paid the rent in exchange with the port. For the aquarium bonds. And we also managed to scrape together $14 million. For the Middle Harbor project, which we'll never see, as well as moneys for the police stations that will never get back. And I'm sure Council Member Ranga remembers what the Green Monster look like, what it was like when we had to pave the streets going into Cabrillo. Rio, what it was like when that park opened and how much fun it was and some of the other things that have led to what we look like throughout the whole city . The only thing I can say is, is the money needs to stay where it originated. It needs to stay here. We need to roll up our sleeves and start working with it. I've seen many of these counties that many of the council members over here, they come up here, they visit. They all say the same thing. Just do what's right. It's ethical and it's honest. Good evening, Mayor and city council people. My name is Darlene Broom. I live here in the ninth district and it's been a challenge to live here in north of Long Beach. I set. And I've heard all your. What would I put this way? I've heard you say everything that affects you. But what affects me? You. You're talking about it right away. You're talking about fixing parks. Well, what about a grocery store? We don't have a grocery store. What about a restaurant? Where's the cleaners? Why do we. As Ninth District? Residents have to give our tax dollars from our property to the entire city. It doesn't make any sense. It's a known fact. If you want a community to grow, its dollar needs to balance in its community at least ten times. I've been to all of the districts here that have those businesses. Your dollars are bouncing at least 15 to 20 times. It shows it. What do we not? Earn that with our dollars. Do we not get to keep our money and fix our neighborhoods so our children can go to the store and not to the liquor store ? I'm so happy that you all had to drive up here tonight. When you got here, it was light. You saw where we live. Why does your neighborhood look that way? He's getting better. Darlene's getting better. Good evening. Jeff Roe from Grant Neighborhood Association, one of 11 neighborhood associations in North Long Beach here. I can't say I followed all of the substitutions and the friendlies, but and some of my colleagues from other neighborhoods of flood, I think it became past their bedtime. But I am sure that I am speaking for them when I say that, when you're considering how you're going to spend this money. If you would keep in mind that the legacy of the blight in the redevelopment areas is here and it's with us and we have to deal with it. So thank you for considering that. Good evening again, Craig Cogen with the downtown Long Beach Associates. And I really appreciate the spirit of dialog and the conversation. I think we all lost when redevelopment was dissolved. I think we all agree to that. Now it's a matter of how we manage life without redevelopment, and we're trying to do that in our downtown as well as other business corridors. And I think everyone agrees to the fact that we need to put our energies together to be able to address those issues that we are now really navigating uncharted waters. And for those of you that feel as though that downtown has benefited, you're absolutely right from redevelopment and from the private investment that's been made in our downtown, it is and does still continue to serve as an economic engine for the entire city. But if you feel as though downtown is complete by any stretch of the imagination, I will invite you to join Councilmember Gonzales and Vice Mayor Lowenthal and I to take a tour of some of the neighborhoods in their downtown. And I assure you that it's not complete. So, yes, the Tidelands have helped the waterfront, the convention center, the pike. It's polished, it looks nice. But I will take you to neighborhoods that don't benefit from it. Seventh and Daisy, North Pine Ninth and Elm, seventh and Alameda, serving as gateways to our center city. Those areas need help too. So whatever you decide. That's fine. We're going to work with whatever the decisions are. But the work is not complete. And I think all of our business corridors and all of our neighborhoods feel the same way. Thanks. Good evening. I am Jack Smith. I live at 50 Alma Avenue in the second district. That's an East Village. There are lots of places in town that need help. But there are only a few places that generated. This redevelopment money that we hope is coming back to the city. I can't imagine there's any question at all. As to where that money should be spent. I live in a family of four boys. Or a Brit was raised and lived there anymore. When I worked hard selling my lemonade or my cotton candy or running my festivals. And earned by money. I spent my money. Occasionally. I helped my family with the rent. But it was my money. And I decided what was done with that money. And that's how the PACs worked. This money was generated and earned by these areas that were part of the redevelopment areas. We hope it's coming back. And it needs to come back to the areas where it was earned. Not spent. Other places just because there are other needs in the city. We agree with that. But it was earned in these areas. That's where it needs to be spent. Thanks. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you all for those for those comments. We're going to go ahead and go back. Let me just reiterate kind of where we're at right now. So we have three motions. We have a substitute. Substitute, which is the motion that's actually on the floor. I'm city attorney. The substitute substitute, I believe, was the motion by Councilmember Austin. Can you repeat the motion for the attorney? Yes. The substitute substantive motion by Councilman Ross and second by Councilmember Gonzalez to approve the recommended action, including the second paragraph and adding to the language of the second paragraph, so that it would also include communities of interest, the West Side and the entire seventh District. Okay. And all of these I know that we're short of councilmember, but all of these motions require five votes to pass. Is that correct? It's a simple majority. Support for this. Yes. So it. There. There are there are eight people here. So in case of a tie. Five votes or four for the motion would fail. That's what I'm saying. So you need five votes, correct? Okay. Same thing. So we have a motion. We have a substance. Substance on the floor. All those in favor of the substitute. Substitute. Please raise your hand. One, two, three, four. Motion fails. Okay. The next the next motion is a substitute motion by Councilwoman Susie Price, I believe it was, if. Can you repeat the motion? Yes. The second substantive motion was motion by price, second by Councilmember Mongo to accept the step, the recommendation with the deletion of the second paragraph. Okay. All those in favor of the substitute motion. And again, same rules applies. It's five votes. Please raise your hand. Okay. One, two, three, four. Motion fails. Now we have the original motion, which is a motion by Councilmember Richardson, which is essentially the the main motion that's been presented. What was whether you want to read that it. Was the main motion with an amendment to include communities of interest. Yes. I'd like to just point of order and I will now that is back in my wheelhouse. There was a lot of healthy discussion today. I think what I'd like to do so that all the failed motions don't fail. I'd like to throw some red meat out there and see if folks actually want to play ball. So the name of the game is City Manager is going to come back with some recommendations. I want to ensure that the main investments are made in these project areas along with the same spirit. Now, there were some legitimate concerns about that. I've heard about, you know, some of the lines being incomplete. So I'm okay, including some of the language that Councilman Austin said to change it as well as I've heard that there is an interest in the city manager said he is not limited. He is limited by my motion, the original language to invest in any city wide programs. So I would like to open up my motion a bit by saying 25% of resources can be invested on citywide programs in your whatever you come back with. But at least 75% of what happens needs to go back to the within the original spirit. Everybody's not going to be happy with this, but this is what policy and government is. So we did a little bit based on this discussion. That would be the change to my motion if the second year of my motion would accept it. Can I make one suggestion? And you may not like it, but I first of all, I want you to I mentioned I agree with the spirit of what you're trying to do. And I think that you're correct that if you think about where blight is, a vast majority of it are in the project areas. That is a fact. And so I think a majority of those resources should be addressing those areas. I wouldn't put a percentage on it. I don't know if you're open to the city manager just coming back with options. I think. I just think a percentage is very is. I think this is prescriptive. I don't think everybody's going to leave here feeling comfortable. But if everybody gets a little bit of what they're looking for and we're speaking to the general spirit, we've we've already established this is not too premature. This thing could happen tomorrow. It could happen next year. We've already established that there is some interest in speaking to citywide priorities, given that every single dollar of these every single dollar of this was generated from the TAC, from the tax increment in those areas, it's only right that a majority of those funds be reinvested in that spirit. But we are part of the whole city, and the whole city should benefit whether whether these dollars came from District five, District three, District 98. So I do want to put a threshold if folks would be amenable and I'm open to some discussion. So we didn't waste all our time here on three felt motion. So I want I want to hear from some of my colleagues. I'm back in control of the motion and I want to pass something tonight. And I would encourage us. I mean, if all this fails, we're going to be back at this again. So if there's questions or if we can noodle something out, I would recommend we do that. So are there any speakers that I have, Councilwoman Pryce. I want to support Councilman Richardson on this. I think the spirit of it is to give our city manager some options. Obviously, the most blighted areas are the impacted areas. That's obvious. But as a city, you know, we don't keep our sale, our property tax revenues in the districts they come from. We share them throughout the city. And we look at city wide alternatives for four things. So there may be opportunities that they identify, whether it's to address blight or an economic development opportunity that's really good for all of us that would bring in a major company or allow us to have headquarters here for something that may fall outside of the specific boundaries of this area. So I think that I appreciate Councilwoman Richardson, you know, kind of moving a little bit on his item, because I think that's not just being collegial, but it's taking everybody's interests in mind so that we all feel like the spirit of your motion is honored, but that we also have that the city manager has some options and that might come. We have some options in terms of recommendations that they might make to us. So I support. It. Thank you. Councilmember Mongo. I would also like to lean in the direction of support. I think that because of Brown Act requirements have been not able to talk to Councilmember Richardson about these issues since he brought forth an item that we had previously discussed in a different form. And one of the things that I thought was really important. Let me say my parents lived in the eighth. I lived in the seventh, my grandparents lived in the seventh. I worked in the ninth. There was a shooting across the street from my office when I worked. In the ninth. And so I've been all over this city. My grandparents lived here, my great grandparents. It's. There are all sorts of areas and our economic development and oversight, economic development Finance Committee has been talking specifically about incentives that I think would be most helpful to areas in the project areas. However, in in the idea of simplicity and helping small businesses, we've talked about things like waiving business license fees or reducing the cost of coops or whatever they are, and specifically in areas that have been vacant for 18 months or more, in areas that have been vacant for two years or more. And so what we want to be careful about is that percentage, because in all of those vacancies that have been vacant for over 24 months, etc., those areas need help. And the market has told us that they need help because no one will lease them for the prices that they're being set up. And so with that, I'd like the the city manager to come back with flexibility, especially in those areas of citywide programs that help specifically on rentable areas. And I think our original discussion, which I think was. Ms. understood in a future dialog was when I own a property and I want to sell it, what do I do ? I fix it up. And so I was hoping that we would invest in a cascading program where we would be fixing the blight around a property before we sell it. So if we have $1,000,000, let's invest that million dollars adjacent to the property we're about to sell so that it will sell for more. So we will have more money to invest in the next property in the RDA area, which would keep it in those areas. But I hope that the city manager and the Economic Development Chair will take that into consideration because my biggest concern is getting the highest dollar for the properties we sell. Both for property tax reasons, but also for direct revenues of the 21% we may or may not get from the state. Thank you. Council member Austin. So can I have the motion repeated to me? On the floor. Mr. City. Attorney, there's only one motion on the floor. Can you repeat the motion for concern, Brosnan? Yes. The second was by Councilmember Austin of Councilmember Richardson's original motion, with the amendment that the city manager can come back with options, including up to 25% of the proceeds to be used citywide. I call for the question. Of questions being called because any other speakers, I think we can go to the vote. Is there one more? So do you have an objection if Councilwoman Gonzales makes final comments? I just say I don't think I could support this just because I feel like we have compromised so very much in our respective districts. And I think it's, you know, something that we're talking a minimal amount of money anyway, you know, and for us to divide that in a percentage into percentages, I don't believe would would do us any any good. But I'd like to see some dialog. What do you think would be more fair? Councilmember Well. Well, well. Before we, before we go there, the questions being called. So, Councilmember Austin, are you willing. Are you calling the question, are you willing to continue the dialog. You know, in the spirit of collegiality, let's continue to talk. Okay. Okay. Councilman, Councilmember Richardson. So just because I want to be in a place where we can we can make a decision on this tonight, I want to be considerate of some of the interests. They are good ideas, city wide, the majority of these dollars. And my hope was that in my original motion was that a recommendation might come out that could help some citywide efforts. But this is focused on our area. Right. So if there was a platform or some initiative that does help and benefit the whole city, that these dollars could be used to support that as well. But City Manager highlighted to me that he was limited by my motion. So the reason I said I wanted to make sure that the bulk are it goes to what the original spirit is. That's why I thought that we can, you know, say a bulk is 75%. Now, if you think that they we should adjust that number, I think we should just be realistic tonight about what we can politically pass. But at the same time, I'm open to having that discussion. I just think that we have you know, there's capital improvement projects that we've had, you know, that have been citywide that we can look at. I believe that that we can find funding for if there is something that is of priority to the other districts. I think we need to look at it that way and find additional revenue for that and work on it that way. I don't see using this fund the you know, this these outdated funds for well, citywide. The citywide stuff wouldn't necessarily be investments, as I understand. It wouldn't be like investments in a project, so to speak. The 25% has to touch every part of the city. It has to be truly citywide, not district specific. So we need to be a citywide economic development investment. Then an example could be and maybe maybe the city manager could chime in on what he might. I mean, he's spoke the least in this whole line. And what I'm thinking is, like they've talked about like open counter is something all the districts can use that's not resourced . We've got a economic development department right now that will do work citywide and they're not resourced. There's a an economic development commission online is not coming online. It's not resourced. So the all of these things would indeed benefit every specific district, every city. So it's not that we're investing specifically our dollars into a specific project limited to one area. I think that's just the nuance. I want to say that we're not we're not going to get it's not that we're not going to get to benefit from those dollars. It's just everyone will be able to benefit from those dollars. Well, I can see more of that side of thinking, more of the the city infrastructure. I can support that. But I just don't want us to get into something that I. Get it free for all for everybody. I get it. Well, thank thank you. And just for clarity. I think so. Councilman Richardson, your motion then limits. So unless the project is completely citywide, your motion would then limit any projects to be funded that could be outside the areas it has to be citywide. 75% is targeted to the project. The geographic basis of the we said 25% is citywide. So citywide investments. All right. If I can ask Mr. West, so you have that. That's the motion on the floor. It's my understanding that you guys were working on bringing something back. Some proposals are some options to the council. So is there anything else you want to add to this discussion at this point? I mean, are you hearing that what you're hearing were the motions at. I think we're hearing enough direction right now to come back with enough options for the city council to look at what we can present as options and take further direction. And any anybody I have council Marie Rangel. Okay. I think we watched this tonight, but I think there's a lot more scrubbing we need to do. I, I recommend that we table this item for the next meeting only because I mean, there's no clarity here. There is nothing that we are going to agree on here apparently tonight. We need to we need to move on. And I and there's a council member here who is affected by that, who's not here and hasn't had a he said on this on this issue. So I recommend that we table this issue to the next meeting. Okay. So you still have a motion on the floor. So we we have the main motion still we have to vote on. It is. I. Don't know, unless I substitute. Unless there's a second to. The substance. So the substitute motion is to table this to a an upcoming council meeting. That's the subsidy motion, correct? Okay. Is there a second to that? There's a second by Councilmember Austin. That is a motion on the floor. It's a main motion. If there if there are no by summary law. So that you have a comment. I did. So was that allowed because the last one failed in terms of procedurally the substitute. Substitute? Yes. There's there's now room for the substitute motion. Okay, Councilman. I didn't know that. Actually, Vice Mayor makes a good point. I thought that we could make an additional substitute today. No, that that. That is correct. That is, once the substitute substitutes, you can you can continue until there's a call for the question. And then you have a vote on a call for the question to cut off debate. So you can continue offering to do motions until there's a call for the question. That's not accurate. Okay. Okay. Well, that's the ruling. So I thought it was different, but I think I must've mistaken your creativity. Okay, so we have a we, according to the city attorney, Mr. Reynolds, able to make the motion. I understood Robert's rules to be a little different, but there's a motion, the motion on the floor, which is just to table the meeting the second. And you also want to comment for that before the vote is take a vote. Vice Mayor. So I, I can appreciate the desire to put this item over and probably come back to it when we're all a little bit more alert and fresh. But I do think we've had a really good discussion on it. Our disagreements don't suggest that we're necessarily exhausted by the item. I, i, i feel that our disagreements are very healthy and I truly appreciate where Council Member Richardson has arrived with his motion. It is a reasonable compromise. While I might not have preferred the percentage I can for the good of the order, support that and bringing this back another day. I don't believe we get to a better place. I personally, I know we're all exhausted, but I don't think we're exhausted for the conversation and the disagreements don't lend to that. And so I would respectfully request that our colleagues consider supporting Councilmember Richardson's item. We do have we do have a motion on the floor, which is the table. Any other comments before we move forward and vote on the tabling item? And then if not, we're going to go back to the main motion, which is Councilmember Richardson, the motion as amended. Okay. Okay. It's been withdrawn. Excellent. So now we're back to the main motion. Here we go. The call for the question. Right now, we're we're voting. The main motion is Councilmember Richardson's motion, which is includes a 25% citywide. Okay. That is the that's the motion on the floor. We finish from a comment. If you if you're in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Okay. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Excellent. Is that democracy in action? All right. And negotiation? Yes. Okay. I'm glad we resolved that tonight, Mr. City. We're now going to see that there was a request to do the school district Lombard Unified item, which I believe you had mentioned, was. Something. Was it with a 22? Let me have a kick out of this. Sweeter than that. Oh. Is that item 22? I think it was 22, 24, 24. Okay. Mr. Clerk, item 24. Item 24. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine Recommendation to Authorize City Manager to.